Selective Exposure to Balanced Content and Evidence Type: The Case of Issue and Non-Issue Publics About Climate Change and Health Care

Abstract

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.

Keywords

selective exposure issue publics motivated reasoning evidence type

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Albarracín

Mitchell

A. 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.

Allen

Preiss

R. W.

(1997). Comparing the persuasiveness of narrative and statistical evidence using meta-analysis. Communication Research Reports, 14, 125-131.

Arceneaux

Johnson

(2013). Changing minds or changing channels? Partisan news in an age of choice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Berinsky

A. J.

Huber

G. A.

Lenz

G. S.

(2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351-368.

Brannon

L. A.

Tagler

M. J.

Eagly

A. E.

(2007). The moderating role of attitude strength on selective exposure to information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 611-617.

Brosius

H. B.

Bathelt

(1994). The utility of exemplars in persuasive communications. Communication Research, 21, 48-78.

Carmines

E. G.

Stimson

J. A.

(1980). The two faces of issue voting. American Political Science Review, 74, 78-91.

Carmines

E. G.

Stimson

J. A.

(1986). On the structure and sequence of issue evolution. American Political Science Review, 80, 901-920.

Casler

Bickel

Hackett

(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.

Chaiken

Liberman

Eagly

A. H.

(1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In Uleman

J. S.

Bargh

J. A.

(Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

11.

Converse

P. E.

(1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In Apter

D. A.

(Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206-261). New York, NY: Free Press.

12.

Converse

P. E.

(1970). Attitudes and non-attitudes: The continuation of dialogue. In Edward

(Ed.), The quantitative analysis of social problems (pp. 168-189). Reading, MA: Addition-Wesley.

13.

de Wit

J. B. F.

Das

Vet

(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.

DiMaggio

P. J.

Sato

(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.

Feldman

Stroud

N. J.

Bimber

Wojcieszak

(2013). Assessing selective exposure in experiments: The implications of different methodological choices. Communication Methods and Measures, 7, 172-194.

16.

Gallup. (2014). Jobs, government, and economy remain top U.S. problems [Survey report]. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/169289/jobs-government-economy-remain-top-problems.aspx

17.

Garrett

R. K.

Stroud

N. J.

(2014). Partisan paths to exposure diversity: Differences in pro- and counter attitudinal news consumption. Journal of Communication, 64, 680-701.

18.

Gunther

A. C.

Schmitt

(2004). Mapping boundaries of the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 54, 55-70.

19.

Hart

Albarracín

Eagly

A. H.

Brechan

Lindberg

M. J.

Merrill

(2009). Feeling validated versus being correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 555-588. doi:10.1037/a0015701

20.

Hastall

M. R.

Knobloch-Westerwick

(2013). Severity, efficacy, and evidence type as determinants of health message exposure. Health Communication, 28, 378-388.

21.

Hauser

D. J.

Schwarz

(2016). Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 400-407.

22.

Hoeken

(2001). Anecdotal, statistical, and causal evidence: Their perceived and actual persuasiveness. Argumentation, 15, 425-437.

23.

Holbrook

A. L.

Berent

M. K.

Krosnick

J. A.

Visser

P. S.

Boninger

D. S.

(2005). Attitude importance and the accumulation of attitude-relevant information in memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 749-769.

24.

Hutchings

V. L.

(2003). Public opinion and democratic accountability: How citizens learn about politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

25.

Iyengar

(1990). Shortcuts to political knowledge: The role of selective attention and accessibility. In Ferejon

J. A.

Kuklinski

J. H.

(Eds.), Information and democratic processes (pp. 160-185). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

26.

Iyengar

Hahn

K. S.

(2008). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59, 19-39.

27.

Iyengar

Hahn

K. S.

Krosnick

J. A.

Walker

(2008). Selective exposure to campaign communication: The role of anticipated agreement and issue public membership. Journal of Politics, 70, 186-200.

28.

Johnson

B. T.

Eagly

A. H.

(1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290-314.

29.

Kahneman

Tversky

(1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350.

30.

Kastenmüller

Greitemeyer

Jonas

Fischer

Frey

(2010). Selective exposure: The impact of collectivism and individualism. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 745-763.

31.

Kim

Y. 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.

Kim

Y. M.

(2009). Issue publics in the new information environment: Selectivity, domain specificity, and extremity. Communication Research, 36, 254-284.

33.

Kleinberg

Lau

(in press). Candidate extremity, information environments, and political polarization: Three experiments.

34.

Knobloch-Westerwick

Johnson

B. K.

Silver

N. A.

Westerwick

(2015). Science exemplars in the eye of the beholder: How exposure to online science information affects attitudes. Science Communication, 37, 575-601.

35.

Knobloch-Westerwick

Kleinman

(2012). Pre-election selective exposure: Confirmation bias versus informational utility. Communication Research, 39, 170-193.

36.

Knobloch-Westerwick

Meng

(2009). Looking the other way: Selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counter attitudinal political information. Communication Research, 36, 426-448.

37.

Knobloch-Westerwick

Sarge

M. 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.

Kopfman

J. E.

Smith

S. W.

Ah Yun

J. K.

Hodges

(1998). Affective and cognitive reactions to narrative versus statistical evidence organ donation messages. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 26, 279-300.

39.

Kreuter

M. W.

Green

M. C.

Cappella

J. N.

Slater

M. D.

Wise

M. E.

Storey

. . . Woolley

(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.

Krosnick

J. 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.

Krosnick

J. A.

(1990). Government policy and citizen passion: A study of issue publics in contemporary America. Political Behavior, 12, 59-92.

42.

Krosnick

J. A.

Boninger

D. S.

Chuang

Y. C.

Berent

M. K.

Carnot

C. G.

(1993). Attitude strength: One construct or many related constructs? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1132-1151.

43.

Krosnick

J. A.

Telhami

(1995). Public attitudes toward Israel: A study of the attentive and issue publics. International Studies Quarterly, 39, 535-554.

44.

Kruglanski

A. W.

Klar

(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.

Kunda

(1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.

46.

Leeper

T. J.

Mullinix

K. J.

(2014). What If you had done things differently? Testing the generalizability of framing effects with parallel experiments. Unpublished manuscript.

47.

Leiserowitz

(2005). American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous? Risk Analysis, 25, 1433-1442.

48.

Levendusky

M. S.

(2013). Why do partisan media polarize viewers? American Journal of Political Science, 57, 611-623.

49.

Lindsey

L. L. M.

Yun

K. A.

(2003). Examining the persuasive effect of statistical messages: A test of mediating relationships. Communication Studies, 54, 306-321.

50.

Lodge

Taber

C. S.

(2000). Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. In Lupia

McCubbins

Popkin

(Eds.), Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality (pp. 183-213). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

51.

Lodge

Taber

C. 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.

Messing

Westwood

S. 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

53.

Mitchell

Jurkowitz

Olmstead

(2014). Audience routes: Direct, search & Facebook. Pew Research Journalism Project. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/2014/03/13/audience-routes-direct-search-facebook/

54.

Mullinix

K. J.

Leeper

T. J.

Druckman

J. N.

Freese

(2015). The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2, 109-138.

55.

Nienhuis

A. E.

Manstead

A. S.

Spears

(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.

Nir

(2011). Motivated reasoning and public opinion perception. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75, 504-532.

57.

Paolacci

Chandler

Ipeirotis

P. G.

(2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411-419.

58.

Petty

R. E.

Cacioppo

J. T.

(1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205). New York, NY: Academic Press.

59.

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2014). Deficit reduction declines as policy priority (Survey report). Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2014/01/27/deficit-reduction-declines-as-policy-priority/

60.

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2015). State of the news media 2015 (Annual report). Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/2015/04/29/state-of-the-news-media-2015/

61.

Prior

(2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

62.

Prior

(2013). Media and political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 101-127.

63.

Prior

Sood

Khanna

(2013). You cannot be serious: Do partisans believe what they say? [Typescript]. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.

64.

Pyszczynski

Greenberg

(1987). Toward an integration of cognitive and motivational perspectives on social inference: A biased hypothesis-testing model. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 297-340). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

65.

Redlawsk

D. P.

Civettini

A. J.

Emmerson

K. M.

(2010). The affective tipping point: Do motivated reasoners ever “get it.” Political Psychology, 31, 563-593.

66.

Reinhart

A. 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.

Stroud

N. J.

(2008). Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior, 30, 341-366.

68.

Stroud

N. J.

(2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

69.

Taber

C. S.

Cann

Kucsova

(2009). The motivated processing of political arguments. Political Behavior, 31, 137-155.

70.

Taber

C. S.

Lodge

(2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755-769.

71.

Taylor

S. E.

Thompson

S. C.

(1982). Stalking the elusive “vividness” effect. Psychological Review, 89, 155-181.

72.

Tormala

Z. L.

Petty

R. E.

(2004). Source credibility and attitude certainty: A metacognitive analysis of resistance to persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 427-442.

73.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010a). Age and composition: 2010. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf

74.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010b). Educational attainment in the United States: 2010. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2010/tables.html

75.

Valentino

N. A.

Banks

A. J.

Hutchings

V. L.

Davis

A. K.

(2009). Selective exposure in the Internet age: The interaction between anxiety and information utility. Political Psychology, 30, 591-613.

76.

Visser

P. S.

Bizer

G. Y.

Krosnick

J. A.

(2006). Exploring the latent structure of strength-related attitude attributes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 1-67.

77.

Westen

Blagov

P. S.

Harenski

Kilts

Hamann

(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.

Westerwick

Kleinman

S. B.

Knobloch-Westerwick

(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.

Wojcieszak

(2014). Preferences for political decision-making processes and issue publics. Public Opinion Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi:10.1093/poq/nfu039

80.

Zaller

Feldman

(1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 579-516.

81.

Zillmann

Brosius

H. B.

(2000). Exemplification in communication: The influence of case reports on the perception of issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.