Abstract:Individuals often preferentially avoid information that contradicts and seek information that aligns with their prior beliefs-a tendency referred to as "selective exposure." Traditionally, prior research has focused on intrapersonal drivers of selective exposure, including avoidance of cognitive dissonance. We take a complementary approach by investigating the conditions under which interpersonal concerns drive selective exposure. Drawing on a large literature on impression management, we test a social signaling model of selective exposure, which predicts that (a) individuals shift their information selection decisions to signal to observers and (b) observers reward such shifts. We test this model in the domain of partisan politics in the United States across five financially incentivized, preregistered experiments (N = 3,598). Our results extend prior theory by identifying three key contingencies: the type of task on which observers expect to collaborate with actors, alignment of group membership between observers and actors, and the magnitude of demonstrated selective exposure. Overall, we find that tailoring one's information selection decisions can indeed have strategic value-but only under certain theoretically predictable conditions. Our work also identifies an actor-observer misalignment: While observers are sensitive to the type of future interaction with an actor, the actors themselves do not intuit this sensitivity. In the era of social media, when information selection decisions are more public than ever and the spread of misinformation is pervasive, understanding the ways in which reputational considerations shape decision making not only illuminates why selective exposure persists, but also suggests novel mitigation strategies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Do Populists Really Reject Expert Judgment?: Expert Consensus and Support for Clean Water Act Protections

The End of Enlightened Environmental Law?

When experts matter: Variations in consensus messaging for vaccine and genetically modified organism safety

The role of populist attitudes in explaining climate change skepticism and support for environmental protection

The legitimacy of science and the populist backlash: Cross-national and longitudinal trends and determinants of attitudes toward science

Conspiracy Mentality: How it Relates to Populism, Relative Deprivation, Mistrust of Expertise and Voting Behaviour

Divergent Perspectives on Expert Disagreement: Preliminary Evidence from Climate Science, Climate Policy, Astrophysics, and Public Opinion

Deciphering Discord: How Conflicting Information and Political Ideology Shape Public Attitude Toward PFAS Regulation

Science-related populism: Conceptualizing populist demands toward science

Public Awareness of the Scientific Consensus on Climate

Populism as a Problem of Social Integration

Environmental Awareness and Public Support for Protecting and Restoring Puget Sound

Conflict among experts in health recommendations and corresponding public trust in health experts

Ideologically consistent, but for whom? An empirical assessment of the populism-elitism-pluralism set of attitudes and the moderating role of political sophistication

Populism and public attitudes toward international organizations: Voting, communication, and education

Threatening experts: Correlates of viewing scientists as a social threat

Public Attitudes Towards Experts in China

Public agreement with misinformation about wind farms

The Politicization of Climate Science: Media Consumption, Perceptions of Science and Scientists, and Support for Policy

Understanding drivers of local water quality perception in the Lake Erie Basin

The contingent reputational benefits of selective exposure to partisan information.