Political Behavior

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 341–366 | Cite as

Media Use and Political Predispositions: Revisiting the Concept of Selective Exposure

  • Natalie Jomini StroudEmail author
Original Paper


Today, people have ample opportunity to engage in selective exposure, the selection of information matching their beliefs. Whether this is occurring, however, is a matter of debate. While some worry that people increasingly are seeking out likeminded views, others propose that newer media provide an increased opportunity for exposure to diverse views. In returning to the concept of selective exposure, this article argues that certain topics, such as politics, are more likely to inspire selective exposure and that research should investigate habitual media exposure patterns, as opposed to single exposure decisions. This study investigates whether different media types (newspapers, political talk radio, cable news, and Internet) are more likely to inspire selective exposure. Using data from the 2004 National Annenberg Election Survey, evidence supports the idea that people’s political beliefs are related to their media exposure—a pattern that persists across media types. Over-time analyses suggest that people’s political beliefs motivate their media use patterns and that cable news audiences became increasingly politically divided over the course of the 2004 election.


Selective exposure Media Presidential politics Partisanship Political ideology 2004 election 



I would like to thank Vincent Price, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Joseph Cappella, the editors, and the anonymous reviewers for their comments. I also thank Ken Winneg for his assistance with the content analysis. I am grateful to Kathleen Hall Jamieson for providing the resources for this project.


  1. Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2006). Exploring the bases of partisanship in the American electorate: Social identity vs. ideology. Political Research Quarterly, 59(2), 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, J. S. (1961). Reduction of cognitive dissonance by seeking consonant information. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(1), 74–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aday, S., Livingston, S., & Hebert, M. (2005). Embedding the truth: A cross-cultural analysis of objectivity and television coverage of the Iraq war. Harvard Journal of Press/Politics, 10(1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allison, P. D. (1999). Logistic regression using the SAS system: Theory and application. Cary: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
  5. Atre, J., & Katz, E. (2005). What’s killing television news? Experimentally assessing the effects of multiple channels on media choice. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Conference, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  6. Ball-Rokeach, S. J., Grube, J. W., & Rokeach, M. (1981). “Roots: The next generation”—Who watched and with what effect? Public Opinion Quarterly, 45(1), 58–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barlett, D. L., Drew, P. B., Fahle, E. G., & Watts, W. A. (1974). Selective exposure to a presidential campaign appeal. Public Opinion Quarterly, 38(2), 264–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baum, M. A., & Kernell, S. (1999). Has cable ended the golden age of presidential television? American Political Science Review, 93(1), 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Best, S. J., Chmielewski, B., & Krueger, B. S. (2005). Selective exposure to online foreign news during the conflict with Iraq. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 10(4), 52–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bimber, B., & Davis, R. (2003). Campaigning online: The internet in U.S. elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cappella, J. N., Turow, J., & Jamieson, K. H. (1996). Call-in political talk radio: Background, content, audiences, portrayal in mainstream media. Philadelphia: Annenberg Public Policy Center.Google Scholar
  12. Center for Media and Public Affairs (2003). The diversity debate: Media coverage of affirmative action in college education. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  13. Center for Media and Public Affairs (2004a). Campaign 2004: The summer: How the media covered the presidential campaign during summer 2004. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  14. Center for Media and Public Affairs (2004b). Campaign 2004: The media agenda. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  15. Chaffee, S. H., & McLeod, J. M. (1973). Individuals vs. social predictors of information seeking. Journalism Quarterly, 50(2), 237–245.Google Scholar
  16. Chaffee, S., & Miyo, Y. (1983). Selective exposure and the reinforcement hypothesis: An intergenerational panel study of the 1980 presidential campaign. Communication Research, 10(1), 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chaffee, S. H., Saphir, M. N., Graf, J., Sandvig, C., & Hahn, K. S. (2001). Attention to counter-attitudinal messages in a state election campaign. Political Communication, 18(3), 247–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clymer, A. (2004). Fahrenheit 9/11 viewers and Limbaugh listeners.
  19. Cotton, J. L. (1985). Cognitive dissonance in selective exposure. In D. Zillmann & J. Bryant (Eds.), Selective exposure to communication (pp. 11–33). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. D’Alessio, D., & Allen, M. (2002). Selective exposure and dissonance after decisions. Psychological Reports, 91(2), 527–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dalton, R. J., Beck, P. A., & Huckfeldt, R. (1998). Partisan cues and the media: Information flows in the 1992 presidential election. American Political Science Review, 92(1), 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Donohew, L., & Palmgreen, P. (1971). A reappraisal of dissonance and the selective exposure hypothesis. Journalism Quarterly, 48(3), 412–420.Google Scholar
  23. Donsbach, W. (1991). Exposure to political content in newspapers: The impact of cognitive dissonance on readers’ selectivity. European Journal of Communication, 6(2), 155–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Druckman, J. N., & Parkin, M. (2005). The impact of media bias: How editorial slant affects voters. Journal of Politics, 67(4), 1030–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Erlich, D., Guttman, I., Schönbach, P., & Mills, J. (1957). Postdecision exposure to relevant information. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 54(1), 98–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Feather, N. T. (1962). Cigarette smoking and lung cancer: A study of cognitive dissonance. Australian Journal of Psychology, 14(1), 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fiorina, M. P., & Levendusky, M. S. (2007). Disconnected: The political class versus the people. In P. S. Nivola & D. W. Brady (Eds.), Red and blue nation? Characteristics and causes of America’s polarized politics (Vol. 1, pp. 49–71). Washington: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  28. Freedman, J. L. (1965). Preference for dissonant information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2(2), 287–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Freedman, J. L., & Sears, D. O. (1963). Voters’ preferences among types of information. American Psychologist, 18, 375.Google Scholar
  30. Freedman, J. L., & Sears, D. O. (1965). Selective exposure. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 57–97). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  31. Frey, D. (1986). Recent research on selective exposure to information. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 41–80). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  32. Galston, W. A. (2003). If political fragmentation is the problem, is the Internet the solution? In D. M. Anderson & M. Cornfield (Eds.), The civic web: Online politics and democratic values (pp. 35–44). Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Garrett, R. K. (2006). Seeking similarity, not avoiding difference: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Conference, Dresden, Germany.Google Scholar
  34. Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts & minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Groseclose, T., & Milyo, J. (2005). A measure of media bias. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(4), 1191–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Harrison, M. (2006). New format for heavy hundred: The 100 must important hosts now ranked leading elite group of 250. Talkers Magazine, 165.Google Scholar
  37. Hofstetter, C. R., Barker, D., Smith, J. T., Zari, G. M., & Ingrassia, T. A. (1999). Information, misinformation, and political talk radio. Political Research Quarterly, 52(2), 353–369.Google Scholar
  38. Horrigan, J., Garrett, K., & Resnick, P. (2004). The internet and democratic debate.
  39. Jaffee, M. K. (2004, October 29). Endorsements fire up readers: In polarized presidential race, papers’ picks sparking unprecedented outrage. San Antonio Express-News, p. 1A.Google Scholar
  40. Jonas, E., Schulz-Hardt, S., & Frey, D. (2005). Giving advice or making decisions in someone else’s place: The influence of impression, defense, and accuracy motivation on the search for new information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(7), 977–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kahn, K. F., & Kenney, P. J. (2002). The slant of the news: How editorial endorsements influence campaign coverage and citizens’ views of candidates. American Political Science Review, 96(2), 381–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kessler, R. C., & Greenberg, D. F. (1981). Linear panel analysis: Models of quantitative change. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  43. Kinder, D. R. (2003). Communication and politics in the age of information. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 357–393). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Klapper, J. T. (1960). The effects of mass communication. Glencoe: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  45. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Kull, S., Ramsay, C., & Lewis, E. (2003-4). Misperceptions, the media, and the Iraq war. Political Science Quarterly, 118(4), 569–598.Google Scholar
  47. Lau, R. R. (1989). Construct accessibility and electoral choice. Political Behavior, 11(1), 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The people’s choice. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Lowin, A. (1967). Approach and avoidance: Alternate modes of selective exposure to information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  51. McCroskey, J. C., & Prichard, S. V. O. (1967). Selective-exposure and Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1966 “State of the Union” address. Journal of Broadcasting, 11(4), 331–337.Google Scholar
  52. McGinnies, E., & Rosenbaum, L. L. (1965). A test of the selective-exposure hypothesis in persuasion. Journal of Psychology, 61(2), 237–240.Google Scholar
  53. McGuire, W. J. (1968). Selective exposure: A summing up. In R. P. Abelson, E. Aronson, W. J. McGuire, T. M. Newcomb, M. J. Rosenberg, & P. H. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook (pp. 797–800). Chicago: Rand McNally and Company.Google Scholar
  54. Meffert, M. F., Chung, S., Joiner, A. J., Waks, L., & Garst, J. (2006). The effects of negativity and motivated information processing during a political campaign. Journal of Communication, 56(1), 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mills, J. (1965a). Avoidance of dissonant information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2(4), 589–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mills, J. (1965b). The effect of certainty on exposure to information prior to commitment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1(4), 348–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mills, J., Aronson, E., & Robinson, H. (1959). Selectivity in exposure to information. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 250–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mutz, D. C. (2006). How the mass media divide us. In P. S. Nivola & D. W. Brady (Eds.) Red and blue nation? Characteristics and causes of America’s polarized politics (Vol. 1, pp. 223–242). Washington: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  59. Mutz, D. C., & Martin, P. S. (2001). Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 97–114.Google Scholar
  60. Paletz, D. L., Koon, J., Whitehead, E., & Hagens, R. B. (1972). Selective exposure: The potential boomerang effect. Journal of Communication, 22(1), 48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pew Research Center (2004). Polls face growing resistance, but still representative.
  62. Pew Research Center (2005). Trends 2005. Washington, DC.
  63. Price, V., & Tewksbury, D. (1997). News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming. In G. Barnett & F. J. Boster (Eds.), Progress in the Communication Sciences (Vol. 13, pp. 173–212). Greenwich: Ablex.Google Scholar
  64. Price, V., & Zaller, J. (1990). Evaluation of media exposure items in the 1989 NES pilot study. Technical report to the National Election Studies Board of Overseers. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
  65. Prior, M. (2005). News vs. entertainment: How increasing media choice widens gaps in political knowledge and turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 577–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Prior, M. (2007a). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Prior, M. (2007b). The incredibly inflated news audience: Assessing bias in self-reported news exposure. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Conference, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  68. Project for Excellence in Journalism (2004). The debate effect: How the press covered the pivotal period of the 2004 presidential campaign. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  69. Rainie, L., & Horrigan, J. (2007). Election 2006 online. Pew Internet & American Life Project.
  70. Redlawsk, D. P. (2002). Hot cognition or cool consideration? Journal of Politics, 64(4), 1021–1044.Google Scholar
  71. Romer, D., Kenski, K., Winneg, K., Adasiewicz, C., & Jamieson, K. H. (2006). Capturing campaign dynamics: 2000 & 2004. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  72. Rosen, S. (1961). Postdecision affinity for incompatible information. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(1), 188–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schramm, W., & Carter, R. F. (1959). Effectiveness of a political telethon. Public Opinion Quarterly, 23(1), 121–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schudson, M. (1995). The power of news. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Sears, D. O., & Freedman, J. L. (1967). Selective exposure to information: A critical review. Public Opinion Quarterly, 31(2), 194–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Slater, M. D. (2004). Operationalizing and analyzing exposure: The foundation of media effects research. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(1), 168–183.Google Scholar
  77. Stempel, G. H. III (1961). Selectivity in readership of political news. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25(3), 400–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Stromer-Galley, J. (2003). Diversity of political conversation on the Internet: Users’ perspectives. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8(3).Google Scholar
  79. Stroud, N. J. (2007). Media effects, selective exposure, and Fahrenheit 9/11. Political Communication, 24(4), 415–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sunstein, C. (2001). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Weaver, D. H., Graber, D. A., McCombs, M. E., & Eyal, C. H. (1981). Media agenda-setting in a presidential election: Issues, images, and interest. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  83. Valentino, N. A., Hutchings, V. L., Banks, A. J., & Davis, A. K. (2007). Selective exposure in the Internet age: Emotional triggers of political information seeking. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Conference, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  84. Yanovitzky, I., & Cappella, J. N. (2001). Effect of call-in political talk radio shows on their audiences: Evidence from a multi-wave panel analysis. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 13(4), 377–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zaller, J. (1986). Analysis of information items in the 1985 NES pilot study. National Election Studies.Google Scholar
  86. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  87. Ziemke, D. A. (1980). Selective exposure in a presidential campaign contingent on certainty, salience. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication Yearbook (Vol. 4, pp. 497–511). New Brunswick: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
  88. Zillmann, D., Chen, L., Knobloch, S., & Callison, C. (2004). Effects of lead framing on selective exposure to internet news reports. Communication Research, 31(1), 58–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Zillmann, D., Knobloch, S., & Yu, H.-S. (2001). Effects of photographs on the selective reading of news reports. Media Psychology, 3(4), 301–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication StudiesUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations