Search

The Internet and social media create an environment in which individuals can selectively approach information supporting their political worldviews while also being incidentally exposed to socially shared information that challenges their beliefs. These competing information consumption patterns may help explain whether and how digital media contribute to affective polarization (i.e. affect-based division between political groups). This study examines how pro-attitudinal selective exposure and counter-attitudinal incidental exposure in tandem influence political emotions. Using data from 2, two-wave panel surveys conducted during the 2016 and 2020 US presidential elections, our findings demonstrate that seeking consonant political information is consistently associated with anger toward political opponents and enthusiasm toward like-minded partisans. In contrast, despite the purported democratic benefits endowed on political disagreement, cross-cutting incidental exposure does not temper political emotional responses associated with pro-attitudinal selective exposure. However, we find little evidence that unexpected exposure to disagreeable information backfires either. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While social media provide opportunities for political expression, many people may be reluctant to share their opinions if they fear personal or professional repercussions for posting political views. Fear of social sanctions (FOSSs) therefore represents a promising approach to investigate why people often avoid expressing political opinions online. Using panel survey data collected during the 2020 U.S. election, this study examines the predictors of FOSSs, as well as its relationship with several forms of online political expression. Results indicate that the ideological diversity of people's online networks fosters their FOSSs, which in turn is associated with decreases in several types of online political expression. Thus, FOSSs may be an important determinant in individuals' calculations to express political opinions online and may also hinder lower commitment forms of political engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigates the potential role both untrustworthy and partisan websites play in misinforming audiences by testing whether actual exposure to these sites is associated with political misperceptions. Using a sample of American adult social media users, we match data from individuals' Internet browser histories with a survey measuring the accuracy of political beliefs. We find that visits to partisan websites are at times related to misperceptions consistent with the political bias of the site. However, we do not find strong evidence that untrustworthy websites consistently relate to false beliefs. There is also little evidence that visits to less partisan, centrist news sites are associated with more accurate political beliefs about these issues, suggesting that exposure to politically neutral news is not necessarily the antidote to misinformation. Results suggest that focusing on partisan news sites—rather than untrustworthy sites—may be fruitful to understanding how media contribute to political misperceptions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper adopts a repertoire approach to studying inequalities in political use of social media, focusing on patterns of political behavior on Facebook. A Latent Class Analysis of a 2016 two-wave survey of Americans identified four distinct political repertoires on Facebook; 1) Disengaged, 2) All-engaged, 3) Expressers (only likely to do expressive behaviors) and 4) Likers (only likely to "like" content). Using these classes of users, we reexamined prominent hypotheses in the literature related to whether political social media use is a) stratified by education and political interest and b) associated with increased political knowledge and participation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Search engines are one of the most trusted and used sources of political information. Yet there is limited research on how often people search for political topics in the real world, the search strategies they use to find information, and the results people select. We use a combination of survey and online behavioral data to illuminate how often people search for political content, what queries they use, how autocomplete affects political queries, how searches vary by political characteristics, and what types of results people view. We holistically investigate the political search process of 45 politically diverse individuals in the U.S., selected from a larger sample of 564, by observing 6-months of their online behavior. While politically interested people do most political searching and tend to favor their own side in the queries they compose and the results they visit, it is not overwhelmingly so. In fact, there is a substantial amount of cross-party searching and result visiting. Autocomplete and trending topics play a small role in political search overall. People visit a wide variety of results after searching for political information beyond national news sites. These findings extend our understanding of political search and have both theoretical and practical implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines how two distinct patterns of online political information exposure—pro-attitudinal selective exposure and counter-attitudinal incidental exposure—can work together to influence engagement in online cross-cutting political discussion. Using panel data from a two-wave national survey conducted in 2012, we test two competing theoretical accounts. Findings suggest that incidental exposure affects selective exposure's contribution to cross-cutting discussion in a curvilinear way. Incidental exposure strengthens the impact of selective exposure on cross-cutting discussion up until a certain point, after which it begins to attenuate its impact. Results emphasize the need to account for the multiple ways people encounter political information online. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concerns persist over the potential for the fragmented media environment to promote motivation-based political knowledge gaps between those who are interested in politics and those who are not. Yet, there is also evidence that the Internet can provide opportunities for individuals to incidentally encounter and learn from news, which may decrease these knowledge gaps. The current study tests this possibility using two, two-wave panel surveys of adults in the United States conducted during the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections. Across two distinct electoral contexts, we find evidence that incidental exposure to online news and political information promotes learning about presidential candidates' policy positions over the course of the campaign. In addition, the data suggest the least politically interested benefit the most from this incidental exposure, as they see the largest gains in political knowledge. These findings indicate that opportunities to learn via incidental exposure have the potential to reduce motivation-based knowledge gaps. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research has long considered the role interpersonal persuasion plays in shaping how citizens form their political opinions and cast their votes. Yet few studies have examined how experiences with online persuasion might influence broader deliberative orientations. We propose the "Persuasion-Openness" model, in which both attempting and being the target of online political persuasion encourage individuals to engage in online cross-cutting discussion with those who hold differing political views. These more deliberative exchanges are in turn associated with increased "dialogic openness"—a broader orientation toward political dialog. We test this model using original panel survey data collected during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Findings show that both types of persuasion experiences can indirectly lead to dialogic openness, by stimulating online cross-cutting discussion. However, the mediated pathway for those targeted for online persuasion is only significant in online environments with low levels of attitude-challenging information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on political misinformation is booming. The field is continually gaining more key insights about this important and complex social problem. Academic interest on misinformation has consistently been a multidisciplinary effort. But perhaps political communication researchers are particularly well situated to be the leading voices on the public's understanding of misinformation and many are heeding the call. With that responsibility in mind, in this brief article we offer six observations for the future of political misinformation research that we believe can help focus this line of inquiry to better ensure we address some of the most pressing problems. Our list is not exhaustive, nor do we suggest that areas we do not cover are not important. Rather, we make these observations with the goal of spurring a conversation about the future of political misinformation research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Modern communication technologies have vastly increased the reach and influence of political rumors, with negative consequences for democratic political systems globally. Rumor communication can be theorized as a form of political talk that helps citizens grapple with the uncertainty inherent in politics, form opinions, and build solidarity with others. The present study examines how one type of communication technology--instant messaging platforms--might facilitate forms of rumor communication that can influence participation in and knowledge about politics. Using original panel survey data from the 2017 South Korean election, we find that rumor communication on the popular instant messaging platform KakaoTalk predicts increased campaign participation, but not campaign knowledge. Further, political rumor communication on instant messaging platforms appears to exacerbate participatory inequality between those with weak and those with strong political interest and ideology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]