The study suggests that media consumers favor certain websites not only due to their content but also due to their audience. A new concept is introduced: “audience homophily,” which describes one’s preference for partisan media websites catering to a homogeneous, likeminded consumership. This attraction is explained in terms of the need for self-consistency, and I suggest that over time such behavior will polarize political identity through a spiral of reinforcement. Based on both a survey-experiment (N = 300) and a panel study combined with web-tracking technology that recorded online-exposure behavior (N = 397), it was found that individuals with more extreme ideology present higher levels of audience homophily and that, longitudinally, audience homophily is somewhat associated with ideological polarization, intolerance, and accessibility of political self-definition.
AbercrombieNLonghurstBJ (1998) Audiences: A Sociological Theory of Performance and Imagination. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
2.
ArpanLRhodesNRoskos-EwoldsenDR (2007) Attitude accessibility: theory, methods, and future directions. In: Roskos-EwoldsenDRMonahanJL (eds) Communication and Social Cognition: Theories and Methods. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 351–376.
3.
BaymN (2011) Social networks 2.0. In: ConsalvoMEssC (eds) The Handbook of Internet Studies. London: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 384–405.
4.
BorgattiSPCrossR (2003) A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Science49: 432–445.
5.
BourdieuP (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
Dvir-GvirsmanSTsfatiYMenchen-TrevinoE (2014) The extent and nature of ideological selective exposure online: combining survey responses with actual web log data from the 2013 Israeli Elections. New Media & Society18(5): 857–877
7.
EvelandWPCooperKE (2013) An integrated model of communication influence on beliefs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences110: 14088–14095.
8.
EvelandWP.JrKleinmanSB (2013) Comparing general and political discussion networks within voluntary organizations using social network analysis. Political Behavior35: 65–87.
9.
FazioRH (1995) Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. In: PettyRKrosnickJA (eds) Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 247–282.
10.
FazioRHHerrPMOlneyTJ (1984) Attitude accessibility following a self-perception process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology47: 277–286.
11.
FeldmanLMyersTAHmielowskiJD. (2014) The mutual reinforcement of media selectivity and effects: testing the reinforcing spirals framework in the context of global warming. Journal of Communication64: 590–611.
GansH (1999) Popular Culture and High Culture: An Analysis and Evaluation of Taste (Revised and Updated). New York: Basic Books.
14.
GarrettRKStroudNJ (2014) Partisan paths to exposure diversity: differences in pro-and counter-attitudinal news consumption. Journal of Communication64: 680–701.
15.
GentzkowMShapiroJM (2011) Ideological segregation online and offline. Quarterly Journal of Economics126: 1799–1839.
16.
GoldmanSKMutzDCDilliplaneS (2013) All virtue is relative: a response to Prior. Political Communication30: 635–653.
17.
GreeneS (2004) Social identity theory and party identification. Social Science Quarterly85: 136–153.
18.
HolbertRGarrettRKGleasonL (2010) A new era of minimal effects? A response to Bennett and Iyengar. Journal of Communication60: 15–34.
19.
HuckfeldtRLevineJMorganW. (1999) Accessibility and the political utility of partisan and ideological orientations. American Journal of Political Science43: 888–911.
20.
IkedaKRicheyS (2009) The impact of diversity in informal social networks on tolerance in Japan. British Journal of Political Science39: 655–668.
21.
IyengarSSoodGLelkesY (2012) Affect, not ideology a social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly76: 405–431.
22.
JostJTNosekBAGoslingSD (2008) Ideology: its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology. Prospect on Psychology Science3: 126–136.
23.
Knobloch-WesterwickS (2014) The selective exposure self-and affect-management (SESAM) model applications in the realms of race, politics, and health. Communication Research42(7): 959–985
24.
Knobloch-WesterwickSHastallMR (2010) Please your self: social identity effects on selective exposure to news about in-and out-groups. Journal of Communication60: 515–535.
25.
Knobloch-WesterwickSMengJ (2011) Reinforcement of the political self through selective exposure to political messages. Journal of Communication61: 349–368.
26.
LevitanLCVisserPS (2009) Social network composition and attitude strength: exploring the dynamics within newly formed social networks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology45: 1057–1067.
27.
LightAWakemanI (2001) Beyond the interface: users’ perceptions of interaction and audience on websites. Interacting with Computers13: 325–351.
28.
LittE (2012) Knock, knock: Who’s there? The imagined audience. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media56: 330–345.
29.
LiuH (2007) Social network profiles as taste performances. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication13: 252–275.
30.
McDowellWS (2004) Exploring a free association methodology to capture and differentiate abstract media brand associations: a study of three cable news networks. Journal of Media Economics17: 309–320.
31.
MarwickAE (2011) I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society13: 114–133.
32.
MasonL (2015) “I disrespectfully agree”: the differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science59: 128–145.
33.
MutzDC (2002) Cross-cutting social networks: testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review96: 111–126.
34.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2014) Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD.
35.
PapacharissiZ (2013) A networked self identity performance and sociability on social network sites. In: LeeFLFLeungLQiuJL. (eds) Frontiers in New Media Research. New York: Routledge, pp. 207–222.
36.
PeffleyMKniggePHurwitzJ (2001) A multiple values model of political tolerance. Political Research Quarterly54: 379–406.
37.
PetersonRA (1992) Understanding audience segmentation: from elite and mass to omnivore and univore. Poetics21: 243–258.
38.
PriorM (2013) The challenge of measuring media exposure: reply to Dilliplane, Goldman, and Mutz. Political Communication30: 620–634.
39.
SlaterMD (2007) Reinforcing spirals: the mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. Communication Theory17: 281–303.
40.
StroudNJ (2010) Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication60: 536–576.
41.
StroudNJMuddimanA (2013) Selective exposure, tolerance, and satirical news. International Journal of Public Opinion Research25: 271–290.
42.
StroudNJMuddimanALeeJK (2014) Seeing media as group members: an evaluation of partisan bias perceptions. Journal of Communication64: 874–894.
43.
SullivanJLTransueJE (1999) The psychological underpinnings of democracy: a selective review of research on political tolerance, interpersonal trust, and social capital. Annual Review of Psychology50: 625–650.
44.
TaberCLodgeM (2006) Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science50: 755–769.
45.
TesserAMartinLMarilynM (1995) The impact of thought on attitude extremity and attitude-behavior consistency. In: PettyREKrosnickJ (eds) Attitude Strength Antecedents and Consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 73–92.
46.
TsfatiYCappellaJN (2003) Do people watch what they do not trust? Exploring the association between news media skepticism and exposure. Communication Research30: 504–529.
47.
WebsterJGKsiazekTB (2012) The dynamics of audience fragmentation: public attention in an age of digital media. Journal of Communication62: 39–56.
