Now We’re Talking? Understanding the Interplay Between Online Selective and Incidental Exposure and Their Influence on Online Cross-Cutting Political Discussion

Abstract

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.

Keywords

politics selective exposure incidental exposure cross-cutting discussion cognitive dissonance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Achen

C. H.

(2000, July 20–22). 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.

Ansolabehere

Schaffner

B. 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

Arendt

(2015). Toward a dose-response account of media priming. Communication Research, 42(8), 1089–1115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650213482970

Barnidge

Rojas

(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

Bennett

W. L.

Iyengar

(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

Brundidge

(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

Delli Carpini

M. X.

Cook

F. L.

Jacobs

L. 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

Dilliplane

(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

Duggan

Ellison

Lampe

Lenhart

Madden

(2015). Social media update 2014. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/09/social-media-update-2014/

10.

Duggan

Smith

(2016). The political environment on social media. Retrieved March 13, 2017, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/25/the-political-environment-on-social-media/

11.

Dvir-Gvirsman

(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-Gvirsman

Garrett

R. K.

Tsfati

(2015). Why do partisan audience participate? Perceived public opinion as the mediating mechanism. Communication Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215593145

13.

Elenbaas

de Vreese

Schuck

Boomgaarden

(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.

Eveland

W. P.

Thomson

(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.

Festinger

(1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.

16.

Finkel

S. E.

(1995). Causal analysis with panel data (Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07–105). Sage.

17.

Fischer

Jonas

Frey

Schulz-Hardt

(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.

Garrett

R. 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.

Glynn

C. J.

Hayes

A. F.

Shanahan

(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.

Gunther

A. C.

Liebhart

J. 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.

Hampton

K. N.

Rainie

Dwyer

Shin

Purcell

(2014). Social media and the “spiral of silence.” Pew Research Center.

22.

Hart

P. S.

Feldman

Leiserowitz

Maibach

(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

23.

Iyengar

Hahn

K. S.

(2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59, 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x

24.

Jaccard

Turrisi

Wan

C. K.

(1990). Interaction effects in multiple regression. Sage.

25.

Johnson

T. J.

Zhang

Bichard

S. 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.

Keele

Kelly

(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.

Kelly

B. J.

Niederdeppe

Hornik

R. 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.

Kim

(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.

Kim

Chen

Gil de Zúñiga

(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.

Kim

Hsu

Gil de Zúñiga

(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-Westerwick

Johnson

B. 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

32.

Kobayashi

Inamasu

(2015). The knowledge leveling effect of portal sites. Communication Research, 42, 482–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214534965

33.

Kwak

(1999). Revisiting the knowledge gap hypothesis: Education, motivation, and media use. Communication Research, 26(4), 385–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365099026004002

34.

Lane

D. S.

Kim

D. H.

Lee

S. S.

Weeks

B. E.

Kwak

(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.

Lee

Kwak

Campbell

S. 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.

Lee

J. 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.

Mason

(2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. University of Chicago Press

38.

Min

S. J.

Wohn

D. 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.

Möller

van de Velde

R. N.

Merten

Puschmann

(2019). Explaining online news engagement based on browsing behavior: Creatures of habit? Social Science Computer Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319828012

40.

Mutz

D. 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.

Mutz

D. 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

42.

Noelle-Neumann

(1974). The spiral of silence a theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication, 24(2), 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1974.tb00367.x

43.

Perloff

R. 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

44.

Pew Research Center. (2012). Assessing the representativeness of public opinion surveys. http://www.people-press.org/2012/05/15/assessing-the-representativeness-of-public-opinion-surveys/

45.

Pew Research Center. (2014a). Political Polarization in the American Public. http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/

46.

Price

Cappella

J. N.

Nir

(2002). Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion? Political Communication, 19(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846002317246506

47.

Prior

(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.

Putnam

R. D.

(2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.

49.

Rojas

(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.

Stroud

N. J.

(2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. Oxford University Press.

51.

Tewksbury

Weaver

A. J.

Maddex

B. 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.

Thorson

(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.

Weeks

B. E.

Lane

D. S.

Kim

D. H.

Lee

S. S.

Kwak

(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.

Wojcieszak

M. E.

Mutz

D. 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.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB