Drawing on a panel survey and a laboratory experiment, this study investigates incidental exposure to counter-attitudinal political information on Facebook. The frequency of Facebook use is found positively associated with incidental exposure to counter-attitudinal political information, suggesting the important role of Facebook in exposing users to political disagreement. In addition, the findings of the experiment indicate that individuals coming across counter-attitudinal Facebook posts are able to recognize the information of these posts. This study suggests that incidental exposure is an important mechanism through which social media users encounter and learn about counter-attitudinal political information. Implications are discussed in terms of the influence of social media use on democracy.
AlthausSLTewksburyD (2002) Agenda setting and the “new” news: patterns of issue importance among readers of the paper and online versions of the New York Times. Communication Research29(2): 180–207.
2.
AtkinCK (1973) Instrumental utilities and information seeking. In: ClarkP (ed.) New Models of Communication Research. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, pp. 205–242.
3.
BakshyEMessingSAdamicLA (2015) Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science348(6239): 1130–1132.
4.
BarnidgeM (2015) The role of news in promoting political disagreement on social media. Computers in Human Behavior52: 211–218.
BeamMA (2014) Automating the news: how personalized news recommender system design choices impact news reception. Communication Research41(8): 1019–1041.
7.
BennettWLSegerbergA (2012) The logic of connective action: digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, Communication & Society15(5): 739–768.
8.
BoczkowskiPMitchelsteinEMatassiM (2018) “News comes across when I’m in a moment of leisure”: understanding the practices of incidental news consumption on social media. New Media & Society20(10): 3523–3539.
9.
BodeL (2012) Political information 2.0: A study in political learning via social media. Unpublished Dissertation. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
10.
BodeL (2016) Political news in the news feed: learning politics from social media. Mass Communication and Society19(1): 24–48.
11.
boyddmEllisonNB (2008) Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication13: 210–230.
12.
BozdagE (2013) Bias in algorithmic filtering and personalization. Ethics and Information Technology15(3): 209–227.
13.
BrundidgeJ (2010) Encountering “difference” in the contemporary public sphere. Journal of Communication60(4): 680–700.
14.
CeccobelliD (2018) Not every day is election day: a comparative analysis of eighteen election campaigns on Facebook. Journal of Information Technology & Politics15: 122–141.
15.
CoeKKenskiKRainsSA (2014) Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication64(4): 658–679.
16.
DahlR (1971) Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
17.
Delli CarpiniMXCookFLJacobsLR (2004) Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: a review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science7: 315–344.
18.
DeVitoMA (2017) From editors to algorithms: a values-based approach to understanding story selection in the Facebook news feed. Digital Journalism5(6): 753–773.
19.
DiaoFSundarS (2004) Orienting response and memory for web advertisement: exploring effects of pop-up window and animation. Communication Research31(5): 537–567.
20.
DiehlTWeeksBEGildeZúñigaH (2016) Political persuasion on social media: tracing direct and indirect effects of news use and social interaction. New Media & Society18(9): 1875–1895.
21.
DownsA (1957) An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of Political Economy65(2): 135–150.
DylkoIB (2016) How technology encourages political selective exposure. Communication Theory26(4): 389–409.
24.
EllisonNBSteinfieldCLampeC (2007) The benefits of Facebook “friends”: social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication12(4): 1143–1168.
25.
EvelandWPHivelyMH (2009) Political discussion frequency, network size, and “heterogeneity” of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation. Journal of Communication59(2): 205–224.
FishkinJS (1997) The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
28.
FletcherRNielsenRK (2017) Are people incidentally exposed to news on social media? A comparative analysis. New Media & Society20: 2450–2468.
29.
FrenschPA (1998) One concept, multiple meanings. In: StadlerMAFrenschPA (eds) Handbook of Implicit Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 47–104.
30.
GarrettRK (2009) Echo chambers online? Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication14: 265–285.
31.
GarrettRKResnickP (2011) Resisting political fragmentation on the internet. Daedalus140(4): 108–120.
32.
GarrettRKStroudNJ (2014) Partisan paths to exposure diversity: differences in pro-and counterattitudinal news consumption. Journal of Communication64(4): 680–701.
33.
Gil de ZúñigaHGarcia- PerdomoVMcGregorSC (2015) What is second screening? Exploring motivations of second screen use and its effect on online political participation. Journal of Communication65(5): 793–815.
34.
GillespieT (2014) The relevance of algorithms. In: BoczkowskiPFootK (eds) Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 167–193.
35.
HahnKRyuSParkS (2015) Fragmentation in the Twitter following of news outlets: the representation of South Korean users’ ideological and generational cleavage. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly92(1): 56–76.
36.
HimelboimIMcGreerySSmithM (2013) Birds of a feather tweet together: integrating network and content analyses to examine cross-ideology exposure on Twitter. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication18(2): 154–174.
37.
HollanderBA (2005) Late-night learning: do entertainment programs increase political campaign knowledge for young viewers?Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media49(4): 402–415.
38.
JangSM (2014) Challenges to selective exposure: Selective seeking and avoidance in a multitasking media environment. Mass Communication and Society17(5): 665–688.
39.
JohnNADvir-GvirsmanS (2015) “I don’t like you any more”: Facebook unfriending by Israelis during the Israel-Gaza conflict of 2014. Journal of Communication65(6): 953–974.
40.
KimCLeeJK (2016) Social media type matters: Investigating the relationship between motivation and online social network heterogeneity. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media60(4): 676–693.
41.
Knobloch-WesterwickS (2008) Information utility In DonsbachW. (Ed.), International encyclopedia of communication (pp. 2273–2276). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
42.
Knobloch-WesterwickSKleinmanSB (2012) Preelection selective exposure: confirmation bias versus information utility. Communication Research39(2): 170–193.
LangABorseJWiseKet al. (2002) Captured by the World Wide Web: orienting to structural and content features of computer-presented information. Communication Research29(3): 215–245.
45.
LeeJK (2009) Incidental exposure to news: Limiting fragmentation in the new media environment. Unpublished Dissertation. University of Texas at Austin.
46.
LeeJKKimE (2017). Incidental exposure to news: Predictors in the social media setting and effects on information gain online. Computers in Human Behavior, 75: 1008–1015.
47.
LiangHFuK (2017). Information overload, similarity, and redundancy: Unsubscribing information sources on Twitter. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(1): 1–17.
48.
LuYLeeJKKimE (2018). Network characteristics matter on Facebook: Evidence from a U.S. national survey. Online Information Review42(3): 373–386.
49.
McGuireWJ (1968) Selective exposure: a summing up. In: AbelsonRAronsonEMcGuireWJet al. (eds) Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, pp. 788–796.
MessingSWestwoodSJ (2014) Selective exposure in the age of social media: endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research41(8): 1042–1063.
52.
MillerPRBobkowskiPSMaliniakDet al. (2015) Talking politics on Facebook: network centrality and political discussion practices in social media. Political Research Quarterly68(2): 377–391.
53.
MutzDC (2006) Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative Versus Participatory Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
54.
MutzDC (2008) Is deliberative democracy a falsifiable theory?American Review of Political Science11: 521–538.
55.
PapacharissiZ (2002) The virtual sphere. New Media & Society4(1): 9–27.
56.
PariserE (2011) The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Change What We Read and How We Think. New York: Penguin Press.
57.
PriceVCappellaJNNirL (2002) Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion?Political Communication19(1): 95–112.
58.
PriorM (2007) Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.
59.
RaderEGrayR (2015) Understanding user beliefs about algorithmic curation in the Facebook news feed. In: CHI’15 proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, pp. 173–182. New York: ACM. Available at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2702174.
StroudNJMuddimanALeeJK (2014) See media as group members: An evaluation of partisan bias perceptions. Journal of Communication64(5): 874–894.
62.
SunsteinCR (2001) Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
63.
TaberCSLodgeM (2006) Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science50(3): 755–769.
64.
TewksburyDWeaverAJMaddexBD (2001) Accidentally informed: incidental news exposure on the World Wide Web. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly78(3): 533–554.
65.
ThorsonKWellsC (2016) Curated flows: a framework for mapping media exposure in the digital age. Communication Theory26(3): 309–328.
66.
ValenzuelaSCorreaTGildeZúñigaH (2018) Ties, likes, and tweets: using strong and weak ties to explain differences in protest participation across Facebook and Twitter use. Political Communication35(1): 117–134.
67.
ValerianiAVaccariC (2016) Accidental exposure to politics on social media as online participation equalizer in Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. New Media & Society18(9): 1857–1874.
68.
VitakJZubePSmockAet al. (2011) It’s complicated: Facebook users’ political participation in the 2008 election. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking14(3): 107–114.
69.
WeaverDDrewD (1993) Voter learning in the 1990 off-year election: did the media matter?Journalism Quarterly70(2): 356–368.
70.
WeeksBELaneDSKimDHet al. (2017) Incidental exposure, selective exposure, and political information sharing: integrating online exposure patterns and expression on social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication22(6): 363–379.
71.
WestenDBlagovPSHarenskiKet al. (2006) Neural bases of motivated reasoning: an fMRI study of emotional constraints on partisan political judgment in the 2004 US presidential election. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience18(11): 1947–1958.
72.
WojcieszakMMutzDC (2009) Online groups and political discourse. Journal of Communication59(1): 40–56.
73.
ZhangWChangL (2014) Perceived speech conditions and disagreement of everyday talk: a proceduralist perspective of citizen deliberation. Communication Theory24(2): 124–145.
74.
ZukinCSnyderR (1984) Passive learning: when the media environment is the message. Public Opinion Quarterly48(3): 629–638.
