Main Article Content
News media offer balanced political messages and many citizens also seek content that presents two sides of a political issue. Despite this supply and demand, most work on information processing tests exposure to one-sided content, i.e., either pro- or counter-attitudinal. We advance this work by studying (1) how balanced and one-sided messages affect information processing; (2) whether the processing of balanced information is moderated by individual motivations; and (3) the impact of balanced exposure on attitude polarization. Using an online experiment (N = 677), we primed either accuracy or defensive motivation and examined how participants processed information about two distinct issues (i.e., climate change and Syrian refugees). On both issues, participants were less biased in response to balanced content, compared to one-sided content. In addition, defensive and accuracy motivated people processed balanced content in a similar manner. Furthermore, pro-attitudinal content polarized individual attitudes, but not balanced content, and this effect was not moderated by motivation.
All Sides (2020). Media Bias Ratings. Retrieved from
Arceneaux, K. & Johnson, M. (2013). Changing Minds Or Changing Channels? Partisan News in an Age of Choice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Arceneaux, K. & Johnson, M. (2015, April 16-19). How Mainstream News Can Polarize America, Too. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, USA.
Beam, M. A., Hutchens, M. J. & Hmielowski, J. D. (2018). Facebook news and (de) polarization: reinforcing spirals in the 2016 US election. Information, Communication & Society, 21(7), 940-958. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1444783
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A. & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351-368. https://www.doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr057
Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N. & Cook, F. L. (2014). The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior, 36, 235-262. https://www.doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9238-0
Brenes Peralta, C., Wojcieszak, M., Lelkes, Y. & de Vreese, C. (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(3), 833-861. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/1077699016654681
Chaiken, S., Giner-Sorolla, R. & Chen, S. (1996). Beyond accuracy: Defense and impression motives in heuristic and systematic information processing. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 553-578). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Druckman, J. N. (2012). The politics of motivation. Critical Review, 24, 199-216. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2012.711022
Druckman, J. N. & Bolsen, T. (2011). Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. Journal of Communication, 61, 659-688. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01562.x
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Flaxman, S., Goel, S. & Rao, J. M. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public opinion quarterly, 80(S1), 298-320. https://www.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw006
Garrett, R. K., Gvirsman, S. D., Johnson, B. K., Tsfati, Y., Neo, R. & Dal, A. (2014). Implications of Pro‐and Counterattitudinal Information Exposure for Affective Polarization. Human Communication Research, 40, 309-332. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12028
Garrett, R. K. & Stroud, N. J. (2014). Partisan Paths to Exposure Diversity: Differences in Pro and Counter attitudinal News Consumption. Journal of Communication, 64, 680-701. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12105
Gunther, A. C. (2017). Hostile media effect. The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects, 1-10. https://www.doi.org/10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0068
Hart, J., Shaver, P. R. & Goldenberg, J. L. (2005). Attachment, self-esteem, worldviews, and terror management: Evidence for a tripartite security system. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 999-1013. https://www.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1249
Heiss, R., von Sikorski, C. & Matthes, J. (2019). Populist Twitter Posts in News Stories: Statement Recognition and the Polarizing Effects on Candidate Evaluation and Anti-Immigrant Attitudes. Journalism Practice, 13(6), 742-758. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2018.1564883
Knobloch-Westerwick, S. & Meng, J. (2009). Looking the Other Way Selective Exposure to Attitude-Consistent and Counter attitudinal Political Information. Communication Research, 36, 426-448. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/0093650209333030
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498. https://www.doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.108.3.480
Leeper, T. J. (2014). The informational basis for mass polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78, 27-46. https://www.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nft045
Leeper, T. J. & Slothuus, R. (2014). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and public opinion formation. Political Psychology, 35, 129-156. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/pops.12164
Levendusky, M. S. (2013). Why do partisan media polarize viewers? American Journal of Political Science, 57, 611-623. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12008
Lodge, M. & Taber, C. (2000). Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. In A. Lupia, M. McCubbins & S. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality (pp. 183-213). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Luthans, F. & Stajkovic, A. (1999). Reinforce for performance: The need to go beyond pay and even rewards. Academy of Management Perspectives, 13(2), 49-57. https://www.doi.org/10.5465/AME.1999.1899548
Manjoo, F. (2008). True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society. New York, NY: Wiley.
Matthes, J. & Valenzuela, S. (2012, May). Who learns from cross-cutting exposure? Motivated reasoning, counterattitudinal news coverage, and awareness of oppositional views. In Manuscript presented at the annual conference of International Communication Association. Phoenix, US.
Metzger, M. J., Hartsell, E. H. & Flanagin, A. J. (2020). Cognitive dissonance or credibility? A comparison of two theoretical explanations for selective exposure to partisan news. Communication Research, 47(1), 3-28. https://www.doi.org/0093650215613136
Möller, J., Trilling, D., Helberger, N. & van Es, B. (2018). Do not blame it on the algorithm: an empirical assessment of multiple recommender systems and their impact on content diversity. Information, Communication & Society, 21(7), 959-977. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1444076
Mullinix, K, Leeper, T., Druckman, J. & Freese, J. (2015). The Generalizability of Survey Experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2, 109-138. https://www.doi.org/10.1017/xps.2015.19
Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Schulz, S. & Nielsen, R. (2020) Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2020. [online] Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Retrieved from https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2020-06/DNR_2020_FINAL.pdf
Prior, M. (2013). Media and political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 101-127. https://www.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-100711-135242
Rucker, D. D., Petty, R. E. & Briñol, P. (2008). What’s in a frame anyway? A meta‐cognitive analysis of the impact of one versus two-sided message framing on attitude certainty. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18, 137-149. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2008.01.008
Slater, M. D. (2007). Reinforcing Spirals: The Mutual Influence of Media Selectivity and Media Effects and Their Impact on Individual Behavior and Social Identity. Communication Theory, 17, 281-303. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00296.x
Svolik, M. W. (2019). Polarization versus democracy. Journal of Democracy, 30(3), 20-32.
Sunstein, C. (2009). Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide. New York: Oxford University Press.
Taber, C. S. & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755-769. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x
Umbricht, A. & Esser, F. (2014). Changing Political News? Long-Term Trends in American, British, French, Italian, German, and Swiss Print Media Reporting. Political Journalism in Transition: Western Europe in a Comparative Perspective, 195-217.
U. S. Census Bureau. (2010a). Age and Composition: 2010. Retrieved November 25, 2014, from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf
U. S. Census Bureau. (2010b). Educational Attainment in the United States: 2010. Retrieved November 25, 2014, from https://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2010/tables.html
Van Aelst, P., Strömbäck, J., Aelberg, T., Esser, F., de Vreese, C., Matthes, J., Hopmann, D., Salgado, S., Hubé, N., Stepinska, A., Papathanassopoulos, S., Berganza, R.., Legnante, G., Reinemann, C., Sheafer, T. & Stanyer, J. (2017). Political communication in a high-choice media environment: a challenge for democracy? Annals of the International Communication Association, 41, 3-27. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2017.1288551
Winter, S., Metzger, M. J. & Flanagin, A. J. (2016). Selective Use of News Cues: A Multiple‐Motive Perspective on Information Selection in Social Media Environments. Journal of Communication, 66, 669-693. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12241
Wojcieszak, M. (2011). Deliberation and attitude polarization. Journal of Communication, 61(4), 596-617. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01568.x
Wojcieszak, M. & Kim, N. (2016). How to improve attitudes toward disliked groups: The effects of narrative versus numerical evidence on political persuasion. Communication Research, 43(6), 785-809. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/0093650215618480
Wojcieszak, M., Winter, S. & Yu, X. (2020). Social norms and selectivity: Effects of norms of open-mindedness on content selection and affective polarization. Mass Communication and Society, 1-29. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2020.1714663
The texts published in this journal are subject to the following terms:
1. The University of Navarra (Publications Service as its editorial) retains the property rights (copyright) of published works, and allows the use of this rights under the license indicated in point 2. © Servicio de Publicaciones, Universidad de Navarra, 2015
2. The works are published in the online edition of the journal under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 (legal text). You can copy, use, distribute, transmit and display publicly , providing that: i) the authorship and the original source of publication (journal, editorial and URL of the work) ii) it will not be used for commercial purposes; iii) the existence and specifications of this license must be mentioned .
3. Self-archive conditions. It is allowed, and authors are encouraged to disseminate electronically the editorial version (published version, with logos, pages, volume and number, ISSN, DOI, etc.). This promotes the circulation, dissemination and it can increase in its citation and scope between the academic community.