Jump to content

User:LinziMLB/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As time progresses I hope to gain enough knowledge based on my research to advance the Selective Exposure Wikipedia page to its fullest. I have already included article summaries in the article's talk page. LinziMLB (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This is the page where I will be preparing my work to put on Selective Exposure Theory wikipedia page.


Selective Exposure Theory[edit]

The selective exposure theory demonstrates the action in which people tend to select specific areas of exposed information based on their own perspective, beliefs, attitudes, and decisions. People can select the information exposed to them and select out favorable evidence, ignoring unfavorable evidence.


In other words, selective exposure is a concept in media and communication research that refers to individuals’ tendency to favor information that reinforces pre-existing views while avoiding information that contradicts their views. This theory has been explored with using the cognitive dissonance theory, which suggests information consumers strive for a state of cognitive equilibrium. In order to attain this equilibrium, individuals may either reinterpret the information they are exposed to or select information that is consonant with their view.


The premise of selective exposure relies on the assumptions that information-seeking behavior continues, even after an individual has taken a stance on an issue, and that previous information-seeking behavior will be colored by various factors of the issue that is activated during the decision-making process. [1] Thus, selective exposure operates by reinforcing beliefs rather than exposing individuals to a diverse array of viewpoints, which is considered an important aspect of a functioning democracy. [2] Furthermore, because information and resources are critical to learning, people do indeed decide to stray away from new information.


Selective exposure has been displayed in various occasions including, self-serving situations, situations where people hold prejudices regarding out-groups, particular opinions, and lastly personal and group-related situations. [3]

Who influences and engages in selective exposure?[edit]

Everyone. [4]

  • Family
  • Friends
  • Co-workers
  • Docotor/physicans
  • Media
  • Internet
  • Television
  • Magazines/ Newspaper
  • Radio
  • Blogs

How does selective exposure theory affect decision-making?[edit]

Selective exposure can very affect decisions because people may not be willing to change their views and beliefs. Changing beliefs about one's self, other people, and the world, are three variables as to why people fear facing new information. [5] Additionally, a variety of studies have shown that selective exposure effects can occur in context of both individual and group decision making. Numerous situational variables have been identified that increase the tendency toward selective exposure. [6] Social psychology, specifically, has shown research that include a variety of situational factors and related psychological processes that eventually persuade the efforts to make a quality decision. Additionally, from a psychological perspective, the effects of selective exposure can both stem from motivational and cognitive accounts. [7] Schulz et al. (2010) investigated whether information searches were determined by subjectively perceived information or not. In terms of a cognitive perspective, researchers assume that decision makers seek to find the qualitatively best pieces of decision-relevant information. Though, since decision makers are not able to evaluate the information quality independent of their own position, decision-inconsistent information is systematically tested more critically than decision-consistent information. [8] Therefore, decision-consistent information receives a subjectively perceived quality advantage and is thus preferred over inconsistent information.


Fischer and Greitemeyer (2010) explored individuals’ decision making in terms of selective exposure to confirmatory information. [9]. Selective exposure posed that people make their decisions based on information that is consistent with their decision rather than information that is inconsistent with their decision. Researchers explain that people have the tendency to seek and select information using their integrative model. There are two primary motivation for selective exposure: accuracy motivation and defense motivation. Accuracy motivation explains that one is motivated to be accurate in their decision making and defense motivation explains that one seeks confirmatory information to confirm their beliefs and justify their decisions. Accuracy motivation is not always beneficial during selective exposure and can instead be counterintuitive, increasing the amount of selective exposure. Defense motivation can lead to reduced levels of selective exposure[10].


In another study, selective exposure is defined by the amount of confidence an individual has. Individuals who maintain higher confidence levels reduce the amount of selective exposure. [11]. Albarracín and Mitchell (2004) hypothesized that those who displayed higher confidence levels were more willing to seek out information both consistent and inconsistent with their views. The phrase decision-consistent information explains the tendency to actively seek decision-relevant information that that decision-consistent information is analytically favored over that which is inconsistent [12]. On the contrary, those who exhibited low levels of confidence, were more inclined to examine information that does not agree with their views. The researchers' found that in studies 3, 4, and 5 participants showed more confident and scored high on the Defensive Confidence Scale [13], meaning that their hypothesis was correct.


When it comes down to making real-life decisions, how decisions are made and how relevant information is gathered are not the only two factors that take account into making a final decision. Fischer et al. (2010) find that it important to consider the information source itself. [14] Selective exposure research generally neglects the influence of indirect decision-related attributes, like physical appearance. In Fischer et al. (2010) two studies involving physically attractive information sources and decision making impacted by selective exposure. Researchers explored the impact of social information and its' level of physical attractiveness, sought its affect on selective exposure to important information needed to make a decision, [15] Two studies hypothesized that physically attractive information sources resulted in decision makers to be more selective in searching and reviewing decision-relevant information. The more attractive an information source was, the more positive and detailed one was with making their decision. Physically attractive information sources increased the quality of consistent information needed to make decisions and increased the selective exposure in decision-relevant information. [16] Decision makers naturally do not even realize certain factors like physical attractiveness affect everyday decisions. Characteristics like physical attractiveness affect one's decision because it can increase the perceived quality of information. Both studies concluded that attractiveness is driven by a different selection and evaluation of decision-consistent information. Selective exposure is prevalent in both groups of people and individually.


Furthermore, Bozo et al. (2009) investigated the anxiety of fearing death and compared it to age in relation to ‘health-promoting’ behaviors and analyzing the terror management theory. Results found that age had no direct affect to specific behaviors. Although age had no affect, they found anxiety of death yielding health-promoting behaviors in young adults. Conclusions supported that older adults were consistently better at promoting and practicing good health behaviors, without thinking about death, compared to young adults [17]. Young adults were less motivated to change and practice health-promoting behaviors because they used the selective exposure to confirm their prior beliefs.


Selective exposure enables prevention of gathering new information. In Jonas et al. (2001) empirical studies were done on four different experiments investigating individuals' and groups' decision making. This article suggests that confirmation bias is prevalent in decision making. Those who find new information often draw their attention to areas where they hold personal attachment too. Thus, information with similar expectations or beliefs to the person is a result of this selective exposure theory. Throughout the four experiments done generalization is always considered valid and confirmation bias is always present when seeking new information and making decisions. [18]

Cognitive dissonance theory[edit]

Much empirical data on selective exposure has been based on the cognitive dissonance theory. These theories suggest when people make decisions they then perceive an apathetic motivational state because they must accept the disadvantages of their choice. [19] Theories related to cognitive dissonance suggest that individuals strive for cognitive equilibrium and consistency. When they encounter information that is discordant with their pre-existing views, individuals experience an unfavorable psychological state of dissonance, which they are motivated to alleviate. These hypotheses were first proposed by Festinger (1957) and can be summarized with the following basic hypotheses:

  • Dissonance is a state of mental unease and discomfort which helps explain selective perception. It is produced when new information contradicts existing beliefs, attitudes, social norms, or behaviors.
  • People often favor consonance because their ideas flow freely into one another and do not create an unbalance. [20]
  • The existence of dissonance, being psychologically uncomfortable, will motivate the person to try to reduce dissonance and achieve consonance.
  • When dissonance is present, in addition to trying to reduce it, the person will actively avoid situations and information that would likely increase the dissonance. [21]

In Festinger’s theory, the motivation to alleviate dissonance by seeking out information that is concordant with one’s existing beliefs is the motive for selective exposure. However, subsequent research on selective exposure within dissonance theory produced weak empirical support, until dissonance theory was revised and methods conducive to measuring selective exposure were improved.[22] To date, scholars still argue that empirical results supporting the selective exposure hypothesis are still mixed, possibly due to the issues used in experimental studies, [23] or the failure to simulate an authentic media environment in experiments. [24]

One way to avoid dissonance is to selectively expose oneself to information they believe and avoid finding a contradicting element. Selective exposure has been shown to be caused by the need for self-enhancement and consistency in their decisions. People want to defend a position because they have a commitment to their beliefs and want to reduce cognitive dissonance. Additionally, people want to maintain a positive self-image by being good decision makers. [25]

Klapper's selective exposure[edit]

Joseph Klapper (1960) considered mass communication do not directly influence people, but just reinforce people’s predisposition. Mass communications play a role as a mediator in persuasive communication. Klapper's five mediating factors and conditions to affect people:

  • Predispositions and the related processes of selective exposure, selective perception, and selective retention.
  • The groups, and the norms of groups, to which the audience members belong.
  • Interpersonal dissemination of the content of communication
  • The exercise of opinion leadership
  • The nature of mass media in a free enterprise society[26].

Three basic concepts:

  • Selective exposure - people keep away from communication of opposite hue.
  • Selective perception - If people are confronting unsympathetic material, they do not perceive it, or make it fit for their existing opinion.
  • Selective retention - Furthermore, they just simply forget the unsympathetic material.

Groups and group norms work as a mediator. For example, one can be strongly disinclined to change to the Democratic Party if their family has voted for Republican for a long time. In this case, the person’s predisposition to the political party is already set, so they don't perceive information about Democratic Party or change voting behavior because of mass communication. Klapper’s third assumption is inter-personal dissemination of mass communication. If someone is already exposed by close friends, which creates predisposition toward something, it will lead increase of exposure to mass communication and eventually reinforce the existing opinion. Opinion leader is also a crucial factor to form predisposition of someone, lead someone to be exposed by mass communication, and after all, existing opinion would be reinforced. Nature of commercial mass media also leads people to select certain type of media contents. Klapper (1960) claimed that people are selecting entertainment, such as family comedy, variety shows, quizzes, and Westerns, because of nature of mass media in a free enterprise society.

Media[edit]

Selective exposure has achieved more relevance and empirical support in recent studies. Some researchers suggest that media consumers have more options and influence over provided information. Media may tend to select content that exposes and confirms their own ideas and avoid information that argues against their opinion. Studies suggest that more recent media offers a more diverse set of views. Certain topics like politics, are more like to inspire selective exposure as opposed to single exposure decisions. [27] For example, in one study different types of media are compared and evaluated to see which one ignites the most selective exposure. The sheer fact that people can either engage or avoid media to its fullest extent is because of the modern media atmosphere. With that said, that does not conclude that people will automatically seek out congenial media. Four different types of media were investigated in this study: newspapers, political talk radio, cable news, and political websites. Evidence clearly shows that people's political predispositions motivate their types of media selections. Newspapers showed a weak pattern, unlike cable news.


In early research, selective exposure originally provided an explanation for limited media effects. Specifically, in Berelson and Steiner (1964), they stated that people tend to hear and see information favorable to their predispositions, thus they are more likely to hear and see congenial information rather than neutral resources. [28] Stroud (2010) analyzes partisan selective exposure and political polarization. Using data from the 2004 National Annenberg Election Survey, analysts found that over time partisan selective exposure leads to polarization. Variables such as media and normative implications play a large role in the affects of this comparison. Selective exposure explains why media effects limit the influence on people's individual beliefs. Specifically, congenial media exposure significantly contributes to the increase of polarization in one's decisions. Through single-exposure results this article proposes that higher levels of polarization is stemmed from partisan selective exposure. Additionally, this study investigated the causal direction of the relationship leading to congenial media exposure increases polarization. [29]


Limited Effects" models of communication The “limited effects” model of communication emerged in the 1940s with a shift in media effects paradigm. This shift suggested that while media have effects, for example on voting behavior, these effects are limited and influenced indirectly by interpersonal discussions and the influence of opinion leaders. Selective exposure was considered one necessary function in early studies of media’s limited power over citizens’ attitudes and behaviors. [30]

Relation of C.S. Herrman's Exposure theory[edit]

Basic assumptions of Herrman's theory:

  • Exposure is a state of protected or unprotected risk or danger;
  • Exposure can be positive (adaptive) or negative (maladaptive)
  • Protected exposure presupposes the use of identification or projection to permit the feeling of security or safety despite the reality of risk or danger
  • Unprotected exposure is a state of risk or danger without the availability of identification or projection to obviate feelings producing maladaptive paralysis

Application to Selective exposure processes:

  • People desire protected exposure, so desire to identify with what induces such, for example, favored opinions
  • People desire to avoid unprotected exposure, so attempt to project away from a possible identification with undesirable triggers/stimuli, thus away from undesirable ideas or ideologies



References[edit]

  1. ^ Frey, D (1986). "Recent research on selective exposure to information". Advances in experimental social psychology. 19: 41–80.
  2. ^ Chaffee, S., Nichols, S., Graf, J., Sandvig, C., & Hahn, K. S. (2001). Attention to counter-attitudinal messages in a state election campaign. Political Communication, 18, 247-272
  3. ^ Kastenmüller, A., Greitemeyer, T., Jonas, E., Fischer, P., & Frey, D. (2010). Selective exposure: The impact of collectivism and individualism. British Journal Of Social Psychology, 49(4), 745-763. doi:10.1348/014466609X478988
  4. ^ Sweeny, K., Melnyk, D., Miller, W., & Shepperd, J.A. (2010). Information avoidance: Who, what, when and why. Review of General Psychology, 14, 347
  5. ^ Sweeny, K., Melnyk, D., Miller, W., & Shepperd, J. A. (2010). Information avoidance: Who, what, when, and why. Review Of General Psychology, 14(4), 340-353. doi:10.1037/a0021288
  6. ^ Fischer, P., Fischer, J. K., Aydin, N., & Frey, D. (2010). Physically attractive social information sources lead to increased selective exposure to information. Basic And Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 340-347. doi:10.1080/01973533.2010.519208
  7. ^ Fischer, P., Fischer, J. K., Aydin, N., & Frey, D. (2010). Physically attractive social information sources lead to increased selective exposure to information. Basic And Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 340-347. doi:10.1080/01973533.2010.519208
  8. ^ Schulz-Hardt , S. , Fischer , P. , & Frey , D. ( 2010 ). Confirmation bias in accuracy-motivated decision-making: A cognitive explanation for biased information seeking . Manuscript under revision
  9. ^ (Fischer, P., Kastenmüller, A., Greitemeyer, T., Fischer, J., Frey, D., & Crelley, D. (2010). Threat and selective exposure: The moderating role of threat and decision context on confirmatory information search after decisions. Journal Of Experimental Psychology: General, doi:10.1037/a0021595)
  10. ^ (Fischer, P., Kastenmüller, A., Greitemeyer, T., Fischer, J., Frey, D., & Crelley, D. (2010). Threat and selective exposure: The moderating role of threat and decision context on confirmatory information search after decisions. Journal Of Experimental Psychology: General, doi:10.1037/a0021595)
  11. ^ Albarracín, D., & Mitchell, A. L. (2004). The Role of Defensive Confidence in Preference for Proattitudinal Information: How Believing That One is Strong Can Sometimes Be a Defensive Weakness. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(12), 1565-1584. doi:10.1177/0146167204271180
  12. ^ Fischer, P., Fischer, J. K., Aydin, N., & Frey, D. (2010). Physically attractive social information sources lead to increased selective exposure to information. Basic And Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 340-347. doi:10.1080/01973533.2010.519208
  13. ^ Albarracín, D., & Mitchell, A. L. (2004). The Role of Defensive Confidence in Preference for Proattitudinal Information: How Believing That One is Strong Can Sometimes Be a Defensive Weakness. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(12), 1565-1584. doi:10.1177/0146167204271180
  14. ^ Fischer, P., Fischer, J. K., Aydin, N., & Frey, D. (2010). Physically attractive social information sources lead to increased selective exposure to information. Basic And Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 340-347. doi:10.1080/01973533.2010.519208
  15. ^ Fischer, P., Fischer, J. K., Aydin, N., & Frey, D. (2010). Physically attractive social information sources lead to increased selective exposure to information. Basic And Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 340-347. doi:10.1080/01973533.2010.519208
  16. ^ (Fischer, P., Kastenmüller, A., Greitemeyer, T., Fischer, J., Frey, D., & Crelley, D. (2010). Threat and selective exposure: The moderating role of threat and decision context on confirmatory information search after decisions. Journal Of Experimental Psychology: General, doi:10.1037/a0021595)
  17. ^ Bozo, Ö., Tunca, A., & Şİmşek, Y. (2009). The effect of death anxiety and age on health-promoting behaviors: A terror-management theory perspective. Journal Of Psychology: Interdisciplinary And Applied, 143(4), 377-389. doi:10.3200/JRLP.143.4.377-389
  18. ^ Jonas, E., Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., & Thelen, N. (2001). Confirmation bias in sequential information search after preliminary decisions: An expansion of dissonance theoretical research on selective exposure to information. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 80(4), 557-571. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.4.557
  19. ^ Kastenmüller, A., Greitemeyer, T., Jonas, E., Fischer, P., & Frey, D. (2010). Selective exposure: The impact of collectivism and individualism. British Journal Of Social Psychology, 49(4), 745-763. doi:10.1348/014466609X478988
  20. ^ Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1985). Selective Exposure to Communicationp. 19, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
  21. ^ Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance, p. 5, Evanston, IL: Row & Peterson
  22. ^ Frey, D. (1986). Recent research on selective exposure to information. ‘’Advances in experimental social psychology’’ (Vol. 19, pp. 41-80). New York: Academic Press
  23. ^ Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755-769. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x
  24. ^ Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & others. (2009). Looking the Other Way. Communication Research, 36(3), 426
  25. ^ Kastenmüller, A., Greitemeyer, T., Jonas, E., Fischer, P., & Frey, D. (2010). Selective exposure: The impact of collectivism and individualism. British Journal Of Social Psychology, 49(4), 745-763. doi:10.1348/014466609X478988
  26. ^ Klapper, J. T. (1960). The effects of mass communication, p. 19, New York: Free Press
  27. ^ Stroud, N. (2008). Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior, 30(3), 341-366. doi:10.1007/s11109-007-9050-9
  28. ^ Berelson, B., & Steiner, G. A. (1964). Human behavior: An inventory of scientific findings. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World
  29. ^ Stroud, N. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal Of Communication, 60(3), 556-576. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497
  30. ^ Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1948). ‘’The people's choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a Presidential campaign ‘’(2nd Ed.). New York, Columbia University Press.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:LinziMLB/sandbox&oldid=485547929"