In an era of declining American media trust, it is crucial to examine methods for increasing trust and encouraging holistic information seeking. Accordingly, we extend scholarship assessing outcomes of journalistic transparency by examining the effects of providing consumers with a breakdown of the political diversity of journalists working for a news outlet. We conducted three experiments varying the ideological (Study 1) and partisan (Studies 2 and 3) identification of journalists working for an outlet, assessing impacts on outlet trust, use, and avoidance intentions, and whether trust mediated relationships for the latter two outcomes. Participants reported higher trust, greater use, and lower avoidance intentions for balanced (i.e., equally represented political viewpoints) and unaffiliated (i.e., no political information) outlets compared to two partisan majority outlets. Results showed no differences in trust or use/avoidance intentions between the unaffiliated and balanced outlets. Additionally, an out-group bias was prevalent for partisans across all three experiments.
AronowP. M.BaronJ.PinsonL. (2019). A note on dropping experimental subjects who fail a manipulation check. Political Analysis, 27(4), 572–589. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2019.5
2.
BankertA. (2024). When politics become personal: The effect of partisan identity on anti-democratic behavior. Cambridge University Press.
3.
BenklerY.FarrisR.RobertsH. (2018). Network propaganda: Manipulation, disinformation, and radicalizaton in American politics (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190923624.001.0001
4.
BarnoyA.ReichZ. (2022). Trusting others: A pareto distribution of source and message credibility among news reporters. Communication Research, 49(2), 196–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650220911814
ChaikenS. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752–766. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.29.5.752
8.
ChaikenS. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In ZannaM.P.OlsonJ.M.HermanC.P. (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium, 5 (pp. 3–39). Erlbaum.
9.
ChaikenS.Giner-SorollaR.ChenS. (1996). Beyond accuracy: Defense and impression motives in heuristic and systematic information processing. In GollwitzerP.M.BarghJ.A. (Eds.), The psychology of action: Lnking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 553-578). Guilford Press.
CoeK.TewksburyD.BondB. J.DrogosK. L.PorterR. W.YahnA.ZhangY. (2008). Hostile news: Partisan use and perceptions of cable news programming. Journal of Communication, 58(2), 201–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00381.x
12.
CollierJ. R.MasulloG. M.DuchovnayM. (2022). Conservative news audiences: A lack of media trust and how they think journalism can improve. In The Future of the Presidency, Journalism, and Democracy (pp. 50–66). Routledge.
13.
CurryA. L.StroudN. J. (2021). The effects of journalistic transparency on credibility assessments and engagement intentions. Journalism, 22(4), 901–918. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648891985037
14.
FawziN.SteindlN.ObermaierM.ProchazkaF.ArltD.BlobaumB.DohleM.EngelkeK. M.HanitzschT.JackobN.JackobsI.KlawierT.PostS.ReinemannC.SchweigerW.ZiegeleM. (2021). Concepts, causes and consequences of trust in news media–a literature review and framework. Annals of the International Communication Association, 45(2), 154–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2021.1960181
15.
FeldmanL.WojcieszakM.StroudN. J.BimberB. (2018). Explaining media choice: The role of issue-specific engagement in predicting internet-based and partisan selectivity. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 62(1), 109–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2017.1375502
FlanaginA. J.WinterS.MetzgerM. J. (2020). Making sense of credibility in complex information environments: The role of message sidedness, information source, and thinking styles in credibility evaluation online. Information, Communication & Society, 23(7), 1038–1056. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1547411
18.
GoyanesM.Ardèvol-AbreuA.Gil de ZúñigaH. (2023). Antecedents of news avoidance: Competing effects of political interest, news overload, trust in news media, and “news finds me” Perception. Digital Journalism, 11(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.1990097
GuntherA. C.McLaughlinB.GotliebM. R.WiseD. (2017). Who says what to whom: Content versus source in the hostile media effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 29(3), 363–383. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edw009
21.
HanitzschT.Van DalenA.SteindlN. (2018). Caught in the nexus: A comparative and longitudinal analysis of public trust in the press. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 23(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161217740695
22.
HartmanR.MossA. J.JaffeS. N.RosenzweigC.LitmanL.RobinsonJ. (2023). Introducing Cconnect by CloudResearch: Advancing online participant recruitment in the digital age. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ksgyr
23.
HassellH. J. G.HolbeinJ. B.MilesM. R. (2020). There is no liberal media bias in which news stories political journalists choose to cover. Science Advances, 6(14), 9344. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay9344
24.
HayesA. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.
25.
HendriksF.JanssenI.JucksR. (2023). Balance as credibility? How presenting one- vs. two-sided messages affects ratings of scientists’ and politicians’ trustworthiness. Health Communication, 38(12), 2757–2764. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2022.2111638
26.
HoggM. A.AbramsD.BrewerM. B. (2017). Social identity: The role of self in group processes and intergroup relations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(5), 570–581. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217690909
27.
JakobssonP.StiernstedtF. (2023). Trust and the media: Arguments for the (irr)elevance of a concept. Journalism Studies, 24(4), 479–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2023.2169191
28.
JohnsonK. A.St. JohnBIII. (2021). Transparency in the news: The impact of self-disclosure and process disclosure on the perceived credibility of the journalist, the story, and the organization. Journalism Studies, 22(7), 953–970. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2021.1910542
KalogeropoulosA.SuiterJ.UdrisL.EiseneggerM. (2019). News media trust and news consumption: Factors related to trust in news in 35 countries. International Journal of Communication, 13, 3672–3693.
31.
KarlssonM. (2011). The immediacy of online news, the visibility of journalistic processes and a restructuring of journalistic authority. Journalism, 12(3), 279–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884910388223
32.
KarlssonM.ClerwallC. (2018). Transparency to the rescue? Evaluating citizens’ views on transparency tools in journalism. Journalism Studies, 19(13), 1923–1933. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2018.1492882
33.
KarlssonM.ClerwallC.NordL. (2014). You ain’t seen nothing yet: Transparency’s (lack of) effect on source and message credibility. Journalism Studies, 15(5), 668–678. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2014.886837
KlarS.KrupnikovY. (2016). Independent politics. Cambridge University Press.
36.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.JohnsonB. K.WesterwickA. (2015). Confirmation bias in online searches: Impacts of selective exposure before an election on political attitude strength and shifts. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(2), 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12105
37.
KnudsenE.DahlbergS.IversenM. H.JohannessonM. P.NygaardS. (2022). How the public understands news media trust: An open-ended approach. Journalism, 23(11), 2347–2363. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849211005892
38.
KohringM.MatthesJ. (2007). Trust in news media: Development and validation of a multidimensional scale. Communication Research, 34(2), 231–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650206298071
39.
LeeT.-T. (2005). The liberal media myth revisited: An examination of factors influencing perceptions of media bias. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49(1), 43–64. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4901_4
40.
LeeS.ChoJ. (2022). When CNN praises Trump: Effects of content and source on hostile media perception. Sage Open, 12(1), 9890. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221079890
41.
LuhmannN. (2018). Trust and power. Polity Press.
42.
MasulloG. M.CurryA. L.WhippleK. N.MurrayC. (2022). The story behind the story: Examining transparency about the journalistic process and news outlet credibility. Journalism Practice, 16(7), 1287–1305. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2020.1870529
43.
MasulloG. M.WilhelmC.LeeT.GonçalvesJ.RiedlM. J.StroudN. J. (2024). Signaling news outlet trust in a Google Knowledge Panel: A conjoint experiment in Brazil, Germany, and the United States. New Media & Society, 26(9), 5379–5402. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221135860
44.
MayerR. C.DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 355. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335
45.
Mayweg-PausE.JucksR. (2018). Conflicting evidence or conflicting opinions? Two-sided expert discussions contribute to experts’ trustworthiness. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 37(2), 203–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X17716102
46.
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J. (2013). Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 59(B), 210–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.012
47.
MetzgerM.J.HartsellE. H.MeddersR. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 413–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x
48.
MetzgerM. J.HartsellE. H.FlanaginA. J. (2020). Cognitive dissonance or credibility? A comparison of two theoretical explanations for selective exposure to partisan news. Communication Research, 47(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215613136
49.
MummoloJ. (2016). News from the other side: How topic relevance limits the prevalence of partisan selective exposure. The Journal of Politics, 78(3), 763–773. https://doi.org/10.1086/685584
50.
NelsonJ. L.WebsterJ. G. (2017). The myth of partisan selective exposure: A portrait of the online political news audience. Social Media + Society, 3(3), 205630511772931. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117729314
51.
NewmanN.FletcherR. (2017). Bias, bullshit and lies: Audience perspectives on low trust in the media. SSRN. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3173579
PeacockC.MasulloG. M.StroudN. J. (2022). The effect of news labels on perceived credibility. Journalism, 23(2), 301–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920971522
ProchazkaF.ObermaierM. (2022). Trust through transparency? How journalistic reactions to media-critical user comments affect quality perceptions and behavior intentions. Digital Journalism, 10(3), 452–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.2017316
SkovsgaardM.AndersenK. (2020). Conceptualizing news avoidance: Towards a shared understanding of different causes and potential solutions. Journalism Studies, 21(4), 459–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2019.1686410
59.
Sinclair Broadcast Group. (2023). The National Desk—Real-time national news and regional stories from Sinclair Broadcast Group. Sinclair Broadcast Group. https://sbgi.net/news/the-national-desk/
60.
StrömbäckJ.TsfatiY.BoomgaardenH.DamstraA.LindgrenE.VliegenthartR.LindholmT. (2020). News media trust and its impact on media use: Toward a framework for future research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 44(2), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2020.1755338
61.
StroudN. J. (2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. Oxford University Press.
62.
StroudN. J. (2019). Selective exposure theories. In KenskiK.JamiesonK. H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political communication (pp. 531–547). Oxford University Press.
StroudN. J.MuddimanA.LeeJ. K. (2014). Seeing media as group members: An evaluation of partisan bias perceptions. Journal of Communication, 64(5), 874–894. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12110
65.
TajfelN.TurnerJ. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In AustinW.G.WorchelS. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (Vol. 2, pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall Publishers.
TaylorS. E. (1981). The interface of cognitive and social psychology. In HarveyJ.H. (Ed.), Cognition, social behavior, and the environment (pp. 189–211). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
68.
ToffB.KalogeropoulosA. (2020). All the news that’s fit to ignore: How the information environment does and does not shape news avoidance. Public Opinion Quarterly, 84(S1), 366–390. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfaa016
69.
ToffB.PalmerR.NielsenR. K. (2023). Avoiding the news: Reluctant audiences for journalism. Columbia University Press.
70.
TsfatiY. (2020). Personality factors differentiating selective approach, selective avoidance, and the belief in the importance of silencing others: Further evidence for discriminant validity. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 32(3), 488–509. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edz031
71.
TsfatiY.StrombackJ.LindgrenE.DamstraA.BoomgaardenH. G.VliegenthartR. (2022). Going beyond general media trust: An analysis of topical media trust, its antecedents, and effects on issue (mis)perceptions. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 34(2), edac010. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edac010
72.
ValloneR. P.RossL.LepperM. R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 577–585. https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.49.3.577
73.
Van DuynE.JenningsJ.StroudN. J. (2024). Journalist identity and selective exposure: The effects of racial and ethnic diversity in news staff. Mass Communication and Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2024.2330395
74.
VaraineS. (2023). How dropping subjects who failed manipulation checks can bias your results An illustrative case. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 10, 299–305. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS/2022.28
75.
WattsM. D.DomkeD.ShahD. V.FanD. P. (1999). Elite cues and media bias in presidential campaigns: Explaining public perceptions of a liberal press. Communication Research, 26(2), 144–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365099026002003
76.
WeissB. (2024, October30). The Free Press Votes. Our Newsroom reflects our readers: We Aren’t Voting in Unison. The Free Press for Free People. https://www.thefp.com/p/the-free-press-votes
77.
WestE. A.IyengarS. (2022). Partisanship as a social identity: Implications for polarization. Political Behavior, 44, 807–838. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09637-y
78.
WinterS.MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J. (2016) Selective use of news cues: A multiple-motive perspective on information selection in social media environments. Journal of Communication, 66(4), 669–693. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12241
79.
ZhongC.-B.PhillipsK. W.LeonardelliG. J.GalinskyA. D. (2008). Negational categorization and intergroup behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(6), 793–806. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208315457
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.
