We examine three under-studied factors in selective exposure research. Linking issue publics and motivated reasoning literatures, we argue that selectivity patterns depend on (a) whether an individual is an issue public member; (b) the availability of balanced, pro-, and counter-attitudinal content; and (c) the evidence for a message claim (numerical vs. narrative). Using an online experiment (N = 560), we track information selection about climate change and health care. Most notably, on both issues, issue publics selected more balanced content with numerical evidence, compared with non-issue publics. We discuss the implications of our findings for the selective exposure literature.
AlbarracínD.MitchellA. L. (2004). The role of defensive confidence in preference for proattitudinal information: How believing that one is strong can sometimes be a defensive weakness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1565-1584.
2.
AllenM.PreissR. W. (1997). Comparing the persuasiveness of narrative and statistical evidence using meta-analysis. Communication Research Reports, 14, 125-131.
3.
ArceneauxK.JohnsonM. (2013). Changing minds or changing channels? Partisan news in an age of choice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
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.
BrannonL. A.TaglerM. J.EaglyA. E. (2007). The moderating role of attitude strength on selective exposure to information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 611-617.
6.
BrosiusH. B.BatheltA. (1994). The utility of exemplars in persuasive communications. Communication Research, 21, 48-78.
7.
CarminesE. G.StimsonJ. A. (1980). The two faces of issue voting. American Political Science Review, 74, 78-91.
8.
CarminesE. G.StimsonJ. A. (1986). On the structure and sequence of issue evolution. American Political Science Review, 80, 901-920.
9.
CaslerK.BickelL.HackettE. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2156-2160.
10.
ChaikenS.LibermanA.EaglyA. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In UlemanJ. S.BarghJ. A. (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
11.
ConverseP. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In ApterD. A. (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206-261). New York, NY: Free Press.
12.
ConverseP. E. (1970). Attitudes and non-attitudes: The continuation of dialogue. In EdwardT. (Ed.), The quantitative analysis of social problems (pp. 168-189). Reading, MA: Addition-Wesley.
13.
de WitJ. B. F.DasE.VetR. (2008). What works best: Objective statistics or a personal testimonial? An assessment of the persuasive effects of different types of message evidence on risk perception. Health Psychology, 27, 110-115.
14.
DiMaggioP. J.SatoK. (2003, August).Does the Internet balkanize political attention? A test of the Sunstein thesis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Atlanta, GA.
15.
FeldmanL.StroudN. J.BimberB.WojcieszakM. (2013). Assessing selective exposure in experiments: The implications of different methodological choices. Communication Methods and Measures, 7, 172-194.
GarrettR. K.StroudN. J. (2014). Partisan paths to exposure diversity: Differences in pro- and counter attitudinal news consumption. Journal of Communication, 64, 680-701.
18.
GuntherA. C.SchmittK. (2004). Mapping boundaries of the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 54, 55-70.
19.
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. doi:10.1037/a0015701
20.
HastallM. R.Knobloch-WesterwickS. (2013). Severity, efficacy, and evidence type as determinants of health message exposure. Health Communication, 28, 378-388.
21.
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.
22.
HoekenH. (2001). Anecdotal, statistical, and causal evidence: Their perceived and actual persuasiveness. Argumentation, 15, 425-437.
23.
HolbrookA. L.BerentM. K.KrosnickJ. A.VisserP. S.BoningerD. S. (2005). Attitude importance and the accumulation of attitude-relevant information in memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 749-769.
24.
HutchingsV. L. (2003). Public opinion and democratic accountability: How citizens learn about politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
IyengarS. (1990). Shortcuts to political knowledge: The role of selective attention and accessibility. In FerejonJ. A.KuklinskiJ. H. (Eds.), Information and democratic processes (pp. 160-185). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
26.
IyengarS.HahnK. S. (2008). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59, 19-39.
27.
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.
28.
JohnsonB. T.EaglyA. H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290-314.
29.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350.
30.
KastenmüllerA.GreitemeyerT.JonasE.FischerP.FreyD. (2010). Selective exposure: The impact of collectivism and individualism. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 745-763.
31.
KimY. M. (2007). How intrinsic and extrinsic motivations interact in selectivity: Investigating the moderating effects of situational information processing goals in issue publics’ web behavior. Communication Research, 34, 185-211. doi:10.1177/0093650206298069
32.
KimY. M. (2009). Issue publics in the new information environment: Selectivity, domain specificity, and extremity. Communication Research, 36, 254-284.
33.
KleinbergM.LauR. (in press). Candidate extremity, information environments, and political polarization: Three experiments.
34.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.JohnsonB. K.SilverN. A.WesterwickA. (2015). Science exemplars in the eye of the beholder: How exposure to online science information affects attitudes. Science Communication, 37, 575-601.
35.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.KleinmanS. (2012). Pre-election selective exposure: Confirmation bias versus informational utility. Communication Research, 39, 170-193.
36.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.MengJ. (2009). Looking the other way: Selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counter attitudinal political information. Communication Research, 36, 426-448.
37.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.SargeM. A. (2013). Impacts of exemplification and efficacy as characteristics of an online weight-loss message on selective exposure and subsequent weight-loss behavior. Communication Research, 18, 827-844. doi:10.1177/0093650213478440
38.
KopfmanJ. E.SmithS. W.Ah YunJ. K.HodgesA. (1998). Affective and cognitive reactions to narrative versus statistical evidence organ donation messages. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 26, 279-300.
39.
KreuterM. W.GreenM. C.CappellaJ. N.SlaterM. D.WiseM. E.StoreyD.. . . WoolleyS. (2007). Narrative communication in cancer prevention and control: A framework to guide research and application. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 33, 221-235. doi:10.1007/BF02879904
40.
KrosnickJ. A. (1988). The role of attitude importance in social evaluation: A study of policy preferences, presidential candidate evaluations, and voting behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 196-210.
41.
KrosnickJ. A. (1990). Government policy and citizen passion: A study of issue publics in contemporary America. Political Behavior, 12, 59-92.
42.
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.
43.
KrosnickJ. A.TelhamiS. (1995). Public attitudes toward Israel: A study of the attentive and issue publics. International Studies Quarterly, 39, 535-554.
44.
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.
45.
KundaZ. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.
46.
LeeperT. J.MullinixK. J. (2014). What If you had done things differently? Testing the generalizability of framing effects with parallel experiments. Unpublished manuscript.
47.
LeiserowitzA. (2005). American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous?Risk Analysis, 25, 1433-1442.
48.
LevenduskyM. S. (2013). Why do partisan media polarize viewers?American Journal of Political Science, 57, 611-623.
49.
LindseyL. L. M.YunK. A. (2003). Examining the persuasive effect of statistical messages: A test of mediating relationships. Communication Studies, 54, 306-321.
50.
LodgeM.TaberC. S. (2000). Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. In LupiaA.McCubbinsM.PopkinS. (Eds.), Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality (pp. 183-213). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
51.
LodgeM.TaberC. S. (2005). The automaticity of affect for political leaders, groups, and issues: An experimental test of the hot cognition hypothesis. Political Psychology, 26, 455-482.
52.
MessingS.WestwoodS. J. (2012). Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0093650212466406
MullinixK. J.LeeperT. J.DruckmanJ. N.FreeseJ. (2015). The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2, 109-138.
55.
NienhuisA. E.MansteadA. S.SpearsR. (2001). Multiple motives and persuasive communication: Creative elaboration as a result of impression motivation and accuracy motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 118-132.
56.
NirL. (2011). Motivated reasoning and public opinion perception. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75, 504-532.
57.
PaolacciG.ChandlerJ.IpeirotisP. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411-419.
58.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205). New York, NY: Academic Press.
PriorM. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
62.
PriorM. (2013). Media and political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 101-127.
63.
PriorM.SoodG.KhannaK. (2013). You cannot be serious: Do partisans believe what they say? [Typescript]. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
64.
PyszczynskiT.GreenbergJ. (1987). Toward an integration of cognitive and motivational perspectives on social inference: A biased hypothesis-testing model. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 297-340). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
65.
RedlawskD. P.CivettiniA. J.EmmersonK. M. (2010). The affective tipping point: Do motivated reasoners ever “get it.”Political Psychology, 31, 563-593.
66.
ReinhartA. M. (2006). Comparing the persuasive effects of narrative versus statistical messages: A meta-analytic review (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3213634)
67.
StroudN. J. (2008). Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior, 30, 341-366.
68.
StroudN. J. (2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
69.
TaberC. S.CannD.KucsovaS. (2009). The motivated processing of political arguments. Political Behavior, 31, 137-155.
70.
TaberC. S.LodgeM. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755-769.
71.
TaylorS. E.ThompsonS. C. (1982). Stalking the elusive “vividness” effect. Psychological Review, 89, 155-181.
72.
TormalaZ. L.PettyR. E. (2004). Source credibility and attitude certainty: A metacognitive analysis of resistance to persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 427-442.
ValentinoN. A.BanksA. J.HutchingsV. L.DavisA. K. (2009). Selective exposure in the Internet age: The interaction between anxiety and information utility. Political Psychology, 30, 591-613.
76.
VisserP. S.BizerG. Y.KrosnickJ. A. (2006). Exploring the latent structure of strength-related attitude attributes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 1-67.
77.
WestenD.BlagovP. S.HarenskiK.KiltsC.HamannS. (2006). Neural bases of motivated reasoning: An fMRI study of emotional constraints on partisan political judgment in the 2004 U.S. presidential election. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1947-1958.
78.
WesterwickA.KleinmanS. B.Knobloch-WesterwickS. (2013). Turn a blind eye if you care: Impacts of attitude consistency, importance, and credibility on seeking of political information and implications for attitudes. Journal of Communication, 63, 432-453.
79.
WojcieszakM. (2014). Preferences for political decision-making processes and issue publics. Public Opinion Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi:10.1093/poq/nfu039
80.
ZallerJ.FeldmanS. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 579-516.
81.
ZillmannD.BrosiusH. B. (2000). Exemplification in communication: The influence of case reports on the perception of issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
