Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2022-6
Now We’re Talking? Understanding the Interplay Between Online Selective and Incidental Exposure and Their Influence on Online Cross-Cutting Political Discussion
This study examines how two distinct patterns of online political information exposure—pro-attitudinal selective exposure and counter-attitudinal incidental exposure—can work together to influence engagement in online cross-cutting political discussion. Using panel data from a two-wave national survey conducted in 2012, we test two competing theoretical accounts. Findings suggest that incidental exposure affects selective exposure’s contribution to cross-cutting discussion in a curvilinear way. Incidental exposure strengthens the impact of selective exposure on cross-cutting discussion up until a certain point, after which it begins to attenuate its impact. Results emphasize the need to account for the multiple ways people encounter political information online.
AchenC. H. (2000, July20–22). Why lagged dependent variables can suppress the explanatory power of other independent variables. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, United States.
2.
AnsolabehereS.SchaffnerB. F. (2014). Does survey mode still matter? Findings from a 2010 multi-mode comparison. Political Analysis, 22, 285–303. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpt025
BarnidgeM.RojasR. (2014). Hostile media perceptions, presumed media influence, and political talk: Expanding the corrective action hypothesis. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 26(2) 135–156. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edt032
5.
BennettW. L.IyengarS. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58, 707–731. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00410.x
6.
BrundidgeJ. (2010). Encountering “difference” in the contemporary public sphere: The contribution of the internet to heterogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of Communication, 60, 680–700. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01509.x
7.
Delli CarpiniM. X.CookF. L.JacobsL. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: a review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7(1), 315–344. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630
8.
DilliplaneS. (2011). All the news you want to hear: The impact of partisan news exposure on political participation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(2), 287–316. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr006
Dvir-GvirsmanS. (2015). One-track minds? Cognitive needs, media diet, and overestimation of public support for one’s views. Media Psychology, 18(4), 475–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2014.929526
12.
Dvir-GvirsmanS.GarrettR. K.TsfatiY. (2015). Why do partisan audience participate? Perceived public opinion as the mediating mechanism. Communication Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215593145
13.
ElenbaasM.de VreeseC.SchuckA.BoomgaardenH. (2014). Reconciling passive and motivated learning: The saturation-conditional impact of media coverage and motivation on political information. Communication Research, 41, 481–504. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212467032
14.
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(3), 523–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00299.x
15.
FestingerL. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
16.
FinkelS. E. (1995). Causal analysis with panel data(Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07–105). Sage.
17.
FischerP.JonasE.FreyD.Schulz-HardtS. (2005). Selective exposure to information: The impact of information limits. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 469–492. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.264
18.
GarrettR. K. (2009). Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication, 59(4), 676–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01452.x
19.
GlynnC. J.HayesA. F.ShanahanJ. (1997). Perceived support for one’s opinions and willingness to speak out: A meta-analysis of survey studies on the “spiral of silence.”Public Opinion Quarterly, 452–463. https://doi.org/10.1086/297808
20.
GuntherA. C.LiebhartJ. L. (2006). Broad reach or biased source? Decomposing the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 56(3), 449–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00295.x
21.
HamptonK. N.RainieH.LuW.DwyerM.ShinI.PurcellK. (2014). Social media and the “spiral of silence.” Pew Research Center.
22.
HartP. S.FeldmanL.LeiserowitzA.MaibachE. (2015). Extending the impacts of hostile media perceptions influences on discussion and opinion polarization in the context of climate change. Science Communication, 37(4), 506–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547015592067
JaccardJ.TurrisiR.WanC. K. (1990). Interaction effects in multiple regression. Sage.
25.
JohnsonT. J.ZhangW.BichardS. L. (2011). Voices of convergence or conflict? A path analysis investigation of selective exposure to political websites. Social Science Computer Review, 29(4), 449–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439310379962
26.
KeeleL.KellyN. (2006). Dynamic models for dynamic theories: The ins and outs of lagged dependent variables. Political Analysis, 14, 186–205. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpj006
27.
KellyB. J.NiederdeppeJ.HornikR. C. (2009). Validating measures of scanned information exposure in the context of cancer prevention and screening behaviors. Journal of Health Communication, 14(8), 721–740. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730903295559
28.
KimY. (2011). The contribution of social network sites to exposure to political difference: The relationships among SNSs, online political messaging, and exposure to cross-cutting perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 971–977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.001
29.
KimY.ChenH.Gil de ZúñigaH. (2013). Influence of social media use on discussion network heterogeneity and civic engagement: The moderating role of personality traits. Journal of Communication, 63, 498–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12034
30.
KimY.HsuS.Gil de ZúñigaH. (2013). Stumbling upon news on the internet: The effect of incidental news exposure and relative entertainment use on political participation. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2607–2614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.005
31.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.JohnsonB. K. (2014). Selective exposure for better or worse: Its mediating role for online news’ impact on political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(2), 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12036
KwakN. (1999). Revisiting the knowledge gap hypothesis: Education, motivation, and media use. Communication Research, 26(4), 385–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365099026004002
34.
LaneD. S.KimD. H.LeeS. S.WeeksB. E.KwakN. (2017). From online disagreement to offline action: How diverse motivations for using social media can increase political information sharing and catalyze offline political participation. Social Media + Society, 3(3), 2056305117716274. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117716274
35.
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(4), 569–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650213483824
36.
LuY.LeeJ. K. (2019). Stumbling upon the other side: Incidental learning of counter-attitudinal political information on Facebook. New Media & Society, 21(1), 248–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818793421
37.
MasonL. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. University of Chicago Press
38.
MinS. J.WohnD. Y. (2018). All the news that you don’t like: Cross-cutting exposure and political participation in the age of social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 83, 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.015
39.
MöllerJ.van de VeldeR. N.MertenL.PuschmannC. (2019). Explaining online news engagement based on browsing behavior: Creatures of habit?Social Science Computer Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319828012
40.
MutzD. C. (2002a). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review, 96, 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055402004264
41.
MutzD. C. (2002b). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 838–855. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3088437
PerloffR. M. (1989). Ego-involvement and the third person effect of televised news coverage. Communication Research, 16(2), 236–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365089016002004
PriceV.CappellaJ. N.NirL. (2002). Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion?Political Communication, 19(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846002317246506
47.
PriorM. (2009). The immensely inflated news audience: Assessing bias in self-reported news exposure. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73, 130–143. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp002
48.
PutnamR. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.
49.
RojasH. (2010). “Corrective” actions in the public sphere: How perceptions of media and media effects shape political behaviors. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edq018
50.
StroudN. J. (2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. Oxford University Press.
51.
TewksburyD.WeaverA. J.MaddexB. D. (2001). Accidentally informed: Incidental news exposure on the world wide web. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 533–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900107800309
52.
ThorsonE. (2014). Beyond opinion leaders: How attempts to persuade foster political awareness and campaign learning. Communication Research, 41, 353–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212443824
53.
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12199
54.
WojcieszakM. E.MutzD. C. (2009). Online groups and political discourse: Do online discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement?Journal of Communication, 59, 40–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01403.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.
