Political Behavior

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 231–255 | Cite as

Effect of Media Environment Diversity and Advertising Tone on Information Search, Selective Exposure, and Affective Polarization

  • Richard R. Lau
  • David J. Andersen
  • Tessa M. Ditonto
  • Mona S. Kleinberg
  • David P. Redlawsk
Original Paper


This paper examines the effects of our modern media environment on affective polarization. We conducted an experiment during the last month of the 2012 presidential election varying both the choice of media sources available about the major presidential candidates, and the tone of political advertisements presented to subjects. We posit that voters in a high-choice, ideologically-diverse media environment will exhibit greater affective polarization than those in a “mainstream” ideologically neutral environment. We also hypothesize that subjects who are exposed to negative rather than positive political advertisements will show increased affective polarization. We provide causal evidence that the combination of a high-choice ideologically diverse media environment and exposure to negative political ads, significantly increases affective polarization. We also find that both overall information search and selective exposure to information are influenced by our experimental manipulations, with the greatest amount of search, and the most biased search, conducted by Romney supporters in the Negative Ads, Diverse Media condition.


Affective polarization Information search Negative advertising Partisan media environment Political polarization Selective exposure 

Supplementary material

11109_2016_9354_MOESM1_ESM.docx (263 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 262 kb)


  1. Abramowitz, A. I. (2010). The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization, and American democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (1998). Ideological realignment in the U.S. electorate. Journal of Politics, 60(3), 634–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2008). Is polarization a myth? Journal of Politics, 70(2), 542–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersen, D. J. (2011). Pushing the limits of democracy: Concurrent elections and cognitive limitations of voters. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Political Science, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  5. Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1995). Going negative: How political advertisements shrink & polarize the electorate. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  6. Arceneaux, K., & Johnson, M. (2013). Changing minds or changing channels? Media effects in the era of expanded choice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arceneaux, K., Johnson, M., & Murphy, C. (2012). Polarized political communication, oppositional media hostility, and selective exposure. Journal of Politics, 74(1), 174–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58(4), 707–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Benson-Allott, C. (2014). How the remote control rewired the home. Retrieved from,
  10. Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon. Com’s mechanical turk. Political Analysis, 20(2), 351–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brehm, J. W. (1956). Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52(3), 384–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coe, K. D., Tewksbury, B. J., Bond, K. L., Drogos, R. W., Porter, A., & Zhang, Y. (2008). Hostile news: Partisan use and perceptions of cable news programming. Journal of Communication, 58(2), 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dilliplane, T. S. (2011). All the news you want to hear. The impact of partisan news exposure on political participation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(2), 287–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DiMaggio, P., Evans, J., & Bryson, B. (1996). A have Americans’ social attitudes become more polarized? American Journal of Sociology, 102(3), 690–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ditonto, T.M. (2013). The effects of candidate appearance on information search and political behavior during political campaigns. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Political Science, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  17. Ditonto, T. M., Hamilton, A., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2014). Gender stereotypes, information search, and voting behavior in political campaigns. Political Behavior, 36(2), 335–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Druckman, J. N., & Leeper, T. J. (2012). Learning more from political communication experiments: Pretreatment and its effects. American Journal of Political Science, 56(4), 875–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Edwards, K., & Smith, E. (1996). A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eveland, W. P., & Shah, D. V. (2003). The impact of individual and interpersonal factors on perceived news media bias. Political Psychology, 24(1), 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Feldman, S. (2013). Political ideology”. In L. Huddy, D. O. Sears, & J. S. Levy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political psychology (2nd ed., pp. 591–626). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Fiorina, M. P., & Abrams, S. J. (2008). Political polarization in the American public. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 563–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. C. (2005). Culture war? The myth of a polarized America. New York: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
  25. Gaines, B. J., & Kuklinski, J. H. (2011). Experimental estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects related to self-selection. American Journal of Political Science, 55(3), 724–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Garrett, R. K. (2009). Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication, 59(4), 676–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Geer, J. G. (2006). In defense of negativity: Attack ads in presidential campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Geer, J. G., Lau, R. R., & Nickerson, D. (2013). Political information search in the viewer’s choice era. Paper presented at the 109th annual meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  29. Goldstein, K., & Freedman, P. (2000). New evidence for new arguments: Money and advertising in the 1996 senate elections. Journal of Politics, 62(4), 1087–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Goldstein, K., & Freedman, P. (2002). Campaign advertising and voter turnout: New evidence for a stimulation effect. Journal of Politics, 64(3), 721–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Greco, V. (2014). Three essays on the relationship between implicit attitudes and political behavior. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Political Science, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  32. Hovland, C. I. (1959). Reconciling conflicting results derived from experimental and survey studies of attitude change”. American Psychologist, 14(1), 8–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Iyengar, S., Krosnick, J., & Hahn, K. (2008). Selective exposure to campaign communication: The role of anticipated agreement and issue public membership. Journal of Politics, 70(1), 186–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jacobson, G. C. (2005). Polarized politics and the 2004 congressional and presidential elections. Political Science Quarterly, 120(2), 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jamieson, K. H. (1992). Dirty politics: Deception, distraction, and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Jennings, M. K., Stoker, L., & Bowers, J. (2009). Politics across generations: Family transmission reexamined. Journal of Politics, 71(3), 782–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jerit, J., & Barabas, J. (2012). Partisan perceptual bias and the information environment. Journal of Politics, 74(3), 672–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jones, D. R. (2010). Partisan polarization and congressional accountability in house elections. American Journal of Political Science, 54(2), 323–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kaid, L. L., & Johnston, A. (1991). Negative versus positive television advertising in U.S. presidential campaigns, 1960-1988. Journal of Communication, 41(1), 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kleinberg, M. S. (2013). Selective exposure and learning online: Do minority websites increase knowledge among blacks? Paper presented at the 71st annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  44. Kleinberg, M. S. (2014). The Internet, race, and U.S. democracy. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Political Science, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  45. Kleinberg, M. S., Lau, R. R., Ditonto, T. M., & Andersen, D. J. (2014). Testing the validity of mechanical turk data beyond simple one-shot experiments. Paper presented at the 110th annual meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  46. Kunda, Z. (1987). Motivated inference: Self-serving generation and evaluation of causal theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(5), 636–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lane, R. E. (1959). Political life: Why people get involved in politics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  49. Lau, R. R. (1985). Two explanations for negativity effects in political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 29(1), 119–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2006). How voters decide: Information processing during election campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lau, R. R., Sigelman, L., & Brown Rovner, I. (2007). The effects of negative political campaigns: A meta-analytic reassessment. Journal of Politics, 69(4), 1176–1209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lau, R. R., Sigelman, L., Heldman, C., & Babbitt, P. (1999). The effects of negative political advertisements: A meta-analytic review. American Political Science Review, 93(4), 851–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lee, T. (2005). The liberal media myth revisited: An examination of factors influencing perceptions of media bias. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49(1), 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Levendusky, M. S. (2009). The partisan sort: How liberals became Democrats and conservatives became Republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Levendusky, M. S. (2013). Why do partisan media polarize viewers? American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 611–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lodge, M., McGraw, K. M., & Stroh, P. (1989). An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 83(2), 399–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2000). Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason: Understanding and expanding the limits of political rationality. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. B. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  60. Mason, L. (2013). The rise of uncivil agreement: Issue versus behavioral polarization in the American electorate. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(1), 140–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mason, L. (2015). I disrespectfully agree: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 128–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mattes, K., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2014). The positive case for negative campaigning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  63. Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative vs. participatory democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pierce, D. (2014). Information, accountability, and political preferences. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Political Science, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  65. Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2001). D NOMINATE after 10 years. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 26(1), 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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
  67. Prior, M. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Prior, M. (2013). Media and political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 101–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Redlawsk, D. P. (2002). Hot cognition or cool consideration: Testing the effects of motivated reasoning. Journal of Politics, 64(4), 1021–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sears, D. O., & Freedman, J. L. (1967). Selective exposure to information: A critical review. Public Opinion Quarterly, 31(2), 194–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sears, D. O., & Funk, C. L. (1999). Evidence of the long-term persistence of adults’ political predispositions. Journal of Politics, 61(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stonecash, J. M., Brewer, M. D., & Mariani, M. (2003). Diverging parties: Social changes, realignment, and party polarizations. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  73. Stroud, N. J. (2008). Media use and predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior, 30(3), 341–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 556–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stroud, N. J. (2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austina & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey: Brooks-Cole.Google Scholar
  77. Theriault, S. M., & Rohde, D. W. (2011). The Gingrich senators and party polarization in the U.S. Senate. Journal of Politics, 73(4), 1011–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Ura, J. D., & Ellis, C. R. (2012). Partisan moods: Polarization and the dynamics of mass party preferences. Journal of Politics, 74(1), 262–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Valentino, N. A., Banks, A. J., Hutchings, V. L., & Davis, A. K. (2009). Selective exposure in the internet age: The interaction between anxiety and information utility. Political Psychology, 30(4), 591–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Watts, M. D., Domke, D., Shah, D. V., & Fan, D. P. (1999). Elite cues and media bias in presidential campaigns: Explaining public perceptions of a liberal press. Communication Research, 26(2), 144–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. West, D. M. (1993). Air wars: Television advertising in election campaigns, 1952-1992. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  82. West, D. M. (2013). Air wars: Television advertising in election campaigns, 1952-2012 (6th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard R. Lau
    • 1
  • David J. Andersen
    • 2
  • Tessa M. Ditonto
    • 2
  • Mona S. Kleinberg
    • 3
  • David P. Redlawsk
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceIowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  3. 3.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of Massachusetts LowellLowellUSA
  4. 4.Department of Political Science and International RelationsUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations