Research suggests that individuals may make choices about the information they consume that are influenced by what they already believe. In this study, I investigate this process in a particularly contentious policy arena: charter schools. What kinds of information are important to people as they evaluate charter school policy? Are their choices shaped by their prior beliefs? Overall, I find that indeed people tend to seek out information that aligns with their prior beliefs. Altogether, the results of this study suggest that the dynamics of selective exposure present in the political arena more broadly also exist within education policy.
ArceneauxK.JohnsonM. (2013). Changing minds or changing channels? Partisan news in an age of choice. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
2.
BerendsM. (2015). Sociology and school choice: What we know after two decades of charter schools. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 159-180.
3.
BerendsM.WatralC.TeasleyB.NicoteraA. (2008). Charter school effects on achievements: Where we are and where we are going. In BerendsM.SpringerM. G.WalbergH. J. (Eds.), Charter school outcomes. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
4.
BerinskyA. J.HuberG. A.LenzG. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351-368.
5.
BettsJ. R.TangY. E. (2011). The effect of charter schools on student achievement: A meta-analysis of the literature. Seattle, WA: Center for Reinventing Public Education.
CarefC.HaindsS.HilgendorfK.JankovP.RussellK. (2012). The black and white of education in Chicago’s public schools. Class, charters & chaos: A hard look at privatization schemes masquerading as education policy. Chicago, IL: Chicago Teachers Union.
8.
CremataE.DavisD.DickeyK.LawyerK.NegassiY.RaymondM. E.WoodworthJ. L. (2013). National charter school study. Stanford, CA: Center for Research on Education Outcomes.
GarciaD. R. (2010). Charter schools challenging traditional notions of segregation. In LubienskiC. A.WeitzelP. C. (Eds.), The charter school experiment: Expectations, evidence, and implications (pp. 33-50). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
12.
GerberA. S.HuberG. A.DohertyD.DowlingC. M. (2011). Citizens’ policy confidence and electoral punishment: A neglected dimension of electoral accountability. The Journal of Politics, 73, 1206-1224.
13.
HauserD. J.SchwarzN. (2016). Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 400-407.
14.
HoneyN.BlissettR. S. L.WooD. (2016, November). Charter schools and local support for public school funding ballot measures. Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
15.
HuberG. A.HillS. J.LenzG. S. (2012). Sources of bias in retrospective decision making: Experimental evidence on voters’ limitations in controlling incumbents. American Political Science Review, 106, 720-741.
16.
KruglanskiA. W.KlarY. (1987). A view from a bridge: Synthesizing the consistency and attribution paradigms from a lay epistemic perspective. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 211-241.
17.
LodgeM.TaberC. S. (2013). The rationalizing voter. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
18.
LubienskiC. A.WeitzelP. C. (2010a). Information use and epidemics in charter school policy. In LubienskiC. A.WeitzelP. C. (Eds.), The charter school experiment: Expectations, evidence, and implications (pp. 197-218). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
19.
LubienskiC. A.WeitzelP. C. (2010b). Two decades of charter schools: Shifting expectations, partners, and policies. In LubienskiC. A.WeitzelP. C. (Eds.), The charter school experiment: Expectations, evidence, and implications (pp. 1-14). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
20.
MironG. (2010). Performance of charter schools and implications for policy makers. In LubienskiC. A.WeitzelP. C. (Eds.), The charter school experiment: Expectations, evidence, and implications (pp. 73-92). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
21.
MullinixK. J.LeeperT. J.DruckmanJ. N.FreeseJ. (2015). The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2, 109-138.
22.
NiY.ArsenD. (2010). The competitive effects of charter schools on public school districts. In LubienskiC. A.WeitzelP. C. (Eds.), The charter school experiment: Expectations, evidence, and implications (pp. 93-120). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
23.
PaolacciG.ChandlerJ.IpeirotisP. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411-419.
24.
PeraltaC. B.WojcieszakM.LelkesY.de VreeseC. (2017). Selective exposure to balanced content and evidence type: The case of issue and non-issue publics about climate change and health care. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 94, 833-861.
25.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
26.
RedlawskD. P.LauR. R. (2009, September10-12). Understanding individual decision making using process tracing. Paper presented at the General Conference of the European Consortium for Political Research, Potsdam, Germany.
TeskeP.’FitzpatrickJ. O.BrienT. (2009). Drivers of choice: Parents, transportation, and school choice. Seattle, WA: Center for Reinventing Public Education.
29.
WeitzelP. C.LubienskiC. A. (2010). Grading charter schools: Access, innovation, and competition. In LubienskiC. A.WeitzelP. C. (Eds.), The charter school experiment: Expectations, evidence, and implications (pp. 219-230). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
30.
WohlstetterP.SmithJ.FarrellC. C. (2013). Choices and challenges: Charter school performance in perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
31.
XingQ. W.MaugeriJ.PiersonJ. B.ReitanoV. (2015). Financial impact of charter schools on traditional public schools in North Carolina: A cross-districts comparison. Raleigh: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction.
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.
