This study examined how citizens select science information online based on their preexisting issue attitudes. Voluntary national samples browsed through an online news magazine featuring divergent viewpoints about four controversial science topics (stem cell, evolution, genetically modified foods, and global warming). Their online activities, including article selection and the length of exposure, were unobtrusively measured by behavior tracking software. Participants tended to choose science information that challenged rather than supported their views concerning stem cell and genetically modified foods. However, those who perceived that they had sufficient science knowledge and were religious exhibited confirmation-bias, preferring congruent to incongruent information.
AndersonA. A.BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A. (2010). The changing information environment for nanotechnology: Online audiences and content. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 12, 1083-1094.
2.
BennettW. L.IyengarS. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58, 707-731.
BinderA. R. (2010). Routes to attention or shortcuts to apathy? Exploring domain-specific communication pathways and their implications for public perceptions of controversial science. Science Communication, 32, 383-411.
5.
BoykoffM. T.BoykoffJ. M. (2004). Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14, 125-136.
6.
BrundidgeJ. (2010). Encountering “difference” in the contemporary public sphere: The contribution of the internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of Communication, 60, 680-700.
7.
ChaffeeS. H.SaphirM. N.GrafJ.SandvigC.HahnK. S. (2001). Attention to counter-attitudinal messages in a state election campaign. Political Communication, 18, 247-272.
8.
ClineR. J. W.HaynesK. M. (2001). Consumer health information seeking on the Internet: The state of the art. Health Education Research, 16, 671-692.
9.
CurranJ.IyengarS.LundA. B.Salovaara-MoringI. (2009). Media system, public knowledge and democracy: A comparative study. European Journal of Communication, 24, 5-26.
10.
DavidP. (1996). Role of imagery in recall of deviant news. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 73, 804-820.
11.
DonsbachW. (2009). Cognitive dissonance theory—Roller coaster career. How communication research adapted the theory of cognitive dissonance. In HartmannT. (Ed.), Media choice: A theoretical and empirical overview (p. 128-149). London, England: Routledge.
12.
DruckmanJ. N.BolsenT. (2011). Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. Journal of Communication, 61, 659-688.
13.
DunwoodyS. (1999). How journalists deal with scientific uncertainty. In FriedmanS.DunwoodyS.RogersC. (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 59-79). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
FahyD.NisbetM. C. (2011). The science journalist online: Shifting roles and emerging practices. Journalism, 12, 778-793.
15.
FeatherN. T. (1962). Cigarette smoking and lung cancer: A study of cognitive dissonance. Australian Journal of Psychology, 14(1), 55-64.
16.
FeldmanL.MaibachE. W.Roser-RenoufC.LeiserowitzA. (2012). Climate on cable: The nature and impact of global warming coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. International Journal of Press/Politics, 17(1), 3-31.
17.
FestingerL. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
18.
FreyD. (1986). Recent research on selective exposure to information. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 41-80.
19.
GainesB. J.KuklinskiJ. H.QuirkP. J. (2007). The logic of the survey experiment reexamined. Political Analysis, 15, 1-20.
20.
GarrettR. K. (2009). Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication, 59, 676-699.
21.
HartP. S. (2008). Market influences on climate change frames in CNN and Fox News climate change broadcasts. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Annual Meeting. Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
22.
HartP. S.NisbetE. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39, 701-723.
23.
HartW.AlbarracínD.EaglyA. H.BrechanI.LindbergM. J.MerrillL. (2009). Feeling validated versus being correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 555-588.
24.
HastallM. R.Knobloch-WesterwickS. (2013). Severity, efficacy, and evidence type as determinants of health message exposure. Health Communication, 28, 378-388.
25.
HoS. S.BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A. (2008). Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20, 171-192.
IyengarS.HahnK. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59, 19-39.
28.
IyengarS.HahnK. S.KrosnickJ. A.WalkerJ. (2008). Selective exposure to campaign communication: The role of anticipated agreement and issue public membership. Journal of Politics, 70, 186-200.
29.
JangS. M. (in press). Challenges to selective exposure: Examining selective seeking and avoidance in a multitasking media environment. Mass Communication and Society.
30.
JensenJ. D.HurleyR. J. (2010). Conflicting stories about public scientific controversies: Effects of news convergence and divergence on scientists’ credibility. Public Understanding of Science, 21, 689-704.
31.
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, 449-469.
32.
JohnstonW. A.HawleyK. J.PleweS. H.ElliottJ. M. G.DeWittM. J. (1990). Attention capture by novel stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 397-411.
33.
KahlorL.DunwoodyS.GriffinR. J.NeuwirthK. (2006). Seeking and processing information about impersonal risk. Science Communication, 28, 163-194.
34.
KimS.-H.KimJ.-N.BesleyJ. C. (2013). Pathways to support genetically modified (GM) foods in South Korea: Deliberate reasoning, information shortcuts, and the role of formal education. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 169-184.
35.
KlapperJ. T. (1960). The effects of mass communication. New York, NY: Free Press.
36.
Knobloch-WesterwickS. (2012). Selective exposure and reinforcement of attitudes and partisanship before a presidential election. Journal of Communication, 62, 628-642.
37.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.KleinmanS. B. (2012). Preelection selective exposure: Confirmation bias versus informational utility. Communication Research, 39, 170-193.
38.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.MengJ. (2009). Looking the other way. Communication Research, 36, 426-448.
39.
KrosnickJ. A.BoningerD. S.ChuangY. C.BerentM. K.CarnotC. G. (1993). Attitude strength: One construct or many related constructs?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1132-1151.
40.
LangA. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 46-70.
41.
LazarsfeldP.F.BerelsonB.GaudetH. (1944). The people’s choice: how the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
42.
LeeJ. H. (2008). Effects of news deviance and personal involvement on audience story selection: A web-tracking analysis. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85(1), 41-60.
43.
MalkaA.KrosnickJ. A.LangerG. (2009). The association of knowledge with concern about global warming: Trusted information sources shape public thinking. Risk Analysis, 29, 633-647.
44.
McCrightA. M.DunlapR. E. (2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001-2010. Sociological Quarterly, 52, 155-194.
45.
MillerJ. D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7, 203-223.
46.
MillerJ. D.ScottE. C.OkamotoS. (2006). Public acceptance of evolution. Science, 313, 765-766.
47.
MoreyA. C.EvelandW. P. J.HutchensM. J. (2012). The “who” matters: Types of interpersonal relationships and avoidance of political disagreement. Political Communication, 29, 86-103.
48.
MutzD. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
49.
NeumanW. R.BimberB.HindmanM. (2011). The internet and four dimensions of citizenship. In ShapiroR. Y.JacobsL. R. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of American public opinion and the media (pp. 22-42). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
50.
NeumanW. R.ParkY. J.PanekE. (2012). Tracking the flow of information into the home: An empirical assessment of the digital revolution in the United States, 1960-2005. International Journal of Communication, 6, 1022-1041.
51.
NisbetM. C. (2005). The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 90-112.
52.
PageB. I.ShapiroR. Y. (1983). Effects of public opinion on policy. American Political Science Review, 77, 175-190.
53.
PriorM. (2007). Postbroadcasting democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
54.
PriorM. (2009). The immensely inflated news audience: Assessing bias in self-reported news exposure. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73, 130-143.
55.
RogersC. L. (1999). The importance of understanding audiences. In FriedmanS.DunwoodyS.RogersC. (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 179-200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
56.
Rovee-CollierC. (1989). The joy of kicking: Memories, motives, and mobiles. In SolomanP. R.GoethalsG. R.KelleyC. M.StephensB. R. (Eds.), Memory: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 151-180). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
57.
RughinisC. (2011). A lucky answer to a fair question. Science Communication, 33, 501-532.
58.
SearsD. O.FreedmanJ. L. (1967). Selective exposure to information: A critical review. Public Opinion Quarterly, 31, 194-213.
59.
ShoemakerP. J. (1996). Hardwired for news: Using biological and cultural evolution to explain the surveillance function. Journal of Communication, 46(3), 32-47.
60.
ShoemakerP. J.CohenA. A. (2006). News around the world: Content, practitioners, and the public. Oxford, England: Routledge.
61.
ShoemakerP. J.DanielianL. H.BrendlingerN. (1991). Deviant acts, risky business and U.S. interests: The newsworthiness of world events. Journalism Quarterly, 68, 781-795.
62.
SrullT. K.LichtensteinM.RothbartM. (1985). Associative storage and retrieval processes in person memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 316-345.
63.
StroudN. J. (2012). Niche news. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
64.
SunsteinC. R. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
65.
TewksburyD. (2003). What do Americans really want to know? Tracking the behavior of news readers on the internet. Journal of Communication, 53, 694-710.
66.
VavreckL.RiversD. (2008). The 2006 cooperative congressional election study. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 18, 355-366.
67.
ZhaoX. (2009). Media use and global warming perceptions a snapshot of the reinforcing spirals. Communication Research, 36, 698-723.
