Hyperpartisan news on social media presents new challenges for selective exposure theory. These challenges are substantial enough to usher in a new era—a third wave—of selective exposure research. In this essay, we trace the history of the first two waves of research in order to better understand the current situation. We then assess the implications of recent developments for selective exposure research.
Hyperpartisan news on social media presents new challenges for selective exposure theory. These challenges are substantial enough to usher in a new era -a third wave- of selective exposure research. In this essay, we trace the history of the first two waves of research in order to better understand the current situation. We then assess the implications of recent developments for selective exposure research.
The cross-pressured citizen—a person who affiliates with one political party but plans to vote for the nominee of another—embodies the complicated nature of political decision making. Enduring considerable scrutiny since the pioneering campaign studies of the 1940s and 1950s, the role of the cross-pressured partisan in a presidential election campaign is still not fully understood by scholars. First, this study explores who the cross-pressured partisan was in the 2012 presidential campaign by examining the formative factors that influenced the likelihood of prospective defection from one's "home" party. Second, we explain how cross-pressured citizens behaved when seeking out news media compared to their consistent counterparts. Using national survey data collected at the midpoint of the 2012 campaign, we find that approval of President Barack Obama was a critical factor in understanding cross-pressured partisanship. Furthermore, cross-pressured Republicans were significantly less likely to attend to conservative cable programming compared to consistent Republicans. The results present a compelling extension of over seven decades of work examining the cross-pressured citizen.
Guided by the reinforcing spirals model, this study examines whether exposure to cable news is associated with policy preferences, particularly those aimed at immigrants and refugees. Analyses of two sets of survey data (N = 200, N = 4,271) show that, after controlling for demographics, other news use, and political ideology, consuming Fox News has a unique relationship with Americans' policy preferences. Respondents who reported consuming Fox News (online or on TV) preferred stricter policies aimed at immigrants and refugees; however, use of MSNBC and CNN was not related to these policy preferences. A content analysis revealed that FoxNews.com published far fewer stories (N = 123) about immigrants and refugees in the time periods immediately preceding the surveys than did CNN.com (N = 211). However, these FoxNews.com stories provided a different contextualization by emphasizing authority and subversion and deemphasizing care. These findings suggest that Fox News is creating/reinforcing its consumers' migration-related policy preferences, whereas no such relationship exists for MSNBC and CNN consumers.
This research investigates the roles of issues, traits, and electability in the 2020 U.S. presidential nominating contest. These analyses utilize survey data gathered at political rallies in Iowa leading up to the caucuses and state and national news coverage. First, we identified the traits and issues respondents used to describe their support for a particular Democratic candidate over others. Next, we determined how issues, traits, and electability differed among the candidates. Finally, an analysis of news coverage uncovered how each candidate's electability was framed. We found supporters of moderate candidates were more likely to mention candidate traits as reasons for their support, whereas supporters of progressive candidates were more likely to mention issues. Despite the media focus on electability, respondents did not indicate that as a primary reason for supporting a candidate. State and national news coverage treated the electability of Democrats vying for the party nomination quite differently, depending on the candidate's gender and ideology.
