How do users pick out online information sources? Building on a self-regulation perspective to media use, this study investigates routes to self-enhancement (i.e. state self-esteem [SSE] increase) through selective exposure to sources of political online information. Personal-self importance (PSI) and social-self importance (SSI) were conceptualized as moderators of self-enhancement. An experiment mimicked the filter bubble, as participants (n = 88) browsed only attitude-aligned political content. The experiment varied source cues, with two (of eight) bylines displaying individual participants’ name initials as author initials. The selective exposure time participants spent on messages from same-initials authors was logged to capture egotism (based on the well-established name-letter effect). Pre-exposure SSE influenced self-enhancement, contingent upon both PSI and SSI. Perceived source similarity affected post-exposure SSE, contingent upon the same moderators. The findings show that algorithms can personalize source cues to attract users and impact self-esteem.
BadawyAAddawoodALermanK, et al. (2019) Characterizing the 2016 Russian IRA influence campaign. Social Network Analysis & Mining9: 31.
2.
BakshyEMessingSAdamicLA (2015) Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science348(6239): 1130–1132.
3.
BoehmerJCarpenterSFicoF (2019) More of the same? Influences on source use and source affiliation diversity in for-profit and nonprofit news organizational content. Journalism Studies20(2): 173–192.
4.
BrewerMBGardnerW (1996) Who is this “we?” Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology71(1): 83–93.
5.
BrundidgeJ (2010) Encountering “difference” in the contemporary public sphere: the contribution of the internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of Communication60(4): 680–700.
6.
CastADBurkePJ (2002) A theory of self-esteem. Social Forces80(3): 1041–1068.
7.
ChangC (2011) Opinions from others like you: the role of perceived source similarity. Media Psychology14(4): 415–441.
ColleoniERozzaAArvidssonA (2014) Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data. Journal of Communication64(2): 317–332.
10.
CrockerJWolfeCT (2001) Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review108(3): 593–623.
11.
DahlgrenPM (2020) Media Echo Chambers: Selective Exposure and Confirmation Bias in Media Use, and Its Consequences for Political Polarization. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.
12.
Gil de ZúñigaHBimberB (2020) The unedited public sphere. New Media & Society22(4): 700–715.
13.
GonzalesALHancockJT (2010) Mirror, mirror on my Facebook wall: effects of exposure to Facebook on self-esteem. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking14(1–2): 79–83.
GrosserKMHaseVWintterlinF (2019) Trustworthy or shady? Exploring the influence of verifying and visualizing user-generated content (UGC) on online journalism’s trustworthiness. Journalism Studies20(4): 500–522.
16.
HauserDJEllsworthPCGonzalezR (2018) Are manipulation checks necessary?Frontiers in Psychology9: 998.
17.
HayesAF (2018) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. 2nd ed.New York: Guilford Press.
18.
HeathertonTFPolivyJ (1991) Development and validation of a scale for measuring state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology60(6): 895–910.
19.
HimelboimIMcCreerySSmithM (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.
20.
HitlinS (2007) Doing good, feeling good: values and the self ’s moral center. Journal of Positive Psychology2(4): 249–259.
21.
IyengarSHahnKS (2009) Red media, blue media: evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication59(1): 19–39.
22.
JonesJTPelhamBWCarvalloM, et al. (2004) How do I love thee? Let me count the Js: implicit egotism and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology87(5): 665–683.
23.
JonesJTPelhamBWMirenbergMC, et al. (2002) Name letter preferences are not merely mere exposure: implicit egotism as self-regulation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology38(2): 170–177.
24.
KangHSundarSS (2016) When self is the source: effects of media customization on message processing. Media Psychology19(4): 561–588.
25.
Knobloch-WesterwickS (2015) The selective exposure self-and affect-management (SESAM) model. Communication Research42(7): 959–985.
26.
Knobloch-WesterwickSHastallMR (2010) Please your self: social identity effects on selective exposure to news about in-and out-groups. Journal of Communication60(3): 515–535.
27.
KrauseHVBaumKBaumannA, et al. (2021) Unifying the detrimental and beneficial effects of social network site use on self-esteem: a systematic literature review. Media Psychology24: 10–47.
28.
KumkaleGTAlbarracínD (2004) The sleeper effect in persuasion: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin130(1): 143–172.
29.
LiangHFuK-w (2017) Information overload, similarity, and redundancy: unsubscribing information sources on Twitter. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication22(1): 1–17.
30.
MartinsNHarrisonK (2012) Racial and gender differences in the relationship between children’s television use and self-esteem: a longitudinal panel study. Communication Research39(3): 338–357.
31.
MastroDE (2003) A social identity approach to understanding the impact of television messages. Communication Monographs70(2): 98–113.
32.
MeijndersAMiddenAOlofssonA, et al. (2009) The role of similarity cues in the development of trust in sources of information about GM food. Risk Analysis29(8): 1116–1128.
33.
MetzgerMJFlanaginAJ (2013) Credibility and trust of information in online environments: the use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics59(B): 210–220.
34.
MetzgerMJHartsellEHFlanaginAJ (2020) Cognitive dissonance or credibility? A comparison of two theoretical explanations for selective exposure to partisan news. Communication Research47(1): 3–28.
35.
MonroeKRHankinJvan VechtenRB (2000) The psychological foundations of identity politics. Annual Review of Political Science3(1): 419–447.
36.
MontalTReichZ (2019) The death of the author, the rise of the robo-journalist: authorship, bylines, and full disclosure in automated journalism. In: EldridgeSAFranklinB (eds) Routledge Handbook of Developments in Digital Journalism Studies. New York: Routledge, pp. 53–63.
37.
NelsonJLTanejaH (2018) The small, disloyal fake news audience: the role of audience availability in fake news consumption. New Media & Society20(10): 3720–3737.
38.
NewsomJTJonesRNHoferSM (eds) (2012) Longitudinal Data Analysis: A Practical Guide for Researchers in Aging, Health, and Social Sciences (Multivariate Application Series), vol. 18. New York: Routledge.
39.
PariserE (2011) The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. New York: Penguin.
40.
PearsonGDHKnobloch-WesterwickS (2018) Perusing pages and skimming screens: exploring differing patterns of selective exposure to hard news and professional sources in online and print news. New Media & Society20(10): 3580–3596.
41.
PearsonGDHKosickiGM (2017) How way-finding is challenging gatekeeping in the digital age. Journalism Studies18(9): 1087–1105.
42.
PerinelliEAlessandriGDonnellanMB, et al. (2018) State-trait decomposition of Name Letter Test scores and relationships with global self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology114(6): 959–972.
PietschnigJGittlerGStiegerS, et al. (2018) Indirect (implicit) and direct (explicit) self-esteem measures are virtually unrelated: a meta-analysis of the initial preference task. PLoS ONE13(9): e0202873.
45.
PornpitakpanC (2004) The persuasiveness of source credibility: a critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology34(2): 243–281.
46.
PostmesTSpearsRLeaM (2002) Intergroup differentiation in computer-mediated communication: effects of depersonalization. Group Dynamics6(1): 3–16.
47.
RobinsRWHendinHMTrzesniewskiKH (2001) Measuring global self-esteem: construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin27(2): 151–161.
48.
RockwoodNJHayesAF (in press) Multilevel mediation analysis. In: O’ConnellAAMcCoachDBBellB (eds) Multilevel Modeling Methods with Introductory and Advanced Applications. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
49.
SedikidesCGreggAP (2008) Self-enhancement: food for thought. Perspectives on Psychological Science3(2): 102–116.
50.
SedikidesCGaertnerLToguchiY (2003) Pancultural self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology84(1): 60–79.
51.
ShinJJianLDriscollK, et al. (2017) Political rumoring on Twitter during the 2012 US presidential election: rumor diffusion and correction. New Media & Society19(8): 1214–1235.
52.
SlaterMDPeterJValkenbergP (2015) Message variability and heterogeneity: a core challenge for communication research. In: CohenEL (ed.) Communication Yearbook 39. New York: Routledge, pp. 3–31.
53.
StandleeA (2019) Friendship and online filtering: the use of social media to construct offline social networks. New Media & Society21(3): 770–785.
54.
StroudNJ (2010) Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication60(3): 556–576.
55.
SülflowMSchäferSWinterS (2019) Selective attention in the news feed: an eye-tracking study on the perception and selection of political news posts on Facebook. New Media & Society21(1): 168–190.
56.
SunsteinCR (2001) Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
57.
TajfelH (1978) Social categorizations, social identity, and social comparison. In: TajfelH (ed.) Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, pp. 61–76.
58.
TomaCL (2013) Feeling better but doing worse: effects of Facebook self-presentation on implicit self-esteem and cognitive task performance. Media Psychology16(2): 199–220.
59.
TomaCLHancockJT (2013) Self-affirmation underlies Facebook use. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin39(3): 321–331.
60.
TsangSJ (2019) Cognitive discrepancy, dissonance, and selective exposure. Media Psychology22(3): 394–417.
61.
Van der MeerTGLAHameleersMKroonAC (2020) Crafting our own biased media diets: the effects of confirmation, source, and negativity bias on selective attendance to online news. Mass Communication & Society23(6): 937–967.
62.
WesterwickAKleinmanSBKnoblochWS (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 Communication63(3): 432–453.
63.
WesterwickA, et al. (2019) ‘Gender trumps politics: social identity impacts on selective exposure to political information’. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Conference, Washington DC.
64.
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.
65.
WojcieszakM (2021) What predicts selective exposure online: testing political attitudes, credibility, and social identity. Communication Research48: 687–716.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
