Whether people live in echo-chambers when they consume political information online has been the subject of much academic and public debate. This article contributes to this debate combining survey and web-tracking online data from Spain, a country known for its high political parallelism. We find that users spend more time in outlets of their political leanings but, generally, they engage in considerable cross-partisan media exposure, especially those in the left. In addition, we use a quasi experiment to test how major news events affect regular patterns of news consumption, and particularly, selective exposure. We find that the nature of news explains changes in users’ overall consumption behaviour, but this has less to do with the type of event than with the interest it arouses. More importantly, we find that users become more polarized along party lines as the level of news consumption and interest for news increases.
AllcottHGentzkowM (2017) Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives31(2): 211–236.
2.
AnJQuerciaDCrowcroftJ (2013) Fragmented social media: A look into selective exposure to political news. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on world wide web, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 13–17 May, pp. 51–52. New York: ACM.
3.
BakshyEMessingSAdamicLA (2015) Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science348(6239): 1130–1132.
4.
BarberáP (2014, November13) How social media reduces mass political polarization: Evidence from Germany, Spain, and the US. Job Market Paper No. 46, New York: New York University.
5.
BarberáPJostJTNaglerJ, et al. (2015) Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber?Psychological Science26(10): 1531–1542.
6.
BennettWLIyengarS (2008) A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication58(4): 707–731.
7.
BrundidgeJ (2010) Encountering ‘difference’ in the contemporary public sphere: The contribution of the Internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of Communication60(4): 680–700.
8.
CallegaroMBakerRPBethlehemJ, et al. (2014) Online Panel Research: A Data Quality Perspective. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
9.
CampbellDTStanleyJC (1963) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research on Teaching. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
10.
ChaffeeSHMetzgerMJ (2001) The end of mass communication?Mass Communication and Society4(4): 365–379.
11.
ConversePE (1964) The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In: GeertzCElderJWApterDE, et al. (eds) Ideology and Discontent. New York: The Free Press of Glencooe, pp. 206-261.
12.
Del VicarioMBessiAZolloF, et al. (2016) The spreading of misinformation online. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of American113(3): 554–559.
13.
Dvir-GvirsmanSTsfatiYMenchen-TrevinoE (2016) The extent and nature of ideological selective exposure online: Combining survey responses with actual web log data from the 2013 Israeli Elections. New Media & Society18(5): 857–877.
14.
FestingerL (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, vol. 2. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
15.
FlaxmanSGoelSRaoJ (2016) Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly80(S1): 298–320.
16.
GaberMMZaslavskyAKrishnaswamyS (2005) Mining data streams: A review. Sigmod Record34(2): 18–26.
17.
GarrettRK (2009a) Echo chambers online? Politically motivated selective exposure among internet news users1. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication14(2): 265–285.
18.
GarrettRK (2009b) Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication59(4): 676–699.
19.
GentzkowMShapiroJM (2011) Ideological segregation online and offline. The Quarterly Journal of Economics126(4): 1799–1839.
GuessANyhanBLyonsB, et al. (2018) Avoiding Echo-Chambers about Echo-Chambers: Why Selective Exposure to Political News Is Less Prevalent Than You Think. Miami, FL: Knight Foundation.
22.
HallinDCManciniP (2004) Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
HannakASapiezynskiPMolavi KakhkiA, et al. (2013) Measuring personalization of web search. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on world wide web, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 13–17 May, pp. 527–538. New York: ACM.
24.
HartWAlbarracínDEaglyAH, et al. (2009) Feeling validated versus being correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological Bulletin135(4): 555–588.
25.
HolbertRLHmielowskiJDWeeksBE (2012) Clarifying relationships between ideology and ideologically oriented cable TV news use: A case of suppression. Communication Research39(2): 194–216.
26.
HollanderBA (2008) Tuning out or tuning elsewhere? Partisanship, polarization, and media migration from 1998 to 2006. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly85(1): 23–40.
27.
IppelLKapteinMVermuntJ (2017) Dealing with data streams: An online, row-by-row, estimation tutorial. Methodology12: 124–138.
28.
IyengarSHahnKS (2009) Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication59(1): 19–39.
29.
JonasESchulz-HardtSFreyD (2005) Giving advice or making decisions in someone else’s place: The influence of impression, defense, and accuracy motivation on the search for new information. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin31(7): 977–990.
30.
Knobloch-WesterwickSMengJ (2009) Looking the other way: Selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counterattitudinal political information. Communication Research36(3): 426–448.
31.
Knobloch-WesterwickSSharmaNHansenDL, et al. (2005) Impact of popularity indications on readers’ selective exposure to online news. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media49(3): 296–313.
32.
KobayashiTIkedaK (2009) Selective exposure in political web browsing: Empirical verification of ‘cyber-balkanization’in Japan and the USA. Information, Communication & Society12(6): 929–953.
33.
KruglanskiAW (1999) Motivation, cognition, and reality: Three memos for the next generation of research. Psychological Inquiry10(1): 54–58.
34.
KundaZ (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin108(3): 480.
35.
LodgeMTaberCGalonskyAC (1999) The political consequences of motivated reasoning: Partisan bias in information processing. In: Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Atlanta, GA, 2–5 September.
36.
MessingSWestwoodSJ (2012) Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research41(8): 1042–1063.
37.
MetzgerMJHartsellEHFlanaginAJ (2015) Cognitive dissonance or credibility? A comparison of two theoretical explanations for selective exposure to partisan news. Communication Research. Epub ahead of print 26 November. DOI: 10.1177/0093650215613136.
38.
NelsonJLWebsterJG (2017) The myth of partisan selective exposure: A portrait of the online political news audience. Social Media+ Society3(3): 1-13.
39.
NewmanNFletcherRKalogeropoulosA, et al. (2018) Digital News Report. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
40.
PariserE (2011) The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You. London: Penguin Books.
41.
PriorM (2008) Are hyperlinks ‘weak ties’?. In: TurowJTsuiL (eds) The Hyperlinked Society: Questioning Connections in the Digital Age. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp. 227–249.
42.
PriorM (2013) Media and political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science16: 101–127.
43.
RoblesJMMolinaDeMarcoÓS (2012) Participación política digital y brecha digital política en España. Un estudio de las desigualdades digitales. Arbor188(756): 795–810.
44.
SunsteinC (2001) Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45.
StroudNJ (2008) Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior30(3): 341–366.
46.
StroudNJ (2011) Niche News: The Politics of News Choice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
47.
SunsteinCR (2009) Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
48.
TaberCSLodgeM (2006) Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science50(3): 755–769.
49.
ThorsonKWellsC (2015) Curated flows: A framework for mapping media exposure in the digital age. Communication Theory26(3): 309–328.
50.
ThurmanNSchifferesS (2012) The future of personalization at news websites: Lessons from a longitudinal study. Journalism Studies13(5–6): 775–790.
51.
ValentinoNABanksAJHutchingsVL, et al. (2009) Selective exposure in the internet age: The interaction between anxiety and information utility. Political Psychology30(4): 591–613.
52.
ValentinoNAHutchingsVLBanksAJ, et al. (2008) Is a worried citizen a good citizen? Emotions, political information seeking, and learning via the internet. Political Psychology29(2): 247–273.
53.
ValerianiAVaccariC (2015) Accidental exposure to politics on social media as online participation equalizer in Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. New Media & Society18(9): 1857–1874.
54.
WeeksBEKsiazekTBHolbertRL (2016) Partisan enclaves or shared media experiences? A network approach to understanding citizens’ political news environments. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media60(2): 248–268.
55.
WojcieszakMBimberBFeldmanL, et al. (2016) Partisan news and political participation: Exploring mediated relationships. Political Communication33(2): 241–260.
56.
ZallerJ (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
57.
Zuiderveen BorgesiusFTrillingDMoellerJ, et al. (2016) Should we worry about filter bubbles?. Internet Policy Review. Journal on Internet Regulation, 5(1): 1-16.
