Social Norms and Selectivity: Effects of Norms of Open-Mindedness on Content Selection and Affective Polarization

References

• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anspach, N. M. (2017). The new personal influence: How our Facebook friends influence the news we read. Political Communication, 34(4), 590–606. doi:10.1080/10584609.2017.1316329
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arceneaux, K., & Johnson, M. (2015). How does media choice affect hostile media perceptions? Evidence from participant preference experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2(1), 12–25. doi:10.1017/xps.2014.10
   Google Scholar
• Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130–1132. doi:10.1126/science.aaa1160
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Barabas, J. (2004). How deliberation affects policy opinions. American Political Science Review, 98(4), 687–701. doi:10.1017/S0003055404041425
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barberá, P. (2014). How social media reduces mass political polarization. Evidence from Germany, Spain, and the US. Job Market Paper, New York University, 46.
   Google Scholar
• Beam, M. A., Hutchens, M. J., & Hmielowski, J. D. (2018). Facebook news and (de) polarization: Reinforcing spirals in the 2016 US election. Information, Communication & Society, 21(7), 940–958. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2018.1444783
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berelson, B. (1952). Democratic theory and public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 16, 313–330. doi:10.1086/266397
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brenes Peralta, C., Wojcieszak, M., Lelkes, Y., & de Vreese, C. (2017). Selective exposure to balanced content and evidence type: The case of issue and non-issue publics about climate change and health care. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 94(3), 833–861. doi:10.1177/1077699016654681
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Budak, C., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016). Fair and balanced? quantifying media bias through crowdsourced content analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 250–271. doi:10.1093/poq/nfw007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4), 105–109. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.01242
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dvir-Gvirsman, S. (2014). It’s not that we don’t know, it’s that we don’t care: Explaining why selective exposure polarizes attitudes. Mass Communication and Society, 17, 74–97. doi:10.1080/15205436.2013.816738
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dvir-Gvirsman, S. (2015). One-track minds? Cognitive needs, media diet, and overestimation of public support for one’s views. Media Psychology, 18(4), 475–498. doi:10.1080/15213269.2014.929526
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engaging News Project. (2014). Hyperlink prompts report. Retrieved from https://engagingnewsproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/ENP_Links_Report.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Esser, F., & Umbricht, A. (2014). The evolution of objective and interpretative journalism in the Western press: Comparing six news systems since the 1960s. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91(2), 229–249. doi:10.1177/1077699014527459
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feldman, L., Stroud, N. J., Bimber, B., & Wojcieszak, M. (2013). Assessing selective exposure in experiments: The implications of different methodological choices. Communication Methods and Measures, 7(3–4), 172–194. doi:10.1080/19312458.2013.813923
   Google Scholar
• Feldman, L., Wojcieszak, M., Stroud, N. J., & Bimber, B. (2018). Explaining media choice: The role of issue-specific engagement in predicting interest-based and partisan selectivity. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 62(1), 109–130. doi:10.1080/08838151.2017.1375502
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Beliefs, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 298–320. doi:10.1093/poq/nfw006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrett, R. (2009). Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication, 59(4), 676–699. doi:10.1111/jcom.2009.59.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrett, R., Gvirsman, S. D., Johnson, B., Tsfati, Y., Neo, R., & Dal, A. (2014). Implications of pro‐ and counter-attitudinal information exposure for affective polarization. Human Communication Research, 40(3), 309–332. doi:10.1111/hcre.12028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrett, R., & Stroud, N. (2014). Partisan paths to exposure diversity: Differences in pro- and counter-attitudinal news consumption. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 680–701. doi:10.1111/jcom.2014.64.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gastil, J. (2000). By popular demand: Revitalizing representative democracy through deliberative elections. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2011). Ideological segregation online and offline. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(4), 1799–1839. doi:10.1093/qje/qjr044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerber, A. S., & Rogers, T. (2009). Descriptive social norms and motivation to vote: Everybody’s voting and so should you. The Journal of Politics, 71(1), 178–191. doi:10.1017/S0022381608090117
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstein, N., Cialdini, R., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 472–482. doi:10.1086/586910
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gómez, Á., Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Fernández, S., & Vázquez, A. (2013). Responses to endorsement of commonality by ingroup and outgroup members: The roles of group representation and threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(4), 419–431. doi:10.1177/0146167213475366
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gómez, Á., Dovidio, J. F., Huici, C., Gaertner, S. L., & Cuadrado, I. (2008). The other side of we: When outgroup members express common identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(12), 1613–1626. doi:10.1177/0146167208323600
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenaway, K., Wright, R., Willingham, J., Reynolds, K., & Haslam, S. (2015). Shared identity is key to effective communication. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(2), 171–182. doi:10.1177/0146167214559709
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guess, A. (2018) Everything in moderation: New evidence on Americans’ online media diets. Retrieved from https://webspace.princeton.edu/users/aguess/Guess_OnlineMediaDiets.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement: Why moral conflict cannot be avoided in politics, and what can be done about it. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
   Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1111/ajps.12152
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, Y. M. (2007). How intrinsic and extrinsic motivations interact in selectivity: Investigating the moderating effects of situational information processing goals in issue publics’ web behavior. Communication Research, 34, 185–211. doi:10.1177/0093650206298069
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Kleinman, S. (2012). Preelection selective exposure: Confirmation bias versus informational utility. Communication Research, 39, 170–193. doi:10.1177/0093650211400597
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Meng, J. (2011). Reinforcement of the political self through selective exposure to political messages. Journal of Communication, 61(2), 349–368. doi:10.1111/jcom.2011.61.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruglanski, A. W. (1990). Conditions for accuracy: General or specific? Advances in Psychology, 68, 15–34.
   Google Scholar
• Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lapinski, M., & Rimal, R. (2005). An explication of social norms. Communication Theory, 15(2), 127–147. doi:10.1111/comt.2005.15.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levendusky, M. S. (2013). Why do partisan media polarize viewers? American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 611–623. doi:10.1111/ajps.2013.57.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levendusky, M. S. (2018). Americans, not partisans: Can priming American national identity reduce affective polarization?. The Journal of Politics, 80(1), 59–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Messing, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2014). Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research, 41, 1042–1063. doi:10.1177/0093650212466406
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metzger, M. J., Hartsell, E. H., & Flanagin, A. J. (2015). Cognitive dissonance or credibility? A comparison of two theoretical explanations for selective exposure to partisan news. Communication Research. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0093650215613136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, R., & Nicholas, S. (2006). Knowledge creation in groups: The value of cognitive diversity, transactive memory and open-mindedness norms. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(1), 67–74.
   Google Scholar
• Mummolo, J. (2016). News from the other side: How topic relevance limits the prevalence of partisan selective exposure. Journal of Politics, 78(3), 763–773. doi:10.1086/685584
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munson, S. A., & Resnick, P. (2010, April). Presenting diverse political opinions: How and how much. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1457–1466). Atlanta, GA: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Mutz, D. C. (2002). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 111–126. doi:10.1017/S0003055402004264
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nir, L. (2011). Motivated reasoning and public opinion perception. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(3), 504–532. doi:10.1093/poq/nfq076
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Page, B. (1996). Who deliberates? Chicago: University Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center. (2014, June 11). Ideological echo chambers. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/pp-2014-06-12-polarization-0-07/
   Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center. (2016, June 22). Key facts about partisanship and political animosity in America. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/22/key-facts-partisanship/
   Google Scholar
• Price, V., Cappella, J. N., & Nir, L. (2002). Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion? Political Communication, 19(1), 95–112. doi:10.1080/105846002317246506
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prior, M. (2013). The challenge of measuring media exposure: Reply to Dilliplane, Goldman, and Mutz. Political Communication, 30(4), 620–634. doi:10.1080/10584609.2013.819539
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stroud, N. (2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 556–576. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stroud, N. J., Muddiman, A., & Scacco, J. M. (2017). Like, recommend, or respect? Altering political behavior in news comment sections. New Media & Society, 19(11), 1727–1743. doi:10.1177/1461444816642420
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. R. (2007). Republic.com 2.0.. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Salt Lake City, UT: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Tjosvold, D., & Poon, M. (1998). Dealing with scarce resources: Openminded interaction for resolving budget conflicts. Group and Organization Management, 23(3), 237–258. doi:10.1177/1059601198233003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winter, S., & Krämer, N. C. (2012). Selecting science information in Web 2.0: How source cues, message sidedness, and need for cognition influence users’ exposure to blog posts. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 80–96. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01596.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winter, S., & Krämer, N. C. (2014). A question of credibility – Effects of source cues and recommendations on information selection on news sites and blogs. Communications – the European Journal of Communication Research, 39(4), 435–456.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winter, S., Metzger, M. J., & Flanagin, A. J. (2016). Selective use of news cues: A multiple‐Motive perspective on information selection in social media environments. Journal of Communication, 66(4), 669–693. doi:10.1111/jcom.2016.66.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wojcieszak, M. (2011). Computer-mediated false consensus: Radical online groups, social networks and news media. Mass Communication and Society, 14(4), 527–546. doi:10.1080/15205436.2010.513795
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wojcieszak, M. (2019). What predicts selective exposure online: Testing political attitudes, credibility, and social identity. Communication Research. doi:10.1177/0093650219844868
   Google Scholar
• Wojcieszak, M., & Garrett, R. K. (2018). Social identity, selective exposure, and affective polarization: How priming national identity shapes attitudes toward immigrants via news selection. Human Communication Research, 44(3), 247–273. doi:10.1093/hcr/hqx010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wojcieszak, M., & Rojas, H. (2011). Hostile public effect: Communication diversity and the projection of personal opinions onto others. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 55(4), 543–562. doi:10.1080/08838151.2011.620665
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar