IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/anname/v658y2015i1p172-191.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Selecting Our Own Science

Author

Listed:
  • Sara K. Yeo
  • Michael A. Xenos
  • Dominique Brossard
  • Dietram A. Scheufele

Abstract

We use an experiment with a nationally representative sample of the U.S. population to examine how political partisans consume and process media reports about nanotechnology—a scientific issue that is unfamiliar to most Americans. We manipulate the extent to which participants receive ideological cues contextualizing a news article, and follow their subsequent information seeking about nanotechnology. Our results provide insights into patterns of media use and how media use differs among people with varying political ideologies. When cues clarifying the political stakes of nanotechnology are made available, individuals are willing to read information from countervailing sources. When such cues are lacking, however, individuals avoid incongruent information and opt for headlines from attitude-consistent sources. We explore variations in the circumstances under which ideological selectivity occurs and demonstrate that both confirmation bias and defensive avoidance are heightened under such conditions.

Suggested Citation

  • Sara K. Yeo & Michael A. Xenos & Dominique Brossard & Dietram A. Scheufele, 2015. "Selecting Our Own Science," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 172-191, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:658:y:2015:i:1:p:172-191
    DOI: 10.1177/0002716214557782
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002716214557782
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0002716214557782?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mutz, Diana C., 2001. "Facilitating Communication across Lines of Political Difference: The Role of Mass Media," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(1), pages 97-114, March.
    2. John H. Evans, 2003. "Have Americans' Attitudes Become More Polarized?—An Update," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 84(1), pages 71-90, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Leung, Benson Tsz Kin, 2020. "Limited cognitive ability and selective information processing," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 345-369.
    2. Raquel Fernández & Sahar Parsa, 2022. "Gay Politics Goes Mainstream: Democrats, Republicans and Same‐sex Relationships," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 89(S1), pages 86-109, June.
    3. Ashani Amarasinghe & Paul A. Raschky, 2022. "Competing for Attention - The Effect of Talk Radio on Elections and Political Polarization in the US," SoDa Laboratories Working Paper Series 2022-02, Monash University, SoDa Laboratories.
    4. Shyam Gouri Suresh & Scott Jeffrey, 2017. "The Consequences of Social Pressures on Partisan Opinion Dynamics," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 43(2), pages 242-259, March.
    5. Keith Poole, 2007. "Changing minds? Not in Congress!," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 131(3), pages 435-451, June.
    6. Lindita Camaj, 2019. "From Selective Exposure to Selective Information Processing: A Motivated Reasoning Approach," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 8-11.
    7. Ugur Ozdemir & Ali Ihsan Ozkes, 2014. "Measuring Public Preferential Polarization," Working Papers hal-00954497, HAL.
    8. Dan Simon & Nicholas Scurich, 2013. "The Effect of Legal Expert Commentary on Lay Judgments of Judicial Decision Making," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 797-814, December.
    9. Nadine Lehrer & Gretchen Sneegas, 2018. "Beyond polarization: using Q methodology to explore stakeholders’ views on pesticide use, and related risks for agricultural workers, in Washington State’s tree fruit industry," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 35(1), pages 131-147, March.
    10. Jacob R. Brown & Enrico Cantoni & Ryan D. Enos & Vincent Pons & Emilie Sartre, 2023. "The increase in partisan segregation in the United States," Discussion Papers 2023-09, Nottingham Interdisciplinary Centre for Economic and Political Research (NICEP).
    11. Duane F. Alwin & Paula A. TufiÅŸ, 2016. "The Changing Dynamics of Class and Culture in American Politics," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 663(1), pages 229-269, January.
    12. Ascensión Andina-Díaz, 2006. "Political competition when media create candidates’ charisma," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 345-366, June.
    13. Hyunkuk Lee, 2021. "Does the Medium Matter? Linking Citizens’ Use of Communication Platform for Information about Urban Policies to Decision to Trust in Local Government," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-17, March.
    14. Elizabeth Levy Paluck, 2007. "Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict with the media: A field experiment in Rwanda," HiCN Working Papers 34, Households in Conflict Network.
    15. Stern, Samuel & Livan, Giacomo, 2021. "The impact of noise and topology on opinion dynamics in social networks," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 113424, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Cheuk Hang Au & Kevin K. W. Ho & Dickson K.W. Chiu, 2022. "The Role of Online Misinformation and Fake News in Ideological Polarization: Barriers, Catalysts, and Implications," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 1331-1354, August.
    17. Ulf Richter, 2011. "Drivers of Change: A Multiple-Case Study on the Process of Institutionalization of Corporate Responsibility Among Three Multinational Companies," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(2), pages 261-279, August.
    18. Gabor Toka & Marina Popescu, 2009. "Public Television, Private Television and Citizens' Political Knowledge," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 66, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    19. Wietzke, Frank-Borge, 2014. "Pathways from jobs to social cohesion," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6804, The World Bank.
    20. Philipp Lorenz-Spreen & Stephan Lewandowsky & Cass R. Sunstein & Ralph Hertwig, 2020. "How behavioural sciences can promote truth, autonomy and democratic discourse online," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(11), pages 1102-1109, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:658:y:2015:i:1:p:172-191. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.