Politically Motivated Reinforcement Seeking: Reframing the Selective Exposure Debate

By R. Kelly Garrett. 2009

696 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Communication

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5e553fb06c883280231dbdf465325efe12949725

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Communication

Citations in the corpus

Curated Flows: A Framework for Mapping Media Exposure in the Digital Age (2016, background): “The extent to which trends toward silos and partisan echo chambers result from personal curation choices is hotly debated (e.g., Garrett, 2009; Garrett et al., 2011; Webster & Ksiazek, 2012), in part because, as noted above, personal curation is not undertaken to an equal extent by all individuals…”
Political Online Information Searching in Germany and the United States: Confirmation Bias, Source Credibility, and Attitude Impacts (2015, background): “Yet in recent years, numerous studies demonstrated it with survey and experimental designs (e.g., Garrett, 2009; Knobloch-Westerwick & Meng, 2009).”
Cognitive Dissonance or Credibility? A Comparison of Two Theoretical Explanations for Selective Exposure to Partisan News (2020, background): “…2012), many rely on at least one attitude-consistent news source (Stroud, 2008, 2011), and people are more likely to view a news item if the headline suggests attitude-confirming information (Garrett, 2009a; Knobloch-Westerwick & Meng, 2009; Westerwick, Kleinman, & Knobloch-Westerwick, 2013).”
Bursting your (filter) bubble: strategies for promoting diverse exposure (2013, background): “In addition, the draw of likeminded messages is far stronger than the repelling power of counter-attitudinal messages [14, 15].”
Perceptions of Cable News Credibility (2013, background): “Second, the preference for likeminded information is stronger than the tendency to avoid contradictory information (Garrett, 2009a, 2009b).”
When Do Audiences Verify? How Perceptions About Message and Source Influence Audience Verification of News Headlines (2020, background): “This generally fits within the argument that situations arise that motivate partisans to strategically seek out agreeable information (Garrett, 2009), especially when their political identity is challenged and”
Facebook news and (de)polarization: reinforcing spirals in the 2016 US election (2018, background): “…consistently has shown that individuals do see counter-attitudinal views in news feeds (Bakshy et al., 2015; Beam, 2014; Flaxman et al., 2016; Garrett, 2009; Garrett & Stroud, 2014; Gentzkow & Shapiro, 2011; Messing & Westwood, 2014), this would suggest that social media news use could…”
The Mutual Reinforcement of Media Selectivity and Effects: Testing the Reinforcing Spirals Framework in the Context of Global Warming (2014, positive): “…experimental studies have found that partisans prefer to read stories that confirm their existing beliefs on issues such as gay marriage, social security reform, gun control, and abortion, relative to stories that challenge their opinions (Garrett, 2009a, 2009b; Knobloch-Westerwick & Meng, 2009).”
The Dynamics of Audience Fragmentation: Public Attention in an Age of Digital Media (2012, result): “This result is consistent with recent research that finds little evidence of ideological segmentation in media use (e.g., Garrett, 2009; Gentzkow & Shapiro, 2010).”
The Impact of Climate Change–Related Imagery and Text on Public Opinion and Behavior Change (2016, background): “Finally, the present study examined how exposure to media stories may affect opinion and behavioral intentions, but it did not account for how media content may drive selective exposure (Garrett, 2009) and the willingness to read the media stories in the first place.”
Confirmation Bias, Ingroup Bias, and Negativity Bias in Selective Exposure to Political Information (2020, background): “While debate exists on whether the avoidance of attitude-discrepant messages is as strong as the preference for attitude-consistent content (Garrett, 2009) and how the confirmation bias may foster political polarization (e.g., Iyengar et al., 2012; Stroud, 2010), the current view is that…”
Selective use of news cues: : A multiple-motive perspective on information selection in social media environments (2016, background): “This pattern has also been shown in the setting of selecting political content online (e.g., Garrett, 2009a; Knobloch-Westerwick & Meng, 2009).”
Political Neuroscience: The Beginning of a Beautiful Friendship (2014, background): “…work—and that of others—suggests that there may be left - right ideological differences in the extent to which individuals are willing to expose themselves to politically incongruent informa - tion ( Garrett , 2009 ; Iyengar , Hahn , Krosnick , & Walker , 2008 ; Nam , Jost , & Van Bavel , 2013 ) .”
Tweeting From Left to Right (2015, background): “At the same time, not all conversations were consistent with the traditional echo-chamber view of Internet communication (Garrett, 2009a).”
Confirmation biases in selective exposure to political online information: Source bias vs. content bias (2017, background): “Possibly even more relevant, some studies find that selective exposure to attitude-consistent vs. -discrepant content has different post-exposure implications for attitudes and partisanship (Garrett, 2009; Taber & Lodge, 2006).”
Implications of Pro- and Counterattitudinal Information Exposure for Affective Polarization (2014, background): “To a lesser extent, media with attitude-discrepant content may also sometimes be avoided (Garrett, 2009).”