Social networking sites such as Facebook are becoming increasingly important as a source for news. However, few studies have investigated what drives attention to content within the news feed and what influences the selection of news posts. We hypothesized that attitude consistency, the credibility of a source, and comments of other users raise interest in a news post in the news feed and influence the selection decision. A 2 × 2 × 2 laboratory experiment (N = 103) using eye-tracking measurement showed that attitude consistency did not influence attention distribution in the news feed, but users preferred to select news posts with content reinforcing their attitudes. Participants spent more time with news posts from sources with high credibility and selected them more frequently. Comments were not relevant for selection but were for attention within the news feed: If the news post and the comment did not share the same opinion, readers spent more time reading the content.
BakshyEMessingSAdamicLA (2015) Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science348(6239): 1130–1132.
2.
BessiA (2016) Personality traits and echo chambers on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior65: 319–324.
3.
BlairMRWatsonMRWalsheRCet al. (2009) Extremely selective attention: eye-tracking studies of the dynamic allocation of attention to stimulus features in categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition35(5): 1196–1206.
4.
BucherH-JSchumacherP (2006) The relevance of attention for selecting news content: an eye-tracking study on attention patterns in the reception of print and online media. Communications - The European Journal of Communication Research31(3): 347–368.
5.
ConklinKPellicer-SánchezACarrollG (2018) Eye-Tracking: A Guide for Applied Linguistics Research. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
6.
CoronelJCSweitzerMD (2018) Remembering political messages in dynamic information environments: insights from eye movements. Human Communication Research. Advanced online publication.
7.
DuchowskiAT (2007) Eye Tracking Methodology: Theory and Practice. 2nd ed.London: Springer.
8.
DuqueAVázquezC (2015) Double attention bias for positive and negative emotional faces in clinical depression: evidence from an eye-tracking study. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry46: 107–114.
9.
FestingerL (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, Ca: Stanford University Press.
10.
FriemelTNDötschM (2015) Online reader comments as indicator for perceived public opinion. In: EmmerMStrippelC (eds) Kommunikationspolitik für die digitale Gesellschaft (Digital Communication Research 1). Berlin, pp. 151–172.
11.
GarrettRK (2009a) Echo chambers online?: Politically motivated selective exposure among internet news users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication14(2): 265–285.
12.
GarrettRK (2009b) Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication59(4): 676–699.
13.
GoelSMasonWWattsDJ (2010) Real and perceived attitude agreement in social networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology99(4): 611–621.
GranovetterMS (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology78(6): 1360–1380.
16.
HillmannTEKempkensteffenJLincolnTM (2015) Visual attention to threat-related faces and delusion-proneness: an eye tracking study using dynamic stimuli. Cognitive Therapy and Research39(6): 808–815.
17.
HolmqvistKNyströmMAnderssonRet al. (2011) Eye Tracking: A Comprehensive Guide to Methods and Measures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18.
HovlandCIWeissW (1951) The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly15(4): 635–650.
19.
IyengarSHahnKS (2009) Red media, blue media: evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication59(1): 19–39.
20.
JacobRJKKarnKS (2003) Commentary on section 4: eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research: ready to deliver the promises. In: HyönäJRadachRDeubelH (eds) The Mind’s Eye: Cognitive and Applied Aspects of Eye Movement Research. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 573 -605.
21.
JunN (2012) Contribution of internet news use to reducing the influence of selective online exposure on political diversity. Computers in Human Behavior28(4): 1450–1457.
22.
JustMACarpenterPA (1980) A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review87(4): 329–354.
23.
KaakinenJKHyönäJ (2005) Perspective effects on expository text comprehension: evidence from think-aloud protocols, eyetracking, and recall. Discourse Processes40(3): 239–257.
24.
Knobloch-WesterwickSSharmaNHansenDLet al. (2005) Impact of popularity indications on readers’ selective exposure to online news. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media49(3): 296–313.
25.
Knobloch-WesterwickSMengJ (2009) Looking the other way: selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counterattitudinal political information. Communication Research36(3): 426–448.
26.
KümpelASSpringerN (2016) Commenting quality. Effects of user comments on perceptions of journalistic quality. Studies in Communication and Media5(3): 353–366.
27.
KümpelASKarnowskiVKeylingT (2015) News sharing in social media: a review of current research on news sharing users, content, and networks. Social Media + Society1(2), 1–14.
28.
KundaZ (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin108(3): 480–498.
29.
LangA (2000) The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication50(1): 46–70.
30.
LeeE-J (2012) That’s not the way it is: how user-generated comments on the news affect perceived media bias. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication18(1): 32–45.
31.
LoftusGR (1972) Eye fixations and recognition memory for pictures. Cognitive Psychology3(4): 525–551.
32.
MarquartFMatthesJRappE (2016) Selective exposure in the context of political advertising: a behavioral approach using eye-tracking methodology. International Journal of Communication10: 2576–2595.
33.
MessingSWestwoodSJ (2014) Selective exposure in the age of social media: endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research41(8): 1042–1063.
34.
MetzgerMJFlanaginAJ (2013) Credibility and trust of information in online environments: the use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics59: 210–220.
35.
MorrisJPSquiresNKTaberCSet al. (2003) Activation of political attitudes: a psychophysiological examination of the hot cognition hypothesis. Political Psychology24(4): 727–745.
36.
MüllerPSchneidersPSchäferS (2016) Appetizer or main dish? Explaining the use of Facebook news posts as a substitute for other news sources. Computers in Human Behavior65: 431–441.
37.
MullinixKJLeeperTJDruckmanJNet al. (2015) The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science2(2): 109–138.
38.
MutzDC (2002) The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science46(4): 838–855.
39.
PettyRECacioppoT (1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: BerkowitzL (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology19. New York: Academic Press, pp. 123 -205.
40.
PooleABallLJ (2006) Eye tracking in HCI and usability research. In: GhaouiC (ed.) Encyclopedia of Human Computer Interaction. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference, pp. 211 -219.
41.
ProchazkaFWeberPSchweigerW (2018) Effects of civility and reasoning in user comments on perceived journalistic quality. Journalism Studies19(1): 62–78.
42.
ReevesBYeykelisLCummingsJJ (2016) The use of media in media psychology. Media Psychology19(1): 49–71.
43.
ScheufeleDANisbetMC (2012) Online news and the demise of political disagreement. In: SalmonCT (ed.) Communication Yearbook36. New York: Routledge, pp. 45–53.
44.
SmithSMFabrigarLRPowellDMet al. (2007) The role of information-processing capacity and goals in attitude-congruent selective exposure effects. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin33(7): 948–960.
45.
StricklandAATaberCSLodgeM (2011) Motivated reasoning and public opinion. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law36(6): 935–944.
46.
SundarSSKnobloch-WesterwickSHastallMR (2007) News cues: information scent and cognitive heuristics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology58(3): 366–378.
47.
SunsteinCR (2009) Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
48.
TaberCSLodgeM (2006) Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science50(3): 755–769.
49.
TormalaZLPettyRE (2004) Source credibility and attitude certainty: a metacognitive analysis of resistance to persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology14(4): 427–442.
50.
VragaEBodeLTroller-RenfreeS (2016) Beyond self-reports: using eye tracking to measure topic and style differences in attention to social media content. Communication Methods and Measures10(2–3): 149–164.
51.
WedelMPietersR (2000) Eye fixations on advertisements and memory for brands: a model and findings. Marketing Science19(4): 297–312.
52.
WinterSKrämerNC (2012) Selecting science information in web 2.0: how source cues, message sidedness, and need for cognition influence users’ exposure to blog posts. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication18(1): 80–96.
53.
WinterSKrämerNC (2014) A question of credibility – effects of source cues and recommendations on information selection on news sites and blogs. Communications - The European Journal of Communication Research39(4): 435–456.
54.
WinterSMetzgerMJFlanaginAJ (2016) Selective use of news cues: a multiple-motive perspective on information selection in social media environments. Journal of Communication66(4): 669–693.
