Recent literature in political communication has demonstrated the proclivity of the American news consumer to seek out political information that serves to confirm prior beliefs. But, the motivations that underlie these behaviors, as well as what impacts these motivations may subsequently have on the consequences of exposure to political information, are less clear. The objective of this project is to contribute to understanding in these areas by applying the concept of information-processing goals - the objectives that the media consumer wishes to accomplish in their information-seeking behaviors - to the phenomena of political media selectivity. This poses two questions: 1) How are information-processing goals influential in how citizens choose political information sources? and, 2) In what ways do these goals moderate the relationship between political information exposure and political attitudes? To this end, a multi-faceted research approach involving original survey data collection and survey experimentation is proposed in an effort to determine both the real-world consequences of information-processing goals on political media preferences and the causal implications of information-processing goals regarding the effect of political media exposure on public opinion and political tolerance.
The intellectual merit of this project stems from a decade of research that has identified selective exposure - the preference for information that affirms prior attitudes and the aversion towards information that challenges existing beliefs - as a serious threat to the health of American democracy. While such claims are not without some empirical support, these studies largely operate under a theoretical paradigm that treats all forms of political information exposure as being solely motivated by the innate desire to avoid information that may challenge existing worldviews. However, recent psychological research has suggested that such an approach is simplistic as it neglects to account for a number of other motivations that influence information preferences and subsequently the role of these factors in dictating how new information is processed in the formation of political judgments. Hence, the intellectual contribution of this study involves testing an alternative theoretical approach toward understanding citizens' political media habits, accounting for motivations in the form of information-processing goals. The results of this project should ultimately result in a more nuanced understanding of why individuals prefer the information sources that they do as well as what consequences (i.e. polarization or moderation) can be expected of such information-seeking behaviors.
Beyond an improved academic understanding of the correlates and consequences of citizens' political information-seeking habits, this study should also yield broader impacts regarding the consequences for democratic society of citizens' engagement with the political information environment. As numerous scholars have proclaimed, a shift towards selective exposure is thought to manifest increased attitude polarization and intolerance. Further, many of these same scholars argue that the solution to this spiral towards extremity is the promotion of diversity in information-seeking behavior. The expected outcomes of this study, however, would suggest that each of these claims is conditional on the objectives that people wish to accomplish in their political media habits. In other words, if the empirical analysis supports the theoretical importance of information-processing goals, improving democratic society must go beyond making normative claims about which types of political information-seeking strategies are best and instead focus on the promotion of more deliberative mindsets in how people make sense of political information, either through citizenship training or fostering more accountability for the attitudes that people hold about politics.
Supported by an NSF Dissertation Improvement Grant, Dustin Carnahan completed research that formed the basis for his dissertation, "Why Motivations Matter: Information-Processing Goals and their Implications for Selective Exposure to Political Information. During the funding period, he used the NSF funds to collect original survey and experimental data via Qualtrics Panels in an effort to better understanding why citizens prefer the information sources they do, how various information-seeking motivations affect what types of information sources people choose, and how these information-seeking behaviors – when motivated by very different objectives – might influence their political attitudes. This question is of particular importance at the current moment as the information environment has never allowed the degree of choice as it does right now, and many scholars have expressed significant concern that such choice might lead citizens to isolate themselves in what information they consume as well as become polarized and intolerant in their political beliefs. In conducting his research, Carnahan contributed to this conversation by showing that motivations indeed play an important role in what types of information people seek out as well as the consequences of exposure to political information, though not in ways entirely anticipated. With regards to information-seeking behavior, accuracy goals – the objective to form the best possible conclusion – fostered greater balance in the types of information people sought; in other words, people motivated by accuracy were more likely to use sources that both agreed and disagreed with their pre-existing attitudes. Directional goals – defined as the objective to form a desired judgment – led citizens to rely disproportionately on agreeable sources (e.g. Republicans on FOX News; Democrats on MSNBC). Closure goals, or the objective to form any clear conclusion regardless of quality, also led citizens to seek out more agreeable sources as opposed to sources representing alternative perspectives. Perhaps most interestingly, these motivations did not only affect what types of information people sought out but also how they adjusted their opinions in response to new information. Specifically, individuals motivated by directional and closure goals – goals that have long been associated with reduced effort in processing new information, especially when the source agrees with one’s existing viewpoints – were the most likely candidates to become more extreme in their attitudes in response to agreeable information. Exposure to alternative perspectives, often thought to promote moderation and tolerance in one’s attitudes, was only effective in promoting these outcomes when such exposures were motivated by accuracy goals. This finding suggests that the negative outcomes associated with selective exposure (namely, polarization) are most evident for those who are simultaneously the most likely to engage in such behavior, while the deliberative benefits of exposure to alternative viewpoints are only evident for those who are driven to think carefully about those perspectives. In sum, these findings paint a much more nuanced picture of why people seek out the information they do as well as why it matters for questions of democratic citizenship. Specifically, the focusing solely on the content of the information sources that citizens consume can only tell part of the story of how attitudes might shift in response to this information. Perhaps just as important is why they are consuming that information, which has based on this research significant implications for the consequences of information exposure. Furthermore, the results of this project offer broader impacts beyond an improved understanding of selective exposure and its consequences. Based on the experimental aspect of this project, it was shown that certain situations can make people more or less oriented toward accuracy in their searches for information, subsequently promoting balance in what types of sources they choose to read as well as tolerance of opposing viewpoints upon encounter those perspectives in their information searches. The importance of encountering diverse perspectives and developing an understanding of views different from one’s own are almost universally agreed upon, and this study yields some insight into ways in which these outcomes might be able to be promoted in citizens’ everyday lives, such as holding citizens accountable for their attitudes.
