Selective Exposure Theory - Media

Media

Recent studies have shown more relevant empirical evidence for the prevalence of selective exposure. Some researchers suggest that consumers now hold more influence over the information provided to them by the media. Consumers many tend to select content that exposes and confirms their own ideas while avoiding information that argues against their opinion. Studies suggest that media offers a diverse set of views. For example, politics are more likely to inspire selective exposure among consumers as opposed to singe exposure decisions. In one study, different types of media are compared and evaluated to see which type ignites the most selective exposure. Due to the modern media atmosphere, people are now able to engage with or avoid the information that is presented to them to its fullest extent. With that said, this does not conclude that people will automatically seek out congenial media. Four different types of media were investigated in this study: newspapers, political talk radio, cable news, and political websites. Results showed that newspapers had less of an influence compared to cable news. Evidence clearly shows that people's political predispositions motivate their types of media selections.

In early research, selective exposure originally provided an explanation for limited media effects. The "limited effects" model of communication emerged in the 1940s with a shift in the media effects paradigm. This shift suggested that while the media has effects, for example on voting behavior, these effects are limited and influenced indirectly by interpersonal discussions and the influence of opinion leaders. Selective exposure was considered one necessary function in early studies of media’s limited power over citizens’ attitudes and behaviors. Political ads deal with selective exposure because people are more likely to favor a politician that agrees with their own beliefs. Voters tend to read more about their preferred political candidate than an opponent. Specifically, in Berelson and Steiner (1964), both stated that people tend to hear and see information favorable to their predispositions, thus they are more likely to hear and see congenial information rather than neutral resources. Stroud (2010) analyzes partisan selective exposure and political polarization. Using data from the 2004 National Annenberg Election Survey, analysts found that over time partisan selective exposure leads to polarization. Variables such as media and normative implications play a large role in the affects of this comparison. Selective exposure explains why media effects limit the influence on people's individual beliefs. Specifically, congenial media exposure significantly contributes to the increase of polarization in one's decisions. Through single-exposure results this article proposes that higher levels of polarization stem from partisan selective exposure. Additionally, this study investigated the causal direction of the relationship leading to congenial media exposure which increased polarization.