Abstract
The Internet era has often been blamed for a predominant engagement with attitude-consistent information among citizens (labeled confirmation bias), which is thought to hurt political deliberation. This study offers the first rigorous evidence suggesting that online news fosters greater confirmation bias than traditional media. A 2 × 2 within-subjects experiment presented political articles, varying stance (conservative vs. liberal) and medium (online vs. print); selective exposure was logged or taped. Data were collected during the U.S. 2016 presidential primaries. As expected in the preelection context, partisans whose party was anticipated to lose the election (conservatives) did not exhibit confirmation bias. Liberals showed confirmation bias, but only online, suggesting print contexts reduce confirmation bias.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Stefanie Blake, Alexa Carlson, Phyllis Chen, Alaina Eleyet, Gina Lewis, SriSivaa Karri, Dr. Cornelia Mothes and Jonathan Schulman for their contribution to this work, which included helpful advice on the design, stimuli creation, running lab sessions, and coding the video recordings.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
George David Hooke Pearson
George David Hooke Pearson (M.A., University of Glasgow, 2011) is a Ph.D. Candidate in the School of Communication at The Ohio State University. His research interests include the effects of digital technology on journalism production and use; public opinion; and media literacy.
Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick
Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick (Ph.D., Hanover University of Music, Drama, and Media, 1999) is a full professor in the School of Communication at The Ohio State University. Her research interests include the selection, processing, and effects of mediated communication. A key thread in her work pertains to antecedents and consequences of selective exposure to mediated messages.