Pathways from incidental news exposure to political knowledge: Examining paradoxical effects of political discussion on social media with strong and weak ties
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online January, 2026
Pathways from incidental news exposure to political knowledge: Examining paradoxical effects of political discussion on social media with strong and weak ties
This study advances the theoretical understanding of the effects of incidental news exposure on political knowledge by probing the mechanisms through which exposure transfers to learning. Two studies in the U.S. across both non-election and election settings test the centrality of political discussion on social media with strong and weak ties in explaining this relationship. Findings across both studies show no significant direct associations between incidental news exposure and political knowledge. However, mediation analyses suggest that incidental news exposure can influence political knowledge when mediated by interpersonal political conversations on social media: discussions with strong ties contribute to political knowledge, but discussions with weak ties are detrimental. Furthermore, the indirect effects via strong and weak ties are significantly conditioned by one’s cognitive ability. The findings highlight the conditions under which incidental news exposure helps yet also hinders individuals’ political knowledge.
AhmedS (2022) Disinformation sharing thrives with fear of missing out among low cognitive news users: A cross-national examination of intentional sharing of deep fakes. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media66(1): 89–109.
2.
AhmedSGil-LopezT (2022) Incidental news exposure on social media and political participation gaps: Unraveling the role of education and social networks. Telematics and Informatics68: 101764.
3.
AhmedSRasulME (2023). Examining the association between social media fatigue, cognitive ability, narcissism and misinformation sharing: cross-national evidence from eight countries. Scientific Reports13(1): 15416.
4.
AmsalemENirL (2019) Does interpersonal discussion increase political knowledge? A meta-analysis. Communication Research48(5): 619–641. DOI: 10.1177/0093650219866357.
5.
AnspachNM (2017) The new personal influence: How our Facebook friends influence the news we read. Political Communication34(4): 590–606. DOI: 10.1080/10584609.2017.1316329.
6.
AralSVan AlstyneM (2011) The diversity-bandwidth trade-off. American Journal of Sociology117(1): 90–171. DOI: 10.1086/661238.
7.
Ardèvol-AbreuADiehlTGil de ZúñigaH (2017) Antecedents of internal political efficacy incidental news exposure online and the mediating role of political discussion. Politics39(1): 82–100. DOI: 10.1177/0263395717693251.
8.
BrandtMJCrawfordJT (2016) Answering unresolved questions about the relationship between cognitive ability and prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science7(8): 884–892. DOI: 10.1177/1948550616660592.
9.
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. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01509.x.
10.
BullockJGHaSE (2011) Mediation analysis is harder than it looks. In: DruckmanJNGreeneDPKuklinskiJH (eds.) Cambridge handbook of experimental political science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 508–521.
11.
BullockJGGreenDPHaSE (2010) Yes, but what’s the mechanism? (Don’t expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology98(4): 550–558. DOI: 10.1037/a0018933.
12.
CaplanBMillerSJ (2010) Intelligence makes people think like economists: Evidence from the General Social Survey. Intelligence38(6): 636–647. DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2010.09.005.
ChanMHuPMakMKF (2020) Mediation analysis and warranted inferences in media and Communication research: Examining research design in communication journals from 1996 to 2017. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly99(2): 463–486. DOI: 10.1177/1077699020961519.
15.
ChoJShahDVMcLeodJM, et al (2009) Campaigns, reflection, and deliberation: Advancing an O-S-R-O-R model of communication effects. Communication Theory19(1): 66–88. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.01333.x.
16.
CoenenL (2022) The indirect effect is omitted variable bias. A cautionary note on the theoretical interpretation of products-of-coefficients in mediation analyses. European Journal of Communication37(6): 679–688. DOI: 10.1177/02673231221082244.
17.
DownsAJ (1957) An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of Political Economy65(2): 135–150. DOI: 10.1086/257897.
18.
EvelandWP (2001) The cognitive mediation model of learning from the news: Evidence from nonelection, off-year election, and presidential election contexts. Communication Research28(5): 571–601. DOI: 10.1177/009365001028005001.
19.
EvelandWP (2002) News information processing as mediator of the relationship between motivations and political knowledge. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly79(1): 26–40. DOI: 10.1177/107769900207900103.
20.
EvelandWP (2004) The effect of political discussion in producing informed citizens: The roles of information, motivation, and elaboration. Political Communication21(2): 177–193. DOI: 10.1080/10584600490443877.
21.
EvelandWPHivelyMH (2009) Political discussion frequency, network size, and “heterogeneity” of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation. Journal of Communication59(2): 205–224. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01412.x.
22.
FeezellJTOrtizB (2019) ‘I saw it on Facebook’: An experimental analysis of political learning through social media. Information, Communication and Society24(9): 1283–1302. DOI: 10.1080/1369118x.2019.1697340.
23.
FiedlerKSchottMMeiserT (2011) What mediation analysis can (not) do. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology47(6): 1231–1236. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.05.007.
24.
FletcherRNielsenRK (2017) Are people incidentally exposed to news on social media? A comparative analysis. New Media and Society20(7): 2450–2468. DOI: 10.1177/1461444817724170.
25.
FrederickS (2005) Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives19(4): 25–42. DOI: 10.1257/089533005775196732.
26.
Gil de ZúñigaHGBorahPGoyanesM (2021) How do people learn about politics when inadvertently exposed to news? Incidental news paradoxical direct and indirect effects on political knowledge. Computers in Human Behavior121: 106803. DOI 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106803.
27.
Gil de ZúñigaHGValenzuelaS (2010) The mediating path to a stronger citizenship: Online and offline networks, weak ties, and civic engagement. Communication Research38(3): 397–421. DOI: 10.1177/0093650210384984.
28.
GranovetterM (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology78(6): 1360–1380. DOI: 10.1086/225469.
29.
JungNKimYGil de ZúñigaHG (2011) The mediating role of knowledge and efficacy in the effects of communication on political participation. Mass Communication and Society14(4): 407–430. DOI: 10.1080/15205436.2010.496135.
30.
KarnowskiVKümpelASLeonhardL, et al (2017) From incidental news exposure to news engagement: How perceptions of the news post and news usage patterns influence engagement with news articles encountered on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior76: 42–50. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.041.
31.
KenskiKStroudNJ (2006) Connections between Internet use and political efficacy, knowledge, and participation. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media50(2): 173–192. DOI: 10.1207/s15506878jobem5002_1.
32.
KimYChenHGil de ZúñigaHG (2013) Stumbling upon news on the Internet: Effects of incidental news exposure and relative entertainment use on political engagement. Computers in Human Behavior29(6): 2607–2614. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.005.
33.
KlineRB (2015) The mediation myth. Basic and Applied Social Psychology37(4): 202–213. DOI: 10.1080/01973533.2015.1049349.
34.
KwakNLaneDSWeeksBE, et al (2020) Now we’re talking? Understanding the interplay between online selective and incidental exposure and their influence on online cross-cutting political discussion. Social Science Computer Review40(3): 579–597. DOI: 10.1177/0894439320920790.
35.
LeeHKwakNCampbellSW (2013) Hearing the other side revisited: The joint workings of cross-cutting discussion and strong tie homogeneity in facilitating deliberative and participatory democracy. Communication Research42(4): 569–596. DOI: 10.1177/0093650213483824.
36.
LeeJKKimE (2017) Incidental exposure to news: Predictors in the social media setting and effects on information gain online. Computers in Human Behavior75: 1008–1015. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.018.
37.
LeeSXenosMA (2020) Incidental news exposure via social media and political participation: Evidence of reciprocal effects. New Media and Society24(1): 178–201. DOI: 10.1177/1461444820962121.
38.
LimC (2008) Social networks and political participation: How do networks matter?Social Forces87(2): 961–982. DOI: 10.1353/sof.0.0143.
MatthesJNanzAStubenvollM, et al (2020) Processing news on social media: The political incidental news exposure model (PINE). Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism21(8): 1031–1048. DOI: 10.1177/1464884920915371.
41.
MorrisDSMorrisJS (2017) Evolving learning: The changing effect of Internet access on political knowledge and engagement (1998–2012). Sociological Forum32(2): 339–358. DOI: 10.1111/socf.12333.
42.
MutzDC (2006) Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43.
NanzAMatthesJ (2020) Learning from incidental exposure to political information in online environments. Journal of Communication70(6): 769–793. DOI: 10.1093/joc/jqaa031.
44.
NanzAMatthesJ (2022) Democratic consequences of incidental exposure to political information: A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication72(3): 345–373. DOI: 10.1093/joc/jqac008.
Oeldorf-HirschA (2017) The role of engagement in learning from active and incidental news exposure on social media. Mass Communication and Society21(2): 225–247. DOI: 10.1080/15205436.2017.1384022.
47.
OgnyanovaK (2020) Contagious politics: Tie strength and the spread of political knowledge. Communication Research49(1): 116–138. DOI: 10.1177/0093650220924179.
48.
PennycookGRandDG (2019) Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition188: 39–50. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011.
49.
PennycookGRossRMKoehlerDJ, et al (2016) Atheists and agnostics are more reflective than religious believers: Four empirical studies and a meta-analysis. PLOS ONE11(4): e0153039. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153039.
50.
RasmussenSHR (2015) Education or personality traits and intelligence as determinants of political knowledge?Political Studies64(4): 1036–1054. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9248.12214.
51.
ShahDVChoJEvelandWP, et al (2005) Information and expression in a digital age: Modeling Internet effects on civic participation. Communication Research32(5): 531–565. DOI: 10.1177/0093650205279209.
52.
ShahDVChoJNahS, et al (2007) Campaign ads, online messaging, and participation: Extending the communication mediation model. Journal of Communication57(4): 676–703. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00363.x.
53.
ShehataAHopmannDNNordLHöijerJ (2015) Television channel content profiles and differential knowledge growth: A test of the inadvertent learning hypothesis using panel data. Political Communication32(3): 377–395. DOI: 10.1080/10584609.2014.955223.
54.
StraitsBC (1991) Bringing strong ties back in interpersonal gateways to political information and influence. Public Opinion Quarterly55(3): 432. DOI: 10.1086/269272.
55.
TewksburyDWeaverAJMaddexBD (2001) Accidentally informed: Incidental news exposure on the world wide web. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly78(3): 533–554. DOI: 10.1177/107769900107800309.
56.
ValenzuelaSCorreaTGil de ZúñigaHG (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. DOI: 10.1080/10584609.2017.1334726.
57.
ValenzuelaSKimYGil de ZúñigaHG (2011) Social networks that matter: Exploring the role of political discussion for online political participation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research24(2): 163–184. DOI: 10.1093/ijpor/edr037.
58.
WeeksBELaneDSHahnL (2021) Online incidental exposure to news can minimize interest-based political knowledge gaps: Evidence from two U.S. elections. The International Journal of Press/Politics27(1): 243–262. DOI: 10.1177/1940161221991550.
59.
WeeksBELaneDSKimDH, et 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. DOI: 10.1111/jcc4.12199.
60.
XenosMAVromenALoaderBD (2014) The great equalizer? Patterns of social media use and youth political engagement in three advanced democracies. Information, Communication and Society17(2): 151–167. DOI: 10.1080/1369118x.2013.871318.
61.
YooSWGil de ZúñigaHG (2019) The role of heterogeneous political discussion and partisanship on the effects of incidental news exposure online. Journal of Information Technology and Politics16(1): 20–35. DOI: 10.1080/19331681.2018.1561346.
62.
ZallerJ (1992) The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University Press.
63.
ZhuQWeeksBEKwakN (2021) Implications of online incidental and selective exposure for political emotions: Affective polarization during elections. New Media and Society26(1): 450–472. DOI: 10.1177/14614448211061336.
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.
