Research has long considered the role interpersonal persuasion plays in shaping how citizens form their political opinions and cast their votes. Yet few studies have examined how experiences with online persuasion might influence broader deliberative orientations. We propose the “Persuasion-Openness” model, in which both attempting and being the target of online political persuasion encourage individuals to engage in online cross-cutting discussion with those who hold differing political views. These more deliberative exchanges are in turn associated with increased “dialogic openness”—a broader orientation toward political dialog. We test this model using original panel survey data collected during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Findings show that both types of persuasion experiences can indirectly lead to dialogic openness, by stimulating online cross-cutting discussion. However, the mediated pathway for those targeted for online persuasion is only significant in online environments with low levels of attitude-challenging information.
AraujoT.WonnebergerA.NeijensP.de VreeseC. (2017). How much time do you spend online? Understanding and improving the accuracy of self-reported measures of Internet use. Communication Methods and Measures, 11, 173-190. doi:10.1080/19312458.2017.1317337
2.
BakshyE.MessingS.AdamicL. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348, 1130-1132. doi:10.1126/science.aaa1160
3.
BarberáP.JostJ. T.NaglerJ.TuckerJ. A.BonneauR. (2015). Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber?Psychological Science, 26, 1531-1542. doi:10.1177/0956797615594620
4.
BenhabibS. (1996). Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy. In BenhabibS. (Ed.), Democracy and difference (pp. 67-94). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5.
BerelsonB. R.LazarsfeldP. F.McPheeW. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
6.
BodeL. (2016). Political news in the news feed: Learning politics from social media. Mass Communication and Society, 19, 24-48. doi:10.1080/15205436.2015.1045149
7.
BondR. M.FarissC. J.JonesJ. J.KramerA. D. I.MarlowC.SettleJ. E.FowlerJ. H. (2012). A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature, 489, 295-298. doi:10.1038/nature11421
8.
BrehmS. S.BrehmJ. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York, NY: Academic Press.
CalhounC. (Ed.). (1993). Habermas and the public sphere. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
11.
CampbellS. W.KwakN. (2012). Mobile communication and strong network ties: Shrinking or expanding spheres of public discourse?New Media & Society, 14, 262-280. doi: 10.1177/1461444811411676
Delli CarpiniM. X.JacobsL. R.CookF. (2009). Talking together: Public deliberation and political participation in America. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
14.
DiehlT.WeeksB. E.Gil de ZúñigaH. (2016). Political persuasion on social media: Tracing direct and indirect effects of news use and social interaction. New Media & Society, 18, 1875-1895. doi: 10.1177/1461444815616224
ElliotA. J.DevineP. G. (1994). On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 382-394.
17.
EvelandW. P. (2004). The effect of political discussion in producing informed citizens: The roles of information, motivation, and elaboration. Political Communication, 21, 177-193. doi:10.1080/10584600490443877
18.
EvelandW. P.ThomsonT. (2006). Is it talking, thinking, or both? A lagged dependent variable model of discussion effects on political knowledge. Journal of Communication, 56, 523-542. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00299.x
19.
FestingerL. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
20.
FreedmanJ. L. (1965). Long-term behavioral effects of cognitive dissonance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 145-155. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(65)90042-9
21.
GroshekJ.Koc-MichalskaK. (2017). Helping populism win? Social media use, filter bubbles, and support for populist presidential candidates in the 2016 US election campaign. Information, Communication & Society, 20, 1389-1407. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2017.1329334
22.
HabermasJ. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society (Vol. 1; McCarthyT. Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
23.
HansonR. L. (1993). Deliberation, tolerance and democracy. In MarcusG. E.HansonR. L. (Eds.), Reconsidering the democratic public. University Park: Penn State University Press.
24.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
25.
HimelboimI.McCreeryS.SmithM. (2013). Birds of a feather tweet together: Integrating network and content analyses to examine cross-ideology exposure on Twitter. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 18, 154-174. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12001
26.
IyengarS.KonitzerT.TedinK. (2018). The home as a political fortress; Family agreement in an era of polarization. Journal of Politics, 80, 1326-1338.
27.
KatzE.LazarsfeldP. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
28.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.MengJ. (2009). Looking the other way: Selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counterattitudinal political information. Communication Research, 36, 426-448. doi:10.1177/0093650209333030
29.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.MengJ. (2011). Reinforcement of the political self through selective exposure to political messages. Journal of Communication, 61, 349-368. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01543.x
30.
LazarsfeldP. F.BerelsonB.GaudetH. (1948). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
31.
LeeH.KwakN.CampbellS. W. (2015). Hearing the Other Side Revisited: The Joint Workings of Cross-Cutting Discussion and Strong Tie Homogeneity in Facilitating Deliberative and Participatory Democracy. Communication Research, 42, 569-596. doi: 10.1177/0093650213483824
32.
LyonsJ.SokheyA. (2014). Emotion, motivation, and social information seeking about politics. Political Communication, 31, 237-258. doi:10.1080/10584609.2013.828138
33.
MansbridgeJ.MorrisA. (2001). Oppositional consciousness: The subjective roots of social protest. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
34.
MatlandR. E.MurrayG. R. (2013). An experimental test for “backlash” against social pressure techniques used to mobilize voters. American Politics Research, 41, 359-386. doi:10.1177/1532673X12463423
35.
MatthesJ.Rios MorrisonK.SchemerC. (2010). A spiral of silence for some: Attitude certainty and the expression of political minority opinions. Communication Research, 37, 774-800. doi:10.1177/0093650210362685
36.
McLeodJ. M.ScheufeleD. A.MoyP.HorowitzE. D.HolbertR. L.ZhangW.ZubricJ. (1999). Understanding deliberation: The effects of discussion networks on participation in a public forum. Communication Research, 26, 743-774. doi:10.1177/009365099026006005
37.
McPheeW.SmithR.FergusonJ. (1963). A theory of informal social influence. In McPheeW. (Ed.), Formal theories of mass behavior (pp. 74-203). London, England: Collier-Macmillan.
38.
MeirickP. C.NisbettG. S. (2011). I approve this message: Effects of sponsorship, ad tone, and reactance in 2008 presidential advertising. Mass Communication and Society, 14, 666-689. doi:10.1080/15205436.2010.530381
39.
MessingS.WestwoodS. J. (2014). Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research, 41, 1042-1063. doi:10.1177/0093650212466406
40.
MutzD. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
41.
MutzD. C.MondakJ. J. (2006). The workplace as a context for cross-cutting political discourse. Journal of Politics, 68, 140-155. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00376.x
42.
MutzD. C.SnidermanP.BrodyR. (Eds.). (1996). Political persuasion and attitude change. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
43.
NirL. (2005). Ambivalent social networks and their consequences for participation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 422-442. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh069
44.
Noelle-NeumannE. (1991). The theory of public opinion: The concept of the spiral of silence. Annals of the International Communication Association, 14, 256-287. doi:10.1080/23808985.1991.11678790
45.
PattieC. J.JohnstonR. J. (2008). It’s good to talk: Talk, disagreement and tolerance. British Journal of Political Science, 38, 677-698. doi:10.1017/S0007123408000331
PingreeR. J. (2007). How messages affect their senders: A more general model of message effects and implications for deliberation. Communication Theory, 17, 439-461. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00306.x
48.
PratkanisA. R.AronsonE. (2001). Age of propaganda: The everyday use and abuse of persuasion. New York, NY: Macmillan.
49.
PriceV.CappellaJ. N.NirL. (2002). Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion?Political Communication, 19, 95-112. doi:10.1080/105846002317246506
50.
ScheufeleD. A.HardyB. W.BrossardD.Waismel-ManorI. S.NisbetE. C. (2006). Democracy based on difference: Examining the links between structural heterogeneity, heterogeneity of discussion networks, and democratic citizenship. Journal of Communication, 56, 728-753. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00317.x
51.
SlaterM. D. (2007). Reinforcing spirals: The mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. Communication Theory, 17, 281-303. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00296.x
52.
SpragueJ. (1982). Is there a micro-theory consistent with contextual analysis? In OstromE. (Ed.), Strategies of political inquiry (pp. 99-121). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
53.
TaberC. S.LodgeM. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755-769. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x
54.
ThompsonD. F. (2008). Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 497-520. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.081306.070555
55.
ThorsonE. (2014). Beyond opinion leaders: How attempts to persuade foster political awareness and campaign learning. Communication Research, 41, 353-374. doi:10.1177/0093650212443824
56.
TingleyD.YamamotoT.HiroseK.KeeleL.ImaiK. (2014). Mediation: R package for causal mediation analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 59, 1-38.
57.
ValkenburgP. M. (2017). Understanding self-effects in social media. Human Communication Research, 43, 477-490. doi:10.1111/hcre.12113
58.
WeeksB. E.Ardèvol-AbreuA.Gil de ZúñigaH. (2017). Online Influence? Social Media Use, Opinion Leadership, and Political Persuasion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 29, 214-239. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edv050
59.
WeeksB. E.LaneD. S.KimD. H.LeeS. S.KwakN. (2017). Incidental exposure, selective exposure, and political information sharing: Integrating online exposure patterns and expression on social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22, 363-379.
60.
WheelerS. C.BriñolP.HermannA. D. (2007). Resistance to persuasion as self-regulation: Ego-depletion and its effects on attitude change processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 150-156. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.01.001
61.
WicklundR. A. (1974). Freedom and reactance. Potomac, MD: Lawrence Erlbaum.
62.
WojcieszakM. (2011). When deliberation divides: Processes underlying mobilization to collective action. Communication Monographs, 78, 324-346. doi:10.1080/03637751.2011.589459
63.
WojcieszakM.MutzD. C. (2009). Online groups and political discourse: Do online discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement?Journal of Communication, 59, 40-56. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01403.x
64.
WojcieszakM.PriceV. (2012). Perceived versus actual disagreement: Which influences deliberative experiences?Journal of Communication, 62, 418-436. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01645.x
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
