Fight or flight? Attributing responsibility in response to mixed congruent and incongruent partisan news in selective exposure media environments

Figures & data

Figure 1. Experimental flow-chart for Study 1 and Study 2.

Table 1. Binary logistic regression model estimating selective exposure and avoidance of fact checkers.

Conditions	Select second text refuting pro-immigration partisan news		Select second text refuting counter-immigration partisan news
Variables	B (SE)	95% CI OR	B (SE)	95% CI OR
(constant)	.68 (1.05)		−.30 (1.04)
Congruence news item	−.82 (.18)***	[0.31, 0.62]	−.79 (.17)***	[0.32, 0.63]
Gender (male)	−.32 (.28)	[0.42, 1.25]	−.22 (.28)	[0.47, 1.38]
Education (higher)	.09 (.28)	[0.63, 1.91]	.18 (.28)	[0.69, 2.08]
Republican partisans	.09 (.34)	[0.56, 2.13]	−.42 (.36)	[0.33, 1.33]
Democrat partisans	−.25 (.37)	[0.38, 1.61]	−.11 (.35)	[0.45, 1.78]
Media trust	−.10 (.15)	[0.68, 1.21]	.04 (.15)	[0.77, 1.39]
Media objectivity	−.04 (.14)	[0.74, 1.25]	−.05 (.13)	[0.73, 1.23]
Political interest	−.03 (.09)	[0.81, 1.17]	.10 (.10)	[0.92, 1.34]
Political cynicism	−.07 (0.12)	[0.73, 1.18]	−.11 (.12)	[0.71, 1.14]
N	94		93
Nagelkerke R^2	.118		.106
χ^2 (df)	34.28 (9)***		31.04 (9)

Notes: Attitudinal congruence in the first column represents supporting immigration. In the second column, in stands for opposing immigration. CI = confidence interval; OR = odds ratio. Two-tailed tests. Unstandardized regression weights. Standard errors reported between brackets. The reference category for the reported conditions is not selecting the Fact Checker.

***p < 0.001.

Figure 2. Blame attributions in response to incongruent partisan news on immigration, followed by the absence or presence of a congruent second article. ‘Dem’ indicates the presence of a Democrats frame, which is incongruent for Republicans. ‘Rep’ indicates a Republican frame, which is incongruent for Democrats.

Table 2. The effects of forced and selective exposure to fact checkers of (in)congruent partisan news on blame perceptions.

Blame		Obama		Trump		Clinton
First article	Second article (fact checker)	Democrat pro-frame	Republican counter-frame	Democrat pro-frame	Republican counter-frame	Democrat pro-frame	Republican counter-frame
		M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
Forced exposure
Congruent	Not present	2.96a (1.72)	4.88b (1.50)	5.47a (1.75)	2.95b (1.72)	2.34a (1.57)	4.07b (1.72)
	Incongruent	3.10a (1.96)	4.51b (2.18)	5.28a (1.73)	3.18b (1.99)	2.72a (1.72)	3.92b (2.06)
Incongruent	Not present	5.28b (1.73)	2.94c (1.66)	3.05b (1.95)	4.40c (1.90)	3.87b (2.05)	2.54c (1.49)
	Congruent	4.41c (1.98)	3.19c (1.82)	4.12c (2.13)	4.95c (2.07)	3.14c (1.80)	2.79c (1.68)
Selective exposure
Congruent	Incongruent	3.42a (1.84)	4.72b (2.08)	4.68a (1.93)	3.06a (1.91)	2.52a (1.58)	4.15a (1.81)
Incongruent	Congruent	4.95b (1.75)	3.18c (1.82)	2.81b (1.73)	4.67b (2.05)	3.48b (1.83)	2.64b (1.48)
F		12.84***	11.09***	15.53***	9.44***	5.01***	9.58***
Partial η²		.195	.174	.228	.151	.086	.153
N		274	276	274	276	274	276

Notes: Columns represent the partisan framing of the news items; rows represent the attitudinal congruence of these partisan news items in forced (first four rows) and selective exposure (final two rows) media environments. Means with differing subscripts differ significantly at the p < .05 level based on independent samples t-test (pairwise comparisons). In the forced exposure conditions, we compared responsibility attributions as a consequence of the random allocation of the presence vs. absence of a fact checker. For the selective exposure conditions, we assess how the freedom to select a second attacking article affects attributions of blame.

**p < 0.01.

***p < 0.001.

Table 3. Binary logistic regression model estimating selective exposure and avoidance of fact checkers of partisan news on climate change.

Conditions	Select second text refuting pro-climate partisan news		Select second text refuting counter-climate partisan news
Variables	B (SE)	95% CI OR	B (SE)	95% CI OR
(constant)	−3.98 (2.24)		−.84 (1.38)
Congruence news item	−1.06 (.56)*	[0.11, 1.05]	.11 (.58)	[0.36, 3.45]
Gender (male)	.33 (.56)	[0.44, 4.36]	−.01 (.49)	[0.38, 2.60]
Education (higher)	1.74 (.60)**	[1.75, 18.66]	−.47 (.49)	[0.24, 1.62]
Republican partisans	.56 (.71)	[0.43, 7.03]	−.13 (.60)	[0.73, 2.84]
Democrat partisans	−.38 (.69)	[0.18, 2.63]	.40 (.63)	[0.44, 5.09]
Media trust	−.39 (.30)	[0.37, 1.22]	.01 (.22)	[0.65, 1.55]
Scientific trust	.34 (.24)	[0.88, 2.26]	−.07 (.16)	[0.68, 1.28]
Need factual media	.74 (.25)**	[1.28, 3.44]	.31 (.18)	[0.96, 1.92]
Political interest	−.21 (.21)	[0.54, 1.23]	.29 (.18)	[0.94, 1.90]
N	92		93
Nagelkerke R^2	.306		.077
χ^2 (df)	23.05(9)**		5.35(8)

Notes: Attitudinal congruence in the first column represents supporting climate change policies. In the second column, in stands for opposing climate change policies. CI = confidence interval; OR = odds ratio. Two-tailed tests. Unstandardized regression weights. Standard errors reported between brackets. The reference category for the reported conditions is not selecting the Fact Checker.

***p < 0.001.

Table 4. The effects of forced and selective exposure to fact checkers of (in)congruent partisan news on accountability.

Treatment responsibility		Republican Party		Democratic Party
First article	Second article(fact checker)	Democrat pro-frame	Republican counter-frame	Democrat pro-frame	Republican counter-frame
		M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
Forced exposure
Congruent	Not present	3.90a (1.95)	2.77b (1.88)	4.90a (1.59)	3.46b (1.98)
	incongruent	4.06a (1.73)	3.09b (1.82)	5.00a (1.26)	3.41b (2.03)
Incongruent	Not present	2.86b (1.96)	4.49c (1.84)	2.98b (1.99)	4.91c (1.58)
	Congruent	3.08b (1.84)	3.54d (1.90)	3.12b (1.54)	4.67c (1.59)
Selective exposure
Congruent	Incongruent	4.46a (1.70)	3.92b (2.20)	4.93a (1.29)	3.49b (1.96)
Incongruent	Congruent	2.81b (1.78)	3.54b (2.01)	3.12b (1.92)	4.74c (1.70)
F		6.83***	5.78***	18.38***	7.54***
Partial η^2		.114	.092	.257	.123
N		272	273	272	273

Notes: Columns represent the partisan framing of the news items; rows represent the attitudinal congruence of these partisan news items in forced (first four rows) and selective exposure (final two rows) media environments. Means with differing subscripts differ significantly at the p < .05 level based on independent samples t-test (pairwise comparisons). In the forced exposure conditions, we compare responsibility attributions as a consequence of the random allocation of the presence vs. absence of a fact checker. For the selective exposure conditions, we assess how the freedom to select a second attacking article affects attributions of blame.

**p < 0.01.

***p < 0.001.

Figure 3. Treatment attributions in response to incongruent partisan news on climate change policies, followed by the absence or presence of a congruent second article. ‘Dem’ indicates the presence of a Democrats frame, which is incongruent for Republicans. ‘Rep’ indicates a Republican frame, which is incongruent for Democrats.

Table C1. The effects of forced and selective exposure to fact checkers of (in)congruent partisan news on blame perceptions.

Blame		Obama		Trump		Clinton		Immigrants
Congruence first article	Congruence second article	Democrat pro-frame	Republican counter-frame	Democrat pro-frame	Republican counter-frame	Democrat pro-frame	Republican counter-frame	Democrat pro-frame	Republican counter-frame
		M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
Forced exposure
Congruent	Not present	2.96a (1.72)	4.88b (1.50)	5.47a (1.75)	2.95b (1.72)	2.34a (1.57)	4.07b (1.72)	3.36a (1.61)	5.07b (1.33)
	Incongruent	3.10a (1.96)	4.51b (2.18)	5.28a (1.73)	3.18b (1.99)	2.72a (1.72)	3.92b (2.06)	3.38a (1.83)	4.47b (1.54)
Incongruent	Not present	5.28b (1.73)	2.94c (1.66)	3.05b (1.95)	4.40c (1.90)	3.87b (2.05)	2.54c (1.49)	5.26b (1.67)	3.00c (1.18)
	Congruent	4.41c (1.98)	3.19c (1.82)	4.12c (2.13)	4.95c (2.07)	3.14c (1.80)	2.79c (1.68)	4.88b (1.75)	2.79c (1.30)
Selective exposure
Congruent	Incongruent	3.42a (1.84)	4.72b (2.08)	4.68a (1.93)	3.06a (1.91)	2.52a (1.58)	4.15a (1.81)	3.32a (1.52)	4.45a (1.59)
Incongruent	Congruent	4.95b (1.75)	3.18c (1.82)	2.81b (1.73)	4.67b (2.05)	3.48b (1.83)	2.64b (1.48)	4.90b (1.83)	2.84b (1.51)
F		12.84***	11.09***	15.53***	9.44***	5.01***	9.58***	13.07***	21.74***
Partial η²		.195	.174	.228	.151	.086	.153	.198	.290
N		274	276	274	276	274	276	274	276

Notes: Columns represent the partisan framing of the news items; rows represent the attitudinal congruence of these partisan news items in forced (first four rows) and selective exposure (final two rows) media environments. Means with differing subscripts differ significantly at the p < .05 level based on independent samples t-test (pairwise comparisons).In forced exposure conditions, we compare the random allocation of the presence vs. absence of a fact checker. For the selective exposure conditions, we assess how the freedom to select a second attacking article affects attributions.

**p < 0.01.

***p < 0.001.

Table C2. The effects of forced and selective exposure to fact checkers of (in)congruent partisan news on accountability.

Treatment responsibility		Citizens		Corporations
Congruence first article	Congruence second article	Democrat pro-frame	Republican counter-frame	Democrat pro-frame	Republican counter-frame
		M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
Forced exposure
Congruent	Not present	5.20a (1.65)	3.69b (1.92)	4.84a (1.83)	2.86a (1.77)
	Incongruent	5.00a (1.33)	3.14b (1.76)	3.98b (1.99)	3.07a (1.78)
Incongruent	Not present	3.12b (1.97)	5.51c (1.67)	2.60c (1.85)	4.67b (1.98)
	Congruent	3.17b (1.64)	5.02d (1.55)	3.22c (1.78)	3.88d (1.91)
Selective exposure
Congruent	Incongruent	5.30a (1.46)	3.95b (2.05)	4.58a (1.73)	3.54b (2.04)
Incongruent	Congruent	3.09b (1.85)	4.98c (1.42)	5.12a (1.65)	4.08b (1.78)
F		20.83***	13.93***	11.71***	5.87***
Partial η²		.281	.207	.237	.099
N		272	273	272	273

Notes: Columns represent the partisan framing of the news items; rows represent the attitudinal congruence of these partisan news items in forced (first four rows) and selective exposure (final two rows) media environments. Means with differing subscripts differ significantly at the p < .05 level based on independent samples t-test (pairwise comparisons). In forced exposure conditions, we compare the random allocation of the presence vs. absence of a fact checker. For the selective exposure conditions, we assess how the freedom to select a second attacking article affects attributions.

**p < 0.01.

***p < 0.001.