The emergence of disinformation challenges today’s democracies. Selective exposure research assumes that psychological biases cause people to turn to attitude-reinforcing disinformation, though studies indicate that this only holds true for small niches of online audiences. However, when online, unbiased users as well may encounter disinformation, which for them appear to be attitude-challenging. How unbiased online users experience and cope with dissonance triggered by this, and whether this affects their pre-existing attitudes, has hardly been explored. This research gap is addressed using the polarized topic of climate change as an example. An experimental research design is applied combining stimulus exposure, survey research, eye tracking, and interviews (n = 50). The findings indicate that unbiased users are not entirely resistant to disinformation influence. However, attitude effects could not be fully explained by selection behavior but instead through different feelings and strategies of coping with dissonance and patterns of performing online information searches.
BlancoF (2017) Cognitive bias. In: VonkJShackelfordT (eds) Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 1–7.
2.
BMU, UBA & German IPCC Coordination Unit (2017) Kernbotschaften des Fünften Sachstandsberichts des IPCC. Klimaänderung 2013: Naturwissenschaftliche Grundlagen (Teilbericht 1) [Key messages of the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Climate Change 2013: Fundamentals of Natural Science (Sub-Report 1)]. Available at: http://www.bmu.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Klimaschutz/ipcc_sachstandsbericht_5_teil_1_bf.pdf
3.
BodrunovaSSLitvinenkoABlekanovI, et al. (2021) Constructive aggression? Multiple roles of aggressive content in political discourse on Russian YouTube. Media and Communication9(1): 181–194.
4.
BreyerBBluemkeM (2016) Deutsche Version der Positive and Negative Affect Schedule PANAS (GESIS Panel) [German version of the positive and negative affect schedule PANAS (GESIS panel)]. Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen (ZIS) [Compilation of Social Science Items and Scales (ZIS)].
5.
BucherH-J (2001) Wie interaktiv sind die neuen Medien? [How interactive are the new media?]. In: BucherH-JPüschelU (eds) Die Zeitung Zwischen Print Und Digitalisierung [The Newspaper between Print and Digitalization]. Wiesbaden: Westdt. Verl., pp. 139–171.
6.
BucherH-J (2017) Understanding multimodal meaning making: theories of multimodality in the light of reception studies. In: WildfeuerJSeizovO (eds) New Studies in Multimodality: Conceptual and Methodological Elaborations. London; New York: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 91–125.
7.
CamajL (2019) From selective exposure to selective information processing: a motivated reasoning approach. Media and Communication7(3): 8–11.
8.
D’AlessioDAllenM (2013) The selective exposure hypothesis and media choice processes. In: PreissRW (ed.) Mass Media Effects Research: Advances through Meta-analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor and Francis, pp. 103–118.
9.
DonsbachW (2007) Alles nur ein Missverständnis? Wie die Kommunikationswissenschaft die Theorie der kognitiven Dissonanz adaptierte [All just a misunderstanding? How communication science adapted the theory of cognitive dissonance]. In: TrepteSWitteEHAppelM (eds) Sozialpsychologie Und Medien [Social Psychology and Media]: Beiträge Des 22. Hamburger Symposions Zur Methodologie Der Sozialpsychologie [Contributions of the 22Nd Hamburg Symposium on the Methodology of Social Psychology]. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publ, pp. 11–34.
FestingerL (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.
12.
FlickUKardorffEvon SteinkeI (eds) (2010) A Companion to Qualitative Research. London: SAGE.
13.
FreyDWicklundRA (1978) A clarification of selective exposure. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology14(1): 132–139.
14.
GarrettRK (2009) Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication59(4): 676–699.
15.
GarrettRKCarnahanDLynchEK (2013) A turn toward avoidance? Selective exposure to online political information, 2004–2008. Political Behavior35(1): 113–134.
16.
GawronskiB (2012) Back to the future of dissonance theory: cognitive consistency as a core motive. Social Cognition30(6): 652–668.
17.
GlaserBGStraussAL (2017) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. London: Routledge.
18.
GrinbergNJosephKFriedlandL, et al. (2019) Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Science (New York, N.Y.)363(6425): 374–378.
19.
GuessANyhanBReiflerJ (2018) Selective Exposure to Misinformation: Evidence From Consumption of Fake News During the 2016 U.S. Presidential Campaign. Brussels: European Research Council.
20.
HartWAlbarracínDEaglyAH, et al. (2009) Feeling validated versus being correct: a meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological Bulletin135(4): 555–588.
21.
Kla.tv (2014) Der Weltklimagipfel in Peru: Ein Betrug der fassungslos macht? [The international climate summit in Peru: A fraud that stunned?]. Available at: https://www.kla.tv/4845 (accessed 22 April 2021)
22.
Knobloch- WesterwickSKleinmanSB (2011) Preelection selective exposure. Communication Research39(2): 170–193.
23.
Knobloch- WesterwickSMengJ (2009) Looking the other way. Communication Research36(3): 426–448.
24.
KuhlthauCC (1991) Inside the search process: information seeking from the user's perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science42(5): 361–371.
25.
KuhlthauCC (2004) Seeking Meaning: A Process Approach to Library and Information Services. Westport, CT and London: Libraries Unlimited.
26.
KuhlthauCCHeinströmJToddRJ (2008) The “information search process” revisited: is the model still useful?Information Research13(4): 355.
27.
KundaZ (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin108(3): 480–498.
28.
MaurerM (2011) Wie Journalisten mit Ungewissheit umgehen. Eine Untersuchung am Beispiel der Berichterstattung über die Folgen des Klimawandels [How journalists handle uncertainty. A study on the example of media coverage reporting on the consequences of climate change]. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft59(1): 60–74.
29.
NelsonJLTanejaH (2018) The small, disloyal fake news audience: The role of audience availability in fake news consumption. New Media & Society20(10): 3720–3737.
30.
NisbetMC (2009) Communicating climate change: why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development51(2): 12–23.
31.
PfetschB (2018) Dissonant and disconnected public spheres as challenge for political communication research. Javnost—The Public25(1–2): 59–65.
32.
ReuterCHartwigKKirchnerJ, et al. (2019) Fake news perception in Germany: a representative study of people’s attitudes and approaches to counteract disinformation. Proceedings of the International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik (WI) S, pp. 1069–1083.
33.
SängerlaubA (2020) Fakten versus Fakes: Was Fact-Checking als Maßnahme gegen Desinformation leisten kann und was nicht [Facts versus fakes: what fact-checking can and cannot do as a measure against disinformation]. In: HohlfeldRHarnischmacherMHeinkeELehnerLSenglM (eds) Fake News Und Desinformation [Fake News and Disinformation]. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, pp. 311–326.
34.
SchweigerW (2010) Informationsnutzung online: Informationssuche, Selektion, Rezeption und Usability von Online-Medien [Information use online: information search, selection, reception and usability of online media]. In: SchweigerWBeckK (eds) Handbuch Online-kommunikation [Handbook Online Communication]. Wiesbaden: VS Verl. für Sozialwiss, pp. 184–210.
35.
SimonLGreenbergJBrehmJ (1995) Trivialization: the forgotten mode of dissonance reduction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology68(2): 247–260.
36.
SmithSMFabrigarLRNorrisME (2008) Reflecting on six decades of selective exposure research: progress, challenges, and opportunities. Social and Personality Psychology Compass2(1): 464–493.
37.
SpohrD (2017) Fake news and ideological polarization. Business Information Review34(3): 150–160.
38.
TaddickenM (2013) Climate change from the user’s perspective. Journal of Media Psychology25(1): 39–52.
39.
TaddickenMReifAHoppeI (2018) What do people know about climate change ― and how confident are they? On measurements and analyses of science related knowledge. Journal of Science Communication17(03): A01.
40.
TaddickenMWolffL (2020) ‘Fake news’ in science communication: Emotions and strategies of coping with dissonance online. Media and Communication8(1): 206–217.
41.
van der LindenSLeiserowitzARosenthalS, et al. (2017) Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Global Challenges1(2): 1600008.
42.
WatsonDClarkLATellegenA (1988) Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology54(6): 1063–1070.
43.
WicklundRABrehmJW (1976) Perspectives on Cognitive Dissonance. New York: Psychology Press.
44.
WirthWBrechtM (1999) Selektion und Rezeption im WWW: Eine Typologie [Selection and Reception in the WWW: A Typology]. In: WirthWSchweigerW (eds) Selektion im Internet [Selection in the Internet]: Empirische Analysen zu einem Schlüsselkonzept [Empirical analyses of a key concept]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 149–180.
45.
YanPSchroederRStierS (2021) Is there a link between climate change scepticism and populism? An analysis of web tracking and survey data from Europe and the US. Information, Communication & Society. Epub ahead of print 7 January. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2020.1864005.
ZillichAFGuentherL (2021) Selective exposure to information on the internet: measuring cognitive dissonance and selective exposure with eye-tracking. International Journal of Communication15: 20.
48.
ZillichAFKesslerSH (2019) Measuring selective exposure to online information: combining eye-tracking and content analysis of users’ actual search behavior. In: PeterCTeresa K.NaabRinaldoKühne (eds) Measuring Media Use and Exposure.: Recent Developments and Challenges. Köln: Herbert von Halem, pp. 196–220.
49.
ZimmermannFKohringM (2020a) Aktuelle Desinformation—Definition und Einordnung einer gesellschaftlichen Herausforderung [Current disinformation—definition and classification of a social challenge]. In: HohlfeldRHarnischmacherMHeinkeELehnerLSenglM (eds) Fake News Und Desinformation [Fake News and Disinformation]. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, pp. 21–42.
50.
ZimmermannFKohringM (2020b) Mistrust, disinforming news, and vote choice: a panel survey on the origins and consequences of believing disinformation in the 2017 German parliamentary election. Political Communication37(2): 215–237.
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.
