Cognitive Dissonance or Credibility? A Comparison of Two Theoretical Explanations for Selective Exposure to Partisan News

245 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Fake news, disinformation and misinformation in social media: a review (2023, background): “Moreover, it has been widely proven (Metzger et al. 2020; Edgerly et al. 2020) that people are often motivated to support and accept information that goes with their preexisting viewpoints and beliefs, and reject information that does not fit in as well.”
When Do Audiences Verify? How Perceptions About Message and Source Influence Audience Verification of News Headlines (2020, background): “First, we know that people—and partisans in particular—are often motivated to accept information that supports their preexisting viewpoints and reject information that does not (Metzger et al., 2015; Weeks & Garrett, 2014).”
Believing and sharing misinformation, fact-checks, and accurate information on social media: The role of anxiety during COVID-19 (2021, background): “Work with ideologically slanted news sources specifically shows that individuals perceive attitude-consistent sources as more credible than attitude-inconsistent sources (Metzger et al., 2020).”
A Survey of Fake News (2020, background): “…to trust fake news after repeated exposures ( validity effect [Boehm 1994]), or if it confirms their preexisting beliefs ( confirmation bias [Nickerson 1998]) or attitudes ( selective exposure [Freedman and Sears 1965; Metzger et al. 2015]), or if it pleases them ( desirability bias [Fisher 1993]).”