Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Most work on selective exposure comes from the United States or other western democracies and typically examines partisan attitudes as the cognitive or motivational drivers of selectivity. This study extends the boundary conditions of existing literature by studying the factors affecting media choice in the Islamic Republic of Iran, a drastically understudied context. Within the overarching framework of motivated reasoning, we propose two theoretically relevant factors that should drive selective exposure into regime media or non-regime alternatives in authoritarian contexts: (1) system-justifying attitudes and (2) regime-sanctioned identities, here religiosity. Relying on two different surveys conducted within Iran in 2012 and 2016, we find that religiosity strongly predicts the reliance on non-regime media in both studies, whereas system-justifying attitudes predict selectivity in Study 2. Theoretical implications for the selectivity literature are discussed.

Keywords

selectivity media choice Iran attitudes religiosity regimes

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

2016 Bertelsmann Transformations Index (2016). Available at https://www.bti-project.org/en/reports/downloads/bti-2016/

Alikhah

2018. “A Brief History of the Development of Satellite Channels in Iran.” Global Media and Communication 14: 3–29.

Alston

J. P.

1975. “Three Measures of Current Levels of Religiosity.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 14 (2): 165–68. doi:10.2307/1384739

Bailard

C. S.

2014. Democracy’s Double-Edged Sword: How Internet Use Changes Citizens’ Views of Their Government. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Behrouzian

Nisbet

E. C.

Dal

Çarkoğlu

2016. “Resisting Censorship: How Citizens Navigate Closed Media Environments.” International Journal of Communication 10: 4345–67.

Bou-Hamad

Yehya

N. A.

(2016). Partisan Selective Exposure in TV Consumption Patterns: A Polarized Developing Country Context. Communication Research, 0093650216681896.

Brenes

Wojcieszak

Lelkes

de Vreese

2017. “Selective Exposure to Balanced Content and Evidence Type: The Case of Issue and Non-issue Publics about Climate Change and Health Care.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 94:833–61.

Brumberg

. (2018). “Iran and Democracy.” Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace. https://iranprimer.usip.org/sites/default/files/Iran%20and%20Democracy.pdf

Cherribi

2006. “From Baghdad to Paris, Al Jazeera and the Veil.” Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 11:121–38.

10.

Dvir-Gvirsman

Tsfati

Menchen-Trevino

2016. “The Extent and Nature of Ideological Selective Exposure Online: Combining Survey Responses with Actual Web Log Data from the 2013 Israeli Elections.” New Media & Society 18 (5): 857–77.

11.

Fahmy

Wanta

Nisbet

E. C.

2012. “Mediated Public Diplomacy: Satellite TV News in the Arab World and Perception Effects.” International Communication Gazette 74 (8): 728–49. doi:10.1177/1748048512459144.

12.

Festinger

1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

13.

Flaxman

Goel

Rao

J. M.

2016. “Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online News Consumption.” Public Opinion Quarterly 80 (S1): 298–320.

14.

Freedom House. 2016. “Freedom in the World 2016—Anxious Dictators, Wavering Democracies: Global Freedom Under Pressure.” https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FH_FITW_Report_2016.pdf.

15.

Freedom House. 2017. “Freedom on the Net 2017—Manipulating Social Media to Undermine Democracy.” https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FOTN_2017_Final.pdf.

16.

Garrett

R. K.

2009. “Politically Motivated Reinforcement Seeking: Reframing the Selective Exposure Debate.” Journal of Communication 59 (4): 676–99. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01452.x.

17.

Garrett

R. K.

Stroud

N. J.

2014. “Partisan Paths to Exposure Diversity: Differences in Pro- and Counterattitudinal News Consumption.” Journal of Communication 64 (4): 680–701.

18.

Geddes

Zaller

1989. “Sources of Popular Support for Authoritarian Regimes.” American Journal of Political Science 33:319–47.

19.

Gentzkow

Shapiro

J. M.

2011. “Ideological Segregation Online and Offline.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 126 (4): 1799–1839.

20.

Golan

Kiousis

2010. “Religion, Media Credibility, and Support for Democracy in the Arab World.” Journal of Media and Religion 9:84–98.

21.

Goldman

S. K.

Mutz

D. C.

2011. “The Friendly Media Phenomenon: A Cross-National Analysis of Cross-Cutting Exposure.” Political Communication 28 (1): 42–66.

22.

Guess

(2018). “(Almost) Everything in Moderation: New Evidence on Americans’ Online Media Diets.” Unpublished manuscript. available at https://webspace.princeton.edu/users/aguess/Guess_OnlineMediaDiets.pdf.

23.

Hallin

D. C.

Mancini

2004. Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

24.

Hart

Albarracín

Eagly

Brechan

Lindberg

Merrill

2009. “Feeling Validated Versus Being Correct: A Meta-Analysis of Selective Exposure to Information.” Psychological Bulletin 135 (4): 555–88. doi:10.1037/a0015701.

25.

Henrich

Heine

S. J.

Norenzayan

2010. “Most People Are Not WEIRD.” Nature 466: 29. doi:10.1038/466029a

26.

Huang

Yeh.

2017. “Information from abroad: foreign media, selective exposure, and political support in China.” British Journal of Political Science. doi: 10.1017/S0007123416000739

27.

Jost

J. T.

Banaji

M. R.

Nosek

B. A.

2004. “A Decade of System Justification Theory: Accumulated Evidence of Conscious and Unconscious Bolstering of the Status Quo.” Political Psychology 25 (6): 881–919.

28.

Jost

J. T.

Kay

A. C.

2005. “Exposure to Benevolent Sexism and Complementary Gender Stereotypes: Consequences for Specific and Diffuse Forms of System Justification.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88 (3): 498–509.

29.

Jost

J. T.

Liviatan

van der Toorn

Ledgerwood

Mandisodza

Nosek

B. A.

(2010). System justification: How do we know it’s motivated? In Bobocel

D. R.

Kay

A. C.

Zanna

M. P.

Olson

J. M.

(Eds.), The psychology of justice and legitimacy: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 11, pp. 173–203). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

30.

Jost

J. T.

van der Toorn

(2011). “System Justification Theory.” In Van Lange

Paul A. M.

Kruglanski

Arie W.

Tory

(Eds.), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 313–43). London: Sage.

31.

Kay

A. C.

Jost

J. T.

2003. “Complementary Justice: Effects of ‘Poor but Happy’ and ‘Poor but Honest’ Stereotype Exemplars on System Justification and Implicit Activation of the Justice Motive.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85: 823–37.

32.

Kim

Y. M.

2009. “Issue Publics in the New Information Environment: Selectivity, Domain Specificity, and Extremity.” Communication Research 36 (2): 254–84.

33.

Knobloch-Westerwick

Kleinman

S. B.

2012. “Preelection Selective Exposure: Confirmation Bias versus Informational Utility.” Communication Research 39 (2): 170–93.

34.

Knobloch-Westerwick

Meng

2009. “Looking the Other Way: Selective Exposure to Attitude-Consistent and Counterattitudinal Political Information.” Communication Research 36 (3): 426–48.

35.

Knobloch-Westerwick

Mothes

Johnson

B. K.

Westerwick

Donsbach

2015. “Political Online Information Searching in Germany and the United States: Confirmation Bias, Source Credibility, and Attitude Impacts.” Journal of Communication 65 (3): 489–511.

36.

Kobayashi

Ikeda

K. I.

2009. “Selective Exposure in Political Web Browsing: Empirical Verification of ‘Cyber-Balkanization’ in Japan and the USA.” Information, Communication & Society 12 (6): 929–53.

37.

Kolsto

Blakkisrud

2017. The New Russian Nationalism: Imperialism, Ethnicity, Authoritarianism 2000–15. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

38.

Kunda

1990. “The Case for Motivated Reasoning.” Psychological Bulletin 108 (3): 480–98.

39.

Linz

J. J.

2000. Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

40.

Lodge

Taber

2013. The Rationalizing Voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

41.

Metzger

M. J.

Hartsell

E. H.

Flanagin

A. J.

2015. “Cognitive Dissonance or Credibility? A Comparison of Two Theoretical Explanations for Selective Exposure to Partisan News.” Communication Research. Published electronically November 26. doi:10.1177/0093650215613136.

42.

Newland

S. A.

Lorentzen

2015. “Countering Liberation Technology: Internet Access and Media Freedom in Autocracies.” http://peterlorentzen.com/research_files/Newland_Lorentzen_Media.pdf

43.

Newman

T. P.

Nisbet

E. C.

Nisbet

M. C.

2018. “Climate Change, Cultural Cognition, and Media Effects: Worldviews Drive News Selectivity, Biased Processing, and Polarized Attitudes.” Public Understanding of Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518801170

44.

Nisbet

E. C.

2008. “Media Use, Democratic Citizenship, and Communicating Gaps in a Developing Democracy.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 20 (4): 454–82. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edn043.

45.

Nisbet

E. C.

Kamenchuk

Dal

2017. “A Psychological Firewall? Risk Perceptions and Public Support for Online Censorship in Russia.” Social Science Quarterly 98 (3): 958–75.

46.

Nisbet

E. C.

Myers

2010. “Challenging the State: Transnational TV and Political Identity in the Middle East.” Political Communication 27 (4): 1–20. doi:10.1080/10584609.2010.516801.

47.

Nisbet

E. C.

Saldana

Johnson

Golan

Day

2017. “Credibility Gaps and Public Opinion within a Competitive Media Environment: The Case of Arab Satellite TV News in Lebanon.” International Journal of Communication 11:3072–95.

48.

Nisbet

E. C.

Stoycheff

Pearce

K. E.

2012. “Internet Use and Democratic Demands: A Multi-national, Multi-level Model of Internet Use and Citizen Attitudes about Democracy.” Journal of Communication 62 (1): 249–62. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01627.x.

49.

Price

M. E.

1994. “The Market for Loyalties: Electronic Media and the Global Competition for Allegiances.” The Yale Law Journal 104 (3): 667–705. doi:10.2307/797114.

50.

Price

M. E.

2002. Media and Sovereignty: The Global Information Revolution and Its Challenge to State Power. Cambridge: MIT Press.

51.

Price

M. E.

2015. Free Expression, Globalism, and the New Strategic Communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.

52.

Razi

1990. “Legitimacy, Religion, and Nationalism in the Middle East.” The American Political Science Review 84 (1): 69–91.

53.

Reporters Without Borders. 2016. “World Press Freedom Index.” https://rsf.org/en/ranking_table

54.

Soest

Grauvogel

2017. “Identity, Procedures, and Performance: How Authoritarian Regimes Legitimize Their Rule.” Contemporary Politics 27 (3): 287–305.

55.

Stockmann

Gallagher

M. E.

2011. “Remote Control: How the Media Sustain Authoritarian Rule in China.” Comparative Political Studies 44 (4): 436–67.

56.

Stoycheff

Nisbet

E. C.

2017. “Priming the Costs of Conflict? Russian Public Opinion about the 2014 Crimean Conflict.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 4:657–75.

57.

Stoycheff

Nisbet

E. C.

Epstein

2016. “Differential Effects of Capital-Enhancing and Recreational Internet Use on Citizens’ Demand for Democracy.” Communication Research. doi:10.1177/0093650216644645

58.

Stroud

N. J.

2011. Niche News: The Politics of News Choice. New York: Oxford University Press.

59.

Valentino

N. A.

Banks

A. J.

Hutchings

V. L.

Davis

A. K.

2009. “Selective Exposure in the Internet Age: The Interaction between Anxiety and Information Utility.” Political Psychology 30 (4): 591–613.

60.

Westerwick

Kleinman

S. B.

Knobloch-Westerwick

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 Communication 63 (3): 432–53.

61.

Wojcieszak

2007. “Al Jazeera: A Challenge to the Traditional Framing Research.” International Communication Gazette 69 (2): 115–28.

62.

Wojcieszak

Garrett

R. K.

2018. “Social Identity, Selective Exposure, and Affective Polarization: How Priming National Identity Shapes Attitudes toward Immigrants via News Selection.” Human Communication Research 44(3): 247–273.

63.

Wojcieszak

Smith

2014. “Will Politics be Tweeted? New Media Use by Iranian Youth in 2011.” New Media & Society 16 (1): 91–109.

64.

Wojcieszak

Smith

Enayat

2013. “Finding a Way—How Iranian Reach for News and Information.” Iran Media Program. http://repository.upenn.edu/iranmediaprogram/3.

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.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB

What Drives Media Use in Authoritarian Regimes? Extending Selective Exposure Theory to Iran

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material