Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The ubiquitous presence of smartphones has led to their prominence as a dominant source of news for a vast majority of people. In this context, the impact of mobile technology’s affordances, including access, applications, and mobile alerts, on news engagement has been the subject of numerous studies. At the same time, recent research has found an increase in those who either have very low news usage or intentionally or unintentionally avoid news. Within a deliberative public sphere perspective, habitual news avoidance presents many problems, including lack of civic engagement and lack of critical information for partaking in public life. Drawing on framing theory and results from two experimental studies, this research sought to examine the intersection of the promise of mobile news alerts for enhancing news engagement intentions and curiosity among high-level news avoiders. Study 1 shows that positive frames in mobile alerts are associated with higher engagement intentions in high news avoiders, and this effect is mediated by curiosity. In study 2, the results show that positive framing with three facts is associated with higher levels of engagement intentions, and this is mediated by curiosity. Further, the results show that for moderate news avoiders, two facts, which are negatively framed, should be used.

Keywords

Mobile news push notifications news avoidance news alerts framing theory

Introduction

The ubiquitous presence of smartphones has led to their prominence as a dominant source of news for a vast majority of people (Newman et al., 2022). In this context, researchers contend that mobile users exhibit a greater tendency to check news throughout the day, with the aid of applications and alerts, promoting both incidental and intentional news exposure at brief intervals (Newman et al., 2016; Stroud et al., 2020). Mobile news use is therefore beneficial as empirical evidence suggests that both forms of news exposure lead to enhanced civic knowledge (Feezell, 2018). News alerts hold promise as a means of fostering civic engagement, and for news organizations struggling to capture user attention in an information-rich digital world. However, the precise composition of mobile alerts and their relationship with user engagement remain understudied.

At the same time, recent research has found an increase in those who either have low news usage or intentionally or unintentionally avoid news (Newman et al., 2022). These individuals have been found to avoid news for reasons of information overload, a perception of news negativity, and a preference for other styles of content (Eppler & Mengis, 2004; Goyanes et al., 2021; Skovsgaard & Andersen, 2020). Within a deliberative public sphere perspective, news avoidance presents many problems, including lack of civic engagement and lack of critical information for partaking in public life (Bennett et al., 2008). Drawing on framing theory (Entman, 1993), the dominant model for understanding how news presentation influences audience engagement, this research examines how mobile alerts can enhance engagement intentions among high-level news avoiders by varying framing (positive vs. negative) and the number of facts presented. Overall, the findings suggest that the influence of news alert framing and fact count on engagement intentions varies by level of news avoidance. Among high-level avoiders, positively framed alerts containing three facts are associated with greater curiosity, which mediates the relationship with engagement intentions. For moderate avoiders, negatively framed alerts with two facts are more closely associated with engagement intentions, with curiosity also playing a mediating role.

This research builds upon two fields of journalism studies: news avoidance and mobile news alerts. In the first instance, it builds upon the emerging scholarship calling for our understanding of news avoidance as broader than the category of non-news users and instead to examine news avoidance as a spectrum. We, therefore, examine news avoidance as people experience it at one point in time and how tailoring the framing of a message and its number of facts should be considered in line with individuals’ level of news avoidance to achieve higher curiosity and engagement intentions. Secondly, this study examined framing within alerts for mobile news as a method of bridging incidental and intentional news exposure. We contend that it is within these less extreme (as complete non-news users) but unexamined spaces that much can be learnt to engage broader society in critical information presented in news coverage.

Mobile News and Alerts

Scholars argue that mobile users tend to snack on news throughout the day, without a conscious goal of seeking information (Molyneux, 2018). News snacking has been defined as a relaxed method of consuming bits and pieces of information (Costera Meijer & Groot Kormelink, 2015). News snacking is not about pursuing in-depth knowledge or developed opinions, but about diversion. Scholars have highlighted concerns regarding the culture of “snacking” on news, suggesting it is related to a decrease in critical civic knowledge (see Ohme & Mothes, 2023). Mobile news facilitates snacking as the technological affordances of smartphones enable short bursts of information in “empty” times. Such brief news sessions result in users being exposed to less information than they would in longer sessions, leading to lower levels of knowledge about public affairs and in turn reduced civic engagement (Bennett et al., 2008). At the same time, the behavior of “news snacking,” or the brief, intermittent attendance to news in mainly digital and mobile media contexts, can operate as a counter-strategy to news avoidance by encouraging incidental news exposure (Ohme et al., 2022).

Mobile news alerts are becoming a tool to enhance user engagement with news. Appearing directly on users’ locked screens, they offer an opportunity for both intentional and incidental news exposure (Stroud et al., 2020). As information is increasingly consumed at speed on social media, alerts from news apps or websites replicate this immediacy, helping news compete in fast-paced digital environments and the competition for attention. Mobile alerts have been shown to increase news app use, and positively impact news knowledge (Stroud et al., 2020). These alerts can enhance engagement with news by inviting the reader to move beyond snacking and click through to a full story or other forms of news engagement. Specifically, we conceptualize and measure engagement in the current research as behavioral intentions to click on links to full news stories or videos, share content on- or offline, comment on stories or blogs, and seek related news coverage (Chan-Olmsted & Wolter, 2018). Research shows that the use of mobile apps and alerts prompts more frequent news checking, promoting both intentional and incidental exposure (Newman et al., 2016; Stroud et al., 2020), which in turn can enhance civic knowledge (Feezell, 2018). Against this backdrop, strategically framing a news alert may provide an opportunity to increase news engagement.

News Avoidance

News avoidance is a growing concern for both the news industry and democracy. As news companies experience a readership decline, democracy loses its foundation of informed and engaged citizenry. Although some studies suggest potential positive effects of news avoidance, such as increased well-being (de Bruin et al., 2021; Woodstock, 2014), the overall impact on the news industry and democracy is a cause for concern. It has been established that news exposure is positively correlated with political knowledge and engagement, highlighting the potential democratic problem posed by news avoidance (Delli Carpini & Keeter, 1996).

Studies have examined news avoidance in various forms. There are those that examine those who habitually resist news (Woodstock, 2014) or take a break from it (Palmer & Toff, 2020), whereas others define news avoidance as those who avoid it entirely (Edgerly, 2017). Others have suggested that news avoidance is not only shaped by individual characteristics but is also manifested and performed as part of specific time frames and socio-cultural factors (Villi et al., 2022).

The decision to avoid news consumption can be influenced by various factors. A general distrust of media, combined with news overload and low levels of political interest, has been shown to underpin news avoidance (Goyanes et al., 2021). Time constraints can also hinder individuals from consuming news regularly (Toff & Palmer, 2019). Moreover, the abundance of news options can overwhelm individuals, leading to a tendency to avoid news (Eppler & Mengis, 2004). This information overload can also result in stress and anxiety (Eppler & Mengis, 2004). Additionally, excessive information intake can lead to fatigue and difficulties in processing information (Song et al., 2017). As a strategy to cope with cognitive concerns and information overload, some individuals choose to avoid the news.

A useful conceptualization of news avoidance is to categorize it as either intentional or unintentional (Skovsgaard & Andersen, 2020). Intentional news avoidance occurs when individuals actively choose to avoid news due to reasons such as perceived negativity, lack of trust in the media, or news overload. On the other hand, unintentional news avoidance occurs due to changing characteristics in the media environment, whereby individuals with a higher preference for entertainment turn away from news consumption without any explicit dislike of news (Skovsgaard & Andersen, 2020). This conceptualization differs from purely low news attendance, as Skovsgaard and Andersen (2020, p. 465) outline that

the preference for news is not so low that the individual will actively avoid any news that comes his or her way, but on the other hand, the preferences for other choices are stronger. This also means that the choice context is important for unintentional news avoidance. The easier it becomes to meet one’s strongest preferences the less one’s weaker preferences will be met.

Given the importance of identifying and meeting the preferences of high-level news avoiders, the current research examines mobile alerts, their framing, number of facts presented, and combinations of these elements, to understand how they may be associated with increased curiosity and engagement intentions.

A Role for Mobile Alert Framing in News Avoidance

Mobile news alerts offer a promising way to spark curiosity and encourage engagement, even among individuals with high levels of news avoidance, particularly if framed strategically. By delivering short, “bite-sized” content, they help reduce information overload, a key barrier for intentional avoiders. Additionally, their ability to integrate news within entertainment contexts and shift away from negative or traditional framing can appeal to unintentional avoiders, who simply prefer other content. When thoughtfully designed and communicated, mobile alerts could therefore foster curiosity and engagement, particularly among those who do not actively reject news but still have a higher level of news avoidance (Skovsgaard & Andersen, 2020, p. 470). Framing theory suggests that the way a story is framed can significantly impact the way audiences perceive and understand it (Entman, 1993). According to Entman (1993, p. 52):

to frame is to select some aspects of perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described.

Frames in journalism are “interpretative structures that journalists use to set particular events within their broader context” (Norris et al., 2003, p. 10). Entman’s framing theory continues to be used to address the complexities of digital and mobile news environments. Lecheler and de Vreese (2018) emphasize that digital platforms allow for more interactive and participatory framing processes than traditional media. In these high-choice media environments, framing effects are often shaped by preference-based reinforcement, as audiences self-select news frames that align with their existing attitudes, limiting or amplifying the effects of frames as well as multi-actor interactions (Arendt et al., 2023; Li & Zhang, 2024). It follows that the framing of a news alert could align with the preferences of high-level news avoiders, potentially sparking curiosity and encouraging engagement intentions, particularly when the framing is positive rather than negative.

One approach to decreasing negativity in news reporting, and thus finding potential ways to encourage curiosity and engagement in individuals with high news avoidance, has been solutions-based journalism, a positive framing of news. This alternative reporting style focuses on the solution first and foremost, rather beginning with the problem (McIntyre, 2019), and it has been suggested it could arrest news readership decline (Newman et al., 2022). Traditional journalism is often characterized by negative framing and its focus on reporting on problems (Bantz, 1997). It is acknowledged that there is a body of literature that supports the negative framing of news, finding that even though an individual may report they prefer positively framed messages, they are more likely to select and engage with negatively framed news (Trussler & Soroka, 2014). However, in the context of high-level news avoiders, it is proposed that taking a solutions-based approach would suggest framing a news alert positively and therefore making it more appealing as indicated by higher levels of engagement. As Skovsgaard and Andersen (2020) note, negativity is a key reason for both intentional and unintentional news avoidance. Thus, avoiding a negative frame and instead using a positive frame may make the news story more appealing in line with the preferences for high-level news avoiders, and be associated with higher engagement intentions. Therefore, this study will examine the role of positively framed news alerts in encouraging engagement in individuals with higher levels of news avoidance. Given that solutions-based journalism or positively based news has the potential to change behavior and, as such, increase engagement with news, this study proposes:

H1: A positively framed news alert will be associated with higher engagement intentions from a high news avoider.

Given that a response to the perception of news overload in news avoiders is a tendency to avoid news altogether (Eppler & Mengis, 2004), news alerts need to consider a frame that overcomes this perception. What needs to be evoked via framing to do so? When curiosity is aroused in a reader of a news alert, this has been found to be increase news engagement (Scacco & Muddiman, 2020). Further, research has suggested that curiosity is one of the cognitive mechanisms underlying individuals’ reactions to framing (Yuan, 2018). Scacco and Muddiman (2020) demonstrate how “curious headlines” impact information seeking and anticipated article engagement. Likewise, Janét et al. (2022) show the importance of curiosity in news engagement, outlining how people who are more curious about science are more likely to engage with environmental news stories (e.g., click, read, share, comment). The arousal of curiosity in a headline is distinct from the “click-bait” phenomenon often associated with digital news, as it is a headline that opens a salient information gap for the reader that is satisfied by further reading (Qiu & Golman, 2024). Curiosity has been theoretically examined as demonstrated through a “knowledge gap.” That is, curiosity arises when people become aware of a gap in their knowledge or when they encounter something that is novel or inconsistent with their world view (Menon & Soman, 2002). It follows, then, that arousing curiosity in a reader through story framing would overcome barriers to engagement with news. Curiosity has been shown to be inexplicably linked to the evaluation of news as it provides the motivation for seeking to close an information gap (Grunwald & Rupar, 2009).

Therefore, the following is hypothesized for the current study:

H2: Curiosity will mediate the effect of mobile news framing on engagement.

Given that one of the key aspects of mobile alerts is their size—they are usually only one to two sentences that summarize a story—it is important to evaluate any association between the amount of information presented with higher levels of curiosity and engagement intentions. Therefore, this research also considers the relationship between how the alert is framed and the number of facts provided. As positive facts may be seen as novel and better aligned with the preferences of high-level news avoiders, by deviating from the typical negative framing of news (Bantz, 1997; Harcup & O’Neill 2001), these individuals may show greater curiosity and engagement when alerts highlight multiple positive developments that counter the norms they usually avoid. Indeed, as Harcup & O’Neill (2001) found, negativity is a dominant news value, which helps explain why news avoiders disengage (Skovsgaard & Andersen, 2020). Presenting multiple positive developments or facts within a story may spark greater curiosity and engagement among individuals with higher news avoidance, more so than a single positive fact, as it more strongly counters the typical negative framing. Therefore, the study will also hypothesize:

H3a: For high news avoiders, a greater number of positive facts in a mobile news alert will be associated with higher curiosity and higher engagement intentions.

Conversely, as the number of negative facts increases, it could reduce curiosity in individuals who are actively avoiding consuming news, as this aligns with the main motivations for them to avoid. This is because the prevalence of negative news aligns with their perceived norm of reporting, creating a sense of familiarity or “same old” news. The continuous exposure to negativity can reinforce a sense of despair (de Bruin et al., 2021), further solidifying high news avoiders’ preference not to be interested in (lower levels of curiosity) or engage with news. Therefore, the final hypothesis to be tested in the current study is:

H3b: For high news avoiders, a greater number of negative facts in a mobile news alert will be associated with lower curiosity and engagement intentions.

Overview of Studies

Across three experimental studies (Table 1), the impact of positive (vs. negative) mobile news alerts on engagement among news avoiders is examined. Conducted in collaboration with Australia’s public broadcaster, the ABC, the studies use general population samples sourced via an online panel provider. They explore curiosity as a mediator and test the moderating role of the number of facts presented. Study 1 investigates how alert tone influences curiosity and engagement across varying levels of news avoidance, testing a moderated mediation model. A replication study is provided in the Online Appendix. Study 2 examines whether increasing factual content further enhances curiosity for news avoiders, testing a moderated moderated mediation model.

Table 1.

Overview of Studies.

Study	News Alert Frame	Sample Size	Number of Facts	Mediator	Outcome	Hypotheses Tested
1 (main study)	Positive vs. negative	230	1	Curiosity	Engagement intentions	H1, H2
1 (replication) reported in Online Appendix	Positive vs. negative	273	1	Curiosity	Engagement intentions	H1, H2
2	Positive vs. negative	262	3 vs. 2 vs. 1	Curiosity	Engagement intentions	H2, H3

Study 1: Positive vs. Negative Mobile News Alerts

The aim of Study 1 was to establish the impact of mobile news alert type (negative vs. positive) on engagement via curiosity, as well as the moderating role of news avoidance, testing H1 and H2.

Design, Sample, and Procedure

Study 1 was a two-level, single factorial experimental design manipulating mobile news alert type (positive vs. negative). In Study 1, 230 Australians were recruited via the online survey panel provider Prolific, and randomly allocated to one of the two mobile news alert conditions. Participants were required to complete a set of questions related to their age and gender. Participants were then required to review the mobile news alert stimuli as shown in Figure 1 for 30 seconds, after which they completed a set of questions measuring curiosity, engagement, and news avoidance. The sample was on average 32 years of age (SD = 12.86) with 49.7% identifying as working full-time, with the most prominent news type of interest being international news (32.2%), followed by business and finance (11.3%), culture (music, books, entertainment, 11.3%), and political news (9.6%). It is worth noting that this profile of prominent news type interest provides a robust sample for the current study. The focus on news avoidance, combined with the use of political news, a topic most participants did not identify as their primary interest, helps mitigate the risk of the topic aligning too closely with the preferences of a large portion of the sample. In addition, regarding the political ideology of the sample, the scale indicated that, on average, participants identified themselves as “centre” (M = 3.90, SD = 1.77). Additionally, 70% of participants reported being employed, and 40.4% identified as residing in an inner-city suburb of a capital city, followed by 48.7% identifying living in an outer suburban area of a capital city.

Figure 1.

Example Mock News Alert.

Experimental Stimuli and Measurement

The experimental stimuli used in Study 1 involved the development of a fictitious political news story regarding a snap election on a mobile news alert. The news alerts were written with the ABC push alerts editorial team, using their standards of practice (word limits and a maximum of three facts, the final fact being attribution). The editorial team news alerts policy is written to indicate that an attempt to include responses to major news events—including both positive and negative. A political news story was selected as Australia has a history of volatile leadership. In the years from 2007 there was a series of changes in the leadership of Australia’s largest political parties. For a party in government, this results in a change to the prime ministership, and from the November 2007 election until the 2019 election Australia had six prime ministers. There is also a long history of snap elections, when government reaches an impasse. Therefore, the stimulus was deemed to be appropriate for an Australian audience.

In relation to the experimental procedure, participants accessed the survey via Prolific, viewed the participant information sheet, and were informed they would see a mobile news alert. They were then randomly assigned to view either a positively or negatively framed alert (presented as a mobile screenshot). After exposure, they completed manipulation checks and measures of curiosity, engagement, and news avoidance.

For the positive mobile news alert, the alert read as “The PM calls a much welcomed snap election,” whereas for negative, the alert read as “The PM calls a widely condemned snap election” (see example in Figure 1).

To ensure the manipulations worked as intended, checks were conducted after stimulus exposure. Given the subtle nature of the wording shifts between positive and negative frames, placing the checks post-exposure helped maintain their effectiveness. Prior research supports this sequencing, showing that delayed checks prevent the manipulation from being weakened (Ejelöv & Luke, 2020).

The first manipulation check utilized the item “The news alert focused on the positives of the snap election” (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). An independent samples t-test (t = 12.34, df = 328, p < .001) confirmed that participants in the positive news alert condition reported significantly higher on the manipulation question (M = 3.10, SD = 1.20) than the negative news alert condition (M = 1.69, SD = 0.82). A second manipulation check item was also used, “The news alert focused on the negatives of the snap election,” and a t-test (t = 9.70, df = 328, p < .001) confirmed that the negative mobile news alert participants reported significantly higher levels (M = 3.59, SD = 1.26) than the participants in the positive news alert condition (M = 2.33, SD = 1.07). Thus, after confirming the manipulation worked as theorized, they were taken forward for testing.

Curiosity was measured using an adapted version of Hill et al.’s (2016) six-item scale on a 9-point scale (1 = not at all, 9 = extremely), showing good reliability and validity (loadings = .692–.860; α = .87). Engagement was assessed with four items from Schivinski et al. (2016) on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; loadings = .609–.836; α = .76). News avoidance was measured using three self-report items adapted from Goyanes et al. (2021), rated on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)—for example, “When I come across news, I move on to read/watch/listen to something else” (loadings = .72–.86; α = .67). Full item wording is available in the Online Appendix. Discriminant validity was confirmed via the Fornell and Larcker (1981) test, with average variance extracted (AVE) scores exceeding shared variances, indicating the constructs are conceptually distinct.

Covariates (Control Variables)

In line with the experimental guidelines put forth by Thorson et al. (2012), we included participant characteristics such as age and political ideology as covariates in our analysis to mitigate potential influences of other variables and theoretical explanations on our results. Age has been identified as a moderator of news consumption (Boulianne & Shehata, 2022), and participants’ political views are known to affect their engagement with news (Ohme et al., 2022).

Study 1 Results

Positive Versus Negative Alert, News Avoidance and Engagement

To first assess H1, we undertook a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), whereby the impact of positive versus negative mobile alerts, and news avoidance, on engagement was assessed, controlling for age and political ideology as covariates. Prior to conducting the ANOVA, a median split on the news avoidance variable was undertaken to identify high and low news avoiders within the sample. Although we acknowledge the limitations of median splits, their use here for H1 provides a necessary baseline for the ANOVA to explore how news avoidance interacts with alert frames. As detailed in the next section, we then move beyond this approach by applying spotlight and floodlight analyses, along with mediation, to more accurately probe continuous moderators. This stepwise progression of analyses aims to highlight how news avoidance research and other studies examining continuous moderating variables can benefit from these more advanced techniques.

The ANOVA demonstrated a non-significant main effect of positive versus negative mobile news alerts (F = 3.42, df = 1, p = .066, η_p² = .015). A significant main effect for news avoidance was observed (F = 15.63, df = 1 p < .001, η_p² = .065). A significant interaction effect was also observed between positive versus negative mobile alerts and news avoidance (F = 5.24, df = 1, p = .023, η_p² = .023) (see Figure 2). The results demonstrate that a positive news alert for high news avoiders leads to significantly higher levels of engagement (M = 4.14, SD = 1.57) than negative news alerts (M = 3.32, SD = 1.49) (p = .007), whereas, for low news avoiders, there was a non-significant difference between positive (M = 4.52, SD = 1.60) and negative (M = 4.64, SD = 1.03) mobile alerts on their reported engagement (p = .730). The covariates of political ideology (F = 5.98, df = 1, p = .015, η_p² = .026) and age (F = 5.20, df = 1, p = .024, η_p² = .023) were significant.

Figure 2.

Positive Versus Negative Alert, News Avoidance, and Engagement.

Moderated Mediation Analysis

To assess the mediating role of curiosity (H2), we used PROCESS Macro v3.5 (Model 7) with 5,000 bootstrap samples. The independent variable was mobile news alert frame (negative vs. positive), the moderator was news avoidance, the mediator was curiosity, and the outcome was engagement. Unlike the prior analysis, news avoidance was treated as a continuous variable, enabling the use of spotlight and floodlight analyses for a more nuanced understanding of how varying levels of news avoidance influence responses to alert framing (Spiller et al., 2013). These techniques, widely used in psychological and communication research (e.g., Nowlan & Zane, 2022), offer key advantages over median splits: they preserve the continuous nature of data, increase statistical power, and reveal subtler interaction effects across the moderator range.

In the current research, a spotlight analysis was conducted (refer to Table 2) on the continuous variable of news avoidance, identifying low, medium, and high news avoiders based on the 16th, 50th, and 84th percentiles. These plots were chosen given that the research sought to examine low (16th), moderate (50th), and high (84th) news avoidance and its impact upon the observed relationships. Meanwhile, floodlight analysis, also known as the Johnson-Neyman technique, was employed to determine the precise level of news avoidance where a mobile news alert frame had a significant impact on curiosity.

Table 2.

Spotlight Moderation Analysis.

Curiosity	B	SE	t	p
Positive (1) vs. negative (2)	0.574	0.457	1.25	.210
News avoidance	0.210	0.150	1.40	.162
Positive vs. negative × News avoidance	−0.196	0.096	−0.203	.042
Political ideology	−0.114	0.055	−2.05	.041
Age of participant	−0.007	0.007	−0.97	.331

Engagement	B	SE	t	p
Curiosity	0.280	0.045	6.21	.000
Political ideology	−0.055	0.038	−0.145	.146
Age of participant	0.021	0.005	3.99	.000
R ²
Curiosity	0.06
Engagement	0.20

Index of moderated mediation	Index	SE	LCI	UCI
Index result	−0.054	0.027	−0.110	−0.005
Indirect effect at level of news avoidance	B	SE	LCI	UCI
Low news avoiders (2.66)	0.014	0.073	−0.125	0.162
Moderate news avoiders (3.66)	−0.040	0.059	−0.158	0.077
High news avoiders (5.33)	−.187	0.078	−0.352	−0.038

Note: Positive B directed toward negative coded as 2, negative B directed toward positive coded as 1.

LCI: lower confidence interval; UCI: upper confidence interval.

The results of the moderated-mediation analysis using the spotlight technique evidences a significant index of moderated mediation with the confidence intervals not passing through zero (index = −0.054, SE = 0.027, lower confidence interval (LCI) = −0.004, upper confidence interval (UCI) = −0.110), indicating that the indirect effect of positive (coded 1) versus negative (coded 2) mobile alerts on engagement via the mediator of curiosity significantly differed when considering individuals level of news avoidance. As evidence supporting both H1 and H2, the indirect effect of a positive news alert on engagement via the mediator of curiosity was significant for high level news avoiders (B = −0.187, SE = 0.078, LCI = −0.352, LCI = −0.038), recalling that the positive mobile alert is coded as 1 (negative as 2). When considering moderate news avoiders, the indirect effect was shown to be weaker and non-significant (B = −.040, SE = 0.059, LCI = −0.158, UCI = 0.077). For low news avoiders, the effect of the mobile news alert was directed toward negative (coded as 2) as opposed to positive (coded as 1) and was non-significant (B = 0.014, SE = 0.073, LCI = −0.128, UCI = 0.162).

A floodlight analysis was also used to identify cut-off news avoidance levels to estimate at which point different framing of a mobile alert (positive or negative) would lead to significantly higher levels of curiosity. The floodlight, unlike the spotlight analysis, identifies news avoiders along the continuum of the scale used and the effects the different mobile alert frames have upon curiosity. The results evidenced that a positive news alert frame led to significantly higher levels of curiosity at ≥5.00 levels of new avoidance.

Rival Model and Robustness Tests

A key concern when measuring a moderator like news avoidance post-exposure is whether it may instead act as a mediator; conversely, measuring it pre-treatment risks priming effects, whereby participants may become more aware of their own behaviors and attitudes toward news and potentially biasing their reported levels of engagement and curiosity (Montgomery et al., 2018; Sheagley & Clifford, 2025). We addressed the issue of where news avoidance was measured within the experiment in two ways. First, we tested news avoidance as a mediator using PROCESS Model 6, placing it before curiosity. Results did not support this alternative pathway: the effect of news frame on news avoidance was non-significant (p = .608). Second, to further rule out potential bias from manipulation check placement, we conducted a replication study with the only change being the position news avoidance, which occurred prior to exposure as opposed to after exposure in the main study. Results remained consistent, and details are provided in the Online Appendix. Overall, these results support news avoidance as a moderator and show that its measurement, whether before or after stimulus exposure, did not significantly impact the findings.

Study 2: News Alerts and Number of Facts

In Study 2, the aim was to further explore positive and negative news alerts and news avoidance, studying their effects on curiosity and engagement. This study recruited 262 Australians via Prolific. 71.1% were employed, 58% identified as female, and 37.8% were between 25 and 35 years old. The sample for Study 2 on average identified as being politically central (M = 4.04, SD = 1.59), with the largest portion identifying as living in a regional town or city (32.3%) followed by an outer suburb of a capital city (26.0%) and living in an inner-city suburb (29.2%).

An additional consideration in Study 2 was the number of facts presented in the mobile news alerts, aiming to determine the optimal amount of information to prompt engagement among news avoiders. Materials and procedures were replicated from Study 1, with the extension of presenting either one, two, or three facts in the alerts. When further facts were added, drawing on solutions-journalism literature (McIntyre, 2019), a positively framed alert focused on a solution, whereas a negatively framed alert focused on the problem. For example, two facts (framed positively) included: “The PM called a snap election for November 12 after vowing to act to break the deadlock in parliament.” Three facts (framed positively) included: “The PM calls a snap election for November 12 after a key immigration bill voted down again, vowing to ‘fix a broken system.’” Similarly, two facts (framed negatively) were: “The PM calls a snap election for November 12 after a key immigration bill failed to pass parliament for a second time.” Three facts (framed negatively) were: “The PM calls a snap election for November 12 after a key immigration bill voted down again, vowing ‘the country won’t be held hostage’.”

To confirm the intended effects of the manipulations, manipulation checks using the same items as Study 1 were employed. The manipulation check for the positive frame was significant (F = 16.08, p < .001), with participants in the positive frame (M = 2.69, SD = 1.14) reporting significantly higher ratings for the news alert focusing on the positives of the snap election compared to participants in the negative frame condition (M = 2.16). The manipulation for the negative frame was also supported (F = 5.84, p = .018), as participants in the negative frame condition rated the news alert focusing on the negative aspects of the snap election higher (M = 2.88, SD = 1.16) than participants in the positive frame condition (M = 2.52, SD = 1.10). The same measures for curiosity (loadings: .88–.66; α = .67), news avoidance (loadings: .77–.90; α = .67), and engagement (loadings: .624–.834, α = .77) used in Study 1 were also used in Study 2. Further, we again tested for discriminant validity using the Fornell and Larcker approach, with the results again confirming the concepts were distinct and discriminant (see Online Appendix).

Results

Data were analyzed using the PROCESS Macro extension of SPSS with Model 11, analyzing the full conceptual model presented in Figure 3, as a moderated-moderated mediation model. The independent variable positive versus negative coded as 1 and 2 respectively, news avoidance was included as a moderator as a continuous variable, the newly included experimental condition number of facts was included as a moderator (coded 1 = 1 fact, 2 = 2 facts, 3 = 3 facts), the mediator was included as curiosity, and the outcome was included as engagement intentions. As the number of facts was a multi-categorical variable, PROCESS automatically created dummy variables which resulted in comparisons between 1 fact (coded as 0) and 2 facts (coded as 1), and 3 facts (coded as 1).

Figure 3.

Conceptual Framework: Mobile News Alert Frames, News Avoidance, and Engagement Intentions.

The results show that the interaction between positive/negative news alerts, one/two facts, news avoidance, and curiosity was non-significant (B = −0.05, SE = 0.36, t = −0.13, p = .82). However, the interaction involving positive/negative news alerts, one/three facts, news avoidance, and curiosity was significant (B = −0.68, SE = 0.36, t = 2.06, p = .04). Looking at the conditional effects, it ’s clear that curiosity is notably higher with three facts and a positive frame among high news avoiders (B = −1.12, SE = 0.47, t = −2.35, p = .01). In contrast, no significant differences in curiosity are seen with one fact across positive/negative frames or varying news avoidance levels. Also, curiosity is notably higher for moderate news avoiders with a negative (vs. positive) frame in a mobile alert (B = 0.73, SE = 0.34, t = 2.12, p = .03).

The moderated-moderated mediation results, particularly the indirect effects, reveal the following: a positive mobile news alert’s indirect effect on engagement through curiosity is significant with three facts for high news avoiders (B = −0.49, SE = 0.10, LCI = −0.88, UCI = −0.12). Similarly, for negative mobile alerts, the indirect effect with two facts is significant for moderate news avoiders (B = 0.27, SE = 0.12, LCI = 0.03, UCI = 0.51). However, the indirect effect with one fact is not significant. Please see the Online Appendix for tables which detail the results in more depth.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study began from the conceptual standpoint of examining news avoidance as a spectrum of behaviors. It actively sought to move away from the theorization of news avoidance as a non-news use and instead recognize that news avoidance behaviors can be exhibited from individuals as randomly as they can habitually. Therefore, it sought to examine mobile news alerts as a tool to engage individuals who may move in and out of differing levels of news avoidance.

The results of the studies presented demonstrate mobile alerts offer a potential for addressing some of the motivating factors for those who may move into news avoidance behaviors. By their nature—small bite-sized textual communication—mobile alerts enable news snacking and are therefore an antidote to the perception of news overload of news avoiders. Although literature highlights the potential problems of a lack of civic knowledge with news snacking (Bennett et al., 2008), others have shown that news snacking can lead to at least some civic engagement (Feezell, 2018) and engage news avoiders (Ohme et al., 2022). This is significant for those who either intentionally avoid news or unintentionally avoid news. Mobile news alerts offer a gateway to further news engagement intentions, so if their format of short bursts of news provides a method for overcoming negative perceptions of news, then they offer immense scope for news organizations targeting news avoiders. This is particularly important given that the number of news avoiders appears to be growing (Newman et al., 2022). Therefore, if news organizations can work to demonstrate the benefits of alerts to news avoiders, encouraging sign-up, they may enhance their engagement intentions and demonstrate value in news knowledge.

Significantly, the studies presented here show that a news alert, when presented appropriately, can be associated with higher levels of engagement. Specifically, the research shows that mobile alerts which use a positive frame are associated with higher levels of engagement intentions in high-level news avoiders, and that this is explained via the mediating role of curiosity. This suggests that the framing of news alerts positively as opposed to negatively still has the potential be associated with higher levels of curiosity and engagement intentions as it may match the preferences of avoiders of a high level of news. This finding adds credence to previous work that has suggested the alternative reporting method of solutions-journalism has potential to arrest news fatigue and avoidance (Newman et al., 2022).

Additionally, the findings on the optimum number of facts in a mobile news alert have implications for news presentation in mobile alerts. The research shows positive framing with three facts is associated with higher levels of engagement intentions, and this is mediated by curiosity. It is possible that the novelty of a positive news alert frame captures the interest of high-level news avoiders, who typically see negative news. This could potentially be the reason for their avoidance of news. This finding also provides some avenues for mitigating previously defined issues of mobile news consumption as resulting in a lack of in-depth knowledge. It suggests that even in the “bite-sized” communication of news, if framed positively, three facts, rather than one, will arouse curiosity. This curiosity can lead to further engagement intentions in high news avoiders. However, the results of the study also showed that moderate-level news avoiders were more likely to be curious and in turn have intentions to engage if two facts framed negatively were used in the alert. This differing approach may be explained as those who report moderate levels of news avoidance may be more familiar with news as it is traditionally presented (in a negative or conflict frame) and therefore will be more curious when the alert is presented as such.

It is important to acknowledge, however, that although this research examines how to increase engagement intentions with news through mobile alerts, there is a growing body of literature that suggests that excessive engagement with mobile alerts can lead to negative well-being and stress (Fitz et al., 2019). As such, although the current research recommends the use of alerts, particularly for news avoiders, it is important to consider and implement these findings with the relevant well-being literature in mind.

The current research also employed two analysis techniques that have yet to be extensively utilized in journalism studies, spotlight analysis and floodlight analysis, despite their extensive uptake in other communication literature. Through spotlight analysis and floodlight analysis, we demonstrate an analysis technique that enhances news avoidance research by pinpointing the precise level on the news avoidance spectrum where thoughts, feelings, and behaviors concerning news alter. The use of spotlight and floodlight analysis for considering news avoiders at varying levels may provide some way to address the critiques and debates regarding how news avoiders are defined (see Skovsgaard & Andersen, 2020). This research shows that potentially considering news avoidance as a continuum and examining it as such through using these analysis techniques may be a more fruitful way to operationalize the concept and consider how this shapes individuals’ engagement intentions relating to the consumption of news. Beyond insights into news avoidance, journalism scholarship may also benefit from considering analytics techniques like spotlight and floodlight to deepen and provide greater precision in understanding how other consumption patterns or personality traits moderate relationships.

This study has some limitations, which are now acknowledged. It focused on Australian participants and used mock political news stimuli. As Villi et al. (2022) highlight, news avoidance is shaped by country-specific contextual factors, meaning results may be influenced by Australia’s cultural and political environment. Although we controlled for political ideology, future research could explore how audiences in other national contexts respond to political news alerts. Additionally, given the unique reactions political news often provokes, it would be valuable to extend this work to other news topics. Doing so could test the generalizability of key findings and uncover topic-specific nuances, considering variables such as alert framing, fact presentation, and levels of news avoidance.

In addition to the political nature of the stimuli, it is also important to consider how the frames were presented in the materials. This research focused on using clearly positive or negative frames. Although this helps to explore whether positive framing is more effective for people with higher levels of news avoidance, it does not show how positive or negative the message should be. Future research could look beyond this simple positive-versus-negative approach and examine how different levels of positivity or negativity affect responses. This would help improve both the theory and practical use of message framing by giving clearer guidance on not just what kind of frame to use, but how strongly it should be framed.

This research had a key strength in its controlled experimental design, but there are some important limitations. Alerts were shown as static screenshots, and engagement was self-reported, which reduces both ecological and external validity, as these methods may not reflect how people interact with alerts in real-world situations. Future research could build on this by conducting field experiments where participants receive real-time alerts from sources they regularly use. A/B testing on apps, websites, and social media platforms could also help assess the impact of headlines, message framing, and the number of facts presented. Using objective measures, such as click-through rates, likes, and shares, would provide a more robust understanding of engagement and how people respond to alerts.

A further limitation of the study is that it did not examine news avoidance over time, and it could be that people may be more or less prone to news avoidance over time and thus their reactions to news alert frames could change. Future research could address this by undertaking a longitudinal study that considers the temporal nature of news avoidance.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-mmc-10.1177_20501579251371884 - Supplemental material for Pushing Past News Avoidance: Implications of Mobile Alerts on News Engagement Intentions

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-mmc-10.1177_20501579251371884 for Pushing Past News Avoidance: Implications of Mobile Alerts on News Engagement Intentions by Renee Barnes, Rory Mulcahy and Aimee Riedel in Mobile Media & Communication

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Renee Barnes

Rory Mulcahy

Aimee Riedel

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Renee Barnes is an associate professor of journalism at the University of Sunshine Coast, Australia. She is the author of Fandom and Polarization in Online Political Discussion: From Pop Culture to Politics.

Rory Mulcahy is an associate professor of marketing at the University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia.

Aimee Riedel is a senior lecturer in marketing at Griffith University, Australia.

References

Arendt

Forrai

Mestas

(2023). News framing and preference-based reinforcement: Evidence from a real framing environment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Communication Research, 50(2), 179–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502221102104

Bantz

C. R.

(1997). News organizations-conflict as a crafted cultural norm. In D. A.

Berkowitz

(Ed.), Social meanings of news: A text reader (pp. 123–137). Sage Publications.

Bennett

S. E.

Rhine

S. L.

Flickinger

R. S.

(2008). Television ‘news grazers’: Who they are and what they (don’t) know. Critical Review, 20(1-2), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913810802316316

Boulianne

Shehata

(2022). Age differences in online news consumption and online political expression in the United States, United Kingdom, and France. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 27(3), 763–783. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612211060271

Chan-Olmsted

S. M.

Wolter

L. C.

(2018). Perceptions and practices of media engagement: A global perspective. JMM International Journal on Media Management, 20(1), 1–24. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14241277.2017.1402183.

Costera Meijer

Groot Kormelink

(2015). Checking, sharing, clicking and linking: Changing patterns of news use between 2004 and 2014. Digital Journalism, 3(3), 664–679. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612211060271

de Bruin

de Haan

Vliegenthart

Kruikemeier

Boukes

(2021). News avoidance during the COVID-19 crisis: Understanding information overload. Digital Journalism, 9(9), 1286–1302. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612211060271

Delli Carpini

M. X.

Keeter

(1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. Yale University Press.

Edgerly

(2017). Seeking out and avoiding the news media: Young adults’ proposed strategies for obtaining current events information. Mass Communication and Society, 20(3), 358–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2016.1262424

10.

Ejelöv

Luke

T. J.

(2020). Rarely safe to assume”: Evaluating the use and interpretation of manipulation checks in experimental social psychology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 87, 103937.

11.

Entman

R. M.

(1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x

12.

Eppler

M. J.

Mengis

(2004). The concept of information overload: A review of literature from organization science, accounting, and information systems. Information Systems Frontiers, 6(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240490507974

13.

Feezell

J. T.

(2018). Agenda setting through social media: The importance of incidental news exposure and social filtering in the digital era. Political Research Quarterly, 71(2), 482–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917744895

14.

Fitz

Kushlev

Jagannathan

Lewis

Paliwal

Ariely

(2019). Batching smartphone notifications can improve well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 101, 84–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.016

15.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

16.

Goyanes

Ardèvol-Abreu

Gil de Zúñiga

(2021). Antecedents of news avoidance: Competing effects of political interest, news overload, trust in news media, and “news finds me” perception. Digital Journalism, 9(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917744895

17.

Grunwald

Rupar

(2009). Journalism curiosity and story-telling frame: A comparative study of Australian and Danish newspapers. Journalism Practice, 3(4), 392–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917744895

18.

Harcup

O’Neill

(2001). What is news? Galtung and Ruge revisited. Journalism Studies, 2, 261–280.

19.

Hill

K. M.

Fombelle

P. W.

Sirianni

N. J.

(2016). Shopping under the influence of curiosity: How retailers use mystery to drive purchase motivation. Journal of Business Research, 69(3), 1462–1470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.08.015

20.

Janét

Richards

Landrum

A. R.

(2022). Headline format influences evaluation of, but not engagement with, environmental news. Journalism Practice, 16(1), 35–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2021.1952186

21.

Lecheler

de Vreese

C. H.

(2018). News framing effects. Routledge.

22.

Zhang

(2024). An analysis of the application of framing theory in “violent” short video news: A case study of observer network. Journal of Modern Social Sciences, 1(2), 440–455.

23.

McIntyre

(2019). Solutions journalism: The effects of including solution information in news stories about social problems. Journalism Practice, 13(1), 16–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2017.1409647

24.

Menon

Soman

(2002). Managing the power of curiosity for effective web advertising strategies. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2021.1952186

25.

Molyneux

(2018). Mobile news consumption: A habit of snacking. Digital Journalism, 6(5), 634–650. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1334567

26.

Montgomery

J. M.

Nyhan

Torres

(2018). How conditioning on posttreatment variables can ruin your experiment and what to do about it. American Journal of Political Science, 62(3), 760–775.

27.

Newman

Fletcher

Levy

D. A. L.

Nielsen

R. K.

(2016). Reuters Institute digital news report 2016. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/our-research/digital-news-report-2016

28.

Newman

Fletcher

Robertson

C. T.

Eddy

Nielsen

R. K.

(2022). Reuters Institute digital news report 2022. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

29.

Norris

Just

Kern

(2003). Framing terrorism: The news media, the government and the public. Routledge.

30.

Nowlan

Zane

D. M.

(2022). Getting conservatives and liberals to agree on the COVID-19 threat. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 7(1), 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1086/716663

31.

Ohme

Maslowska

Mothes

(2022). Mobile news learning — Investigating political knowledge gains in a social media newsfeed with mobile eye tracking. Political Communication, 39(3), 280–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2021.2000082

32.

Ohme

Mothes

(2023). News snacking and political learning: Changing opportunity structures of digital platform news use and political knowledge. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 20(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2022.2063222

33.

Palmer

Toff

(2020). What does it take to sustain a news habit? The role of civic duty norms and a connection to a “news community” among news avoiders in the UK and Spain. International Journal of Communication, 14, 1634–1653.

34.

Qiu

Golman

(2024). Curiosity in news consumption. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 38(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.4195

35.

Scacco

J. M.

Muddiman

(2020). The curiosity effect: Information seeking in the contemporary news environment. New Media & Society, 22(3), 429–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819863441

36.

Schivinski

Christodoulides

Dabrowski

(2016). Measuring consumers’ engagement with brand-related social-media content: Development and validation of a scale that identifies levels of social-media engagement with brands. Journal of Advertising Research, 56(1), 64–80.

37.

Sheagley

Clifford

(2025). No evidence that measuring moderators alters treatment effects. American Journal of Political Science, 69(1), 49–63.

38.

Skovsgaard

Andersen

(2020). Conceptualizing news avoidance: Towards a shared understanding of different causes and potential solutions. Journalism Studies, 21(4), 459–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2019.1686410

39.

Song

Y. A.

Jung

J. H.

Kim

Y. M.

(2017). Exploring the influence of news use patterns and the motivations for news avoidance on political participation: A comparative study of the US and Korea. Journalism Studies, 18(5), 556–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1266916

40.

Spiller

S. A.

Fitzsimons

G. J.

Lynch

J. G.

Jr McClelland

G. H.

(2013). Spotlights, floodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in moderated regression. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(2), 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.12.0420

41.

Stroud

N. J.

Peacock

Curry

A. L.

(2020). The effects of mobile push notifications on news consumption and learning. Digital Journalism, 8(1), 32–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1655462

42.

Thorson

Wicks

Leshner

(2012). Experimental methodology in journalism and mass communication research. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(1), 112–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699011430066

43.

Toff

Palmer

R. A.

(2019). Explaining the gender gap in news avoidance:“News-is-for-men” perceptions and the burdens of caretaking. Journalism Studies, 20(11), 1563–1579.

44.

Trussler

Soroka

(2014). Consumer demand for cynical and negative news frames. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 19(3), 360–379.

45.

Villi

Aharoni

Tenenboim-Weinblatt

Boczkowski

P. J.

Hayashi

Mitchelstein

Tanaka

Kligler-Vilenchik

(2022). Taking a break from news: A five-nation study of news avoidance in the digital era. Digital Journalism, 10(1), 148–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.1912622

46.

Woodstock

(2014). The news-democracy narrative and the unexpected benefits of limited news consumption: The case of news resisters. Journalism, 15(7), 834–849.

47.

Yuan

(2018). Framing surprise, suspense, and curiosity: A cognitive approach to the emotional effects of narrative. Neohelicon, 45(2), 517–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11059-018-0454-0

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

0.03 MB