This paper analyzes the role of different origins to news media in selective exposure. We rely on a unique web-tracking online dataset from Spain to identify points of access to news outlets and study the influence of direct navigation and news-referred platforms (i.e., from Facebook and Google) on selective exposure. We also explore cross-level interactions between origins to news and political interest and ideology. We find that direct navigation increases selective exposure while Google reduces it. We also find that the relationship between origins to news and selective exposure is strongly moderated by ideology, suggesting that search engines and social media are not content neutral. Our findings suggest a rather complex picture regarding selective exposure online.
AtheySusanMobiusMarkusPálJeno. 2017. “The Impact of Aggregators on Internet News Consumption.” Working Paper. Stanford University, Stanford.
4.
BakshyEytanMessingSolomonAdamicLada A. 2015. “Exposure to Ideologically Diverse News and Opinion on Facebook.” Science348 (6239): 1130–32.
5.
BarberáPablo. 2014. “How Social Media Reduces Mass Political Polarization. Evidence from Germany, Spain, and the U.S.” Job Market Paper, New York University, New York.
6.
BarberáPabloJostJohn T.NaglerJonathanTuckerJoshua A.BonneauRichard. 2015. “Tweeting From Left to Right: Is Online Political Communication More Than an Echo Chamber?” Psychological Science26 (10): 1531–42.
7.
BarberáPabloSoodGaurav. 2015. “Follow Your Ideology: A Measure of Ideological Location of Media Sources.” In: Annual Meeting of the European Political Science Association. Vienna, Austria. http://www.gsood.com/research/papers/mediabias.pdf.
8.
BenklerYochai. 2006. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. Yale: Yale University Press.
9.
BennettW. LanceIyengarShanto. 2008. “A New Era of Minimal Effects? The Changing Foundations of Political Communication.” Journal of Communication58 (4): 707–31.
10.
BrightJonathan. 2016. “The Social News Gap: How News Reading and News Sharing Diverge.” Journal of Communication66 (3): 343–65.
11.
BrundidgeJennifer. 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.
12.
BrunsAxel. 2017. “Echo Chamber? What Echo Chamber? Reviewing the Evidence.” Paper presented at the 6th Biennial Future of Journalism Conference (FOJ17), Cardiff, UK, September 14–15.
ColleoniElanorRozzaAlessandroArvidssonAdam. 2014. “Echo Chamber or Public Sphere? Predicting Political Orientation and Measuring Political Homophily in Twitter Using Big Data.” Journal of Communication64 (2): 317–32.
15.
ConoverMichaelRatkiewiczJacobFranciscoMatthewGonçalvesBrunoMenczerFilippoFlamminiAlessandro. 2011. “Political Polarization on Twitter.” ICWSM133:89–96.
16.
ConversePhilip E.1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, ed. ApterDavid, 260–61. New York: Free Press.
DruckmanJames N.FeinJordanLeeperThomas J. 2012. “A Source of Bias in Public Opinion Stability.” American Political Science Review106 (2): 430–54.
19.
DuboisElizabethBlankGrant. 2018. “The Echo Chamber Is Overstated: The Moderating Effect of Political Interest and Diverse Media.” Information, Communication & Society21 (5): 729–45.
20.
DuttonWilliamReisdorfBiancaDuboisElizabethBlankGrant. 2017. “Search and Politics: The Uses and Impacts of Search in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the United States.” Quello Center Working Paper No. 5-1-17. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2960697.
21.
Dvir-GvirsmanShiraTsfatiYarivMenchen-TrevinoEricka. 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 and Society18 (5): 857–77.
22.
EpsteinRobertRobertsonRonald E. 2015. “The Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME) and Its Possible Impact on the Outcomes of Elections.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences112(33):4512–21.
FestingerLeon. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
25.
FlaxmanSethGoelSharadRaoJustin. 2016. “Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online News Consumption.” Public Opinion Quarterly80 (S1): 298–320.
26.
FletcherRichardNielsenRasmus K. 2018. “Automated Serendipity: The Effect of Using Search Engines on News Repertoire Balance and Diversity.” Digital Journalism6 (8): 976–89.
27.
GarrettR. Kelly. 2009a. “Echo Chambers Online? Politically Motivated Selective Exposure among Internet News Users.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication14 (2): 265–85.
28.
GarrettR. Kelly. 2009b. “Politically Motivated Reinforcement Seeking: Reframing the Selective Exposure Debate.” Journal of Communication59 (4): 676–99.
29.
GentzkowMatthewShapiroJesse M. 2011. “Ideological Segregation Online and Offline.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics126 (4): 1799–1839.
30.
GoldmanSeth K.MutzDiana C. 2011. “The friendly media phenomenon: A cross-national analysis of cross-cutting exposure.” Political Communication28 (1): 42–66.
31.
GottfriedJeffreyShearerElisa. 2016. News Use Across Social Medial Platforms 2016. Pew Research Center.
32.
GranovetterMark S.1977. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” Social Networks2:347–67.
33.
GuessAndrew M.2016. “Media Choice and Moderation: Evidence from Online Tracking Data. New York University. Social Media and Political Participation (SMaPP)”.
34.
HaasAlexanderUnkelJulian. 2017. “Ranking versus Reputation: Perception and Effects of Search Result Credibility.” Behaviour and Information Technology36 (12): 1285–98.
35.
HallinDaniel C.PaoloMancini. 2004. Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics. Cambridge university press.
36.
HaimMarioGraefeAndreasBrosiusHan-Bernd. 2018. “Burst of the Filter Bubble? Effects of Personalization on the Diversity of Google News.” Digital Journalism6 (3): 330–43.
HannakAniko SapiezynskiKakhkiPiotr MolaviKrishnamurthyAreshLazerBalachanderMisloveDavidAlanWilsonChristo. 2013. “Measuring Personalization of Web Search.” In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web, 527–38. https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2488435.
39.
HartWilliamAlbarracínDoloresEaglyAlice H.BrechanIngeLindbergMatthew J.MerrillLisa. 2009. “Feeling Validated versus Being Correct: A Meta-Analysis of Selective Exposure to Information.” Psychological Bulletin135 (4): 555–88.
40.
HoangVan TienSpognardiAngeloTiezziFrancescoPetrocchiMarinellaDe NicolaRocco. 2015. “Domain-Specific Queries and Web Search Personalization: Some Investigations.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.03902.
41.
IyengarShantoHahnKyu S. 2009. “Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use.” Journal of Communication59 (1): 19–39.
42.
KatzElihuLazarsfeldPaulRoperElmo. 1955. Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communication. New York: Routledge.
43.
KlapperJoseph. T.1960. The effects of mass communication. New York, NY, US: Free Press.
44.
KimYonghwanChenHsuan-TingDe ZúñigaHomero Gil. 2013. “Stumbling Upon News on the Internet: Effects of Incidental News Exposure and Relative Entertainment Use on Political Engagement.” Computers in Human Behavior29 (6): 2607–14.
45.
Knobloch-WesterwickSilviaJohnsonBenjamin K.WesterwickAxel. 2015. “Confirmation Bias in Online Searches: Impacts of Selective Exposure before an Election on Political Attitude Strength and Shifts.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication20 (2): 171–87.
46.
Knobloch-WesterwickSilviaKleinmanSteven B. 2012. “Preelection Selective Exposure: Confirmation Bias versus Informational Utility.” Communication Research39 (2): 170–93.
47.
Knobloch-WesterwickSilviaMengJingbo. 2009. “Looking the Other Way: Selective Exposure to Attitude-Consistent and Counterattitudinal Political Information.” Communication Research36 (3): 426–48.
48.
Knobloch-WesterwickSilviaSharmaNikhlHansenDerek L.AlterScott. 2005. “Impact of Popularity Indications on Readers’ Selective Exposure to Online News.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media49 (3): 296–313.
49.
LazarsfeldPaul FelixBerelsonBernardGaudetHazel. 1944. The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.
50.
McPhersonMillerSmith-LovinLynnCookJames M. 2001. “Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks.” Annual Review of Sociology27 (1): 415–44.
51.
MellonJonathanProsserChristopher. 2017. “Twitter and Facebook Are Not Representative of the General Population: Political Attitudes and Demographics of British Social Media Users.” Research and Politics4 (3). doi:10.1177/2053168017720008.
52.
MessingSolomonWestwoodSean. 2012. “Selective Exposure in the Age of Social Media: Endorsements Trump Partisan Source Affiliation When Selecting News Online.” Communication Research41 (8): 1042–63.
53.
MuñozJordiTormosRaul. 2015. “Economic expectations and support for secession in Catalonia: between causality and rationalization”. European Political Science Review7(2): 315-341.
54.
MurphyJamieCharlesHofackerRichardMizerski. 2006. “Primacy and Recency Effects on Clicking Behavior.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication11 (2): 522–35.
55.
MutzDiana C.MartinPauk. 2001. “Facilitating Communication Across Lines of Political Difference: The Role of Mass Media.” American Political Science Review95 (1): 97–114.
56.
MutzDiana C.MondakJeffery J. 2006. “The workplace as a context for cross-cutting political discourse.” The Journal of Politics68 (1): 140–155.
57.
NechushtaiEfratLewisSeth. 2019. “What Kind of News Gatekeepers Do We Want Machines to Be? Filter Bubbles, Fragmentation, and the Normative Dimensions of Algorithmic Recommendations.” Computers in Human Behavior90:298–307.
58.
NelsonJacob L.WebsterJames G. 2017. “The Myth of Partisan Selective Exposure: A Portrait of the Online Political News Audience.” Social Media + Society3 (3): 22–46.
PariserEli. 2011. The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. London: Penguin.
62.
PriorMarkus. 2008. “Are Hyperlinks ‘weak ties.’” In The Hyperlinked Society: Questioning Connections in the Digital Age, ed. TurowJosephTsuiLokman, 227–49. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
63.
PriorMarkus. 2013. “Media and political polarization.” Annual Review of Political Science16: 101–127.
RoblesJosé ManuelMolinaÓscarDe MarcoStefano. 2012. “Participación política digital y brecha digital política en España. Un estudio de las desigualdades digitales.” Arbor188 (756): 795–810.
66.
SingerJane B.2014. “User-Generated Visibility: Secondary Gatekeeping in a Shared Media Space.” New Media and Society16 (1): 55–73.
67.
StroudNatalie J.2008. “Media Use and Political Predispositions: Revisiting the Concept of Selective Exposure.” Political Behavior30 (3): 341–66.
68.
StroudNatalie J.2011. Niche News: The Politics of News Choice. Oxford: Oxford University.
69.
SundarS. ShyamKnobloch-WesterwickSilviaHastallMatthias R. 2007. “News Cues: Information Scent and Cognitive Heuristics.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology58 (3): 366–78.
70.
SundarS. ShyamNassClifford. 2001. “Conceptualizing Sources in Online News.” Journal of Communication51 (1): 52–72.
71.
SunsteinCass R.2009. Republic.com 2.0. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
72.
TewksburyDavidWeaverAndrew J.MaddexBrett D. 2001. “Accidentally informed: Incidental news exposure on the World Wide Web.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly78 (3): 533–554.
73.
TurnerJoel. 2007. “The Messenger Overwhelming the Message: Ideological Cues and Perceptions of Bias in Television News.” Political Behavior29 (4): 441–64.
74.
VaccariCristianValerianiAugustoBarberáPabloJostJohn T.NaglerJonathanTuckerJosuha A.2016. “Of Echo Chambers and Contrarian Clubs: Exposure to Political Disagreement among German and Italian Users of Twitter.” Social Media + Society, 2(3): 98-114.
75.
ValentinoNicholas A.BanksAntoine J.Hutchings LVincentDavisAnne K. 2009. “Selective Exposure in the Internet Age: The Interaction between Anxiety and Information Utility.” Political Psychology30 (4): 591–613.
76.
ValerianiAugustoVaccariCristian. 2015. “Accidental Exposure to Politics on Social Media as Online Participation Equalizer in Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom.” New Media and Society18 (9): 1857–74.
77.
WeeksBrian E.KsiazekThomas B.HolbertR. Lance. 2016. “Partisan Enclaves or Shared Media Experiences? A Network Approach to Understanding Citizens’ Political News Environments.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media60 (2): 248–68.
78.
WojcieszakMagdalena E.MutzDiana C. 2009. “Online Groups and Political Discourse: Do Online Discussion Spaces Facilitate Exposure to Political Disagreement?” Journal of Communication59 (1): 40–56.
79.
ZallerJohn. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Los Angeles: Cambridge University Press.
80.
Zuiderveen BorgesiusFrederikTrillingDamianMoellerJudithBodóBalázsde VreeseClaes H.HelbergerNatali. 2016. “Should We Worry about Filter Bubbles?” Internet Policy Review5 (1): 56–98.
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.
