Partisans overestimate the negative affect that results from exposure to opposing views; the affective forecasting error derives from underestimation of agreement

Selective exposure partly relies on faulty affective forecasts. Charles A. Dorison, Julia A. Minson, Todd Rogers. Cognition, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.02.010

Highlights
• Partisans overestimate the negative affect that results from exposure to opposing views.
• The affective forecasting error derives from underestimation of agreement.
• Faulty affective forecasts partially underpin selective exposure.

Abstract: People preferentially consume information that aligns with their prior beliefs, contributing to polarization and undermining democracy. Five studies (collective N = 2455) demonstrate that such “selective exposure” partly stems from faulty affective forecasts. Specifically, political partisans systematically overestimate the strength of negative affect that results from exposure to opposing views. In turn, these incorrect forecasts drive information consumption choices. Clinton voters overestimated the negative affect they would experience from watching President Trump’s Inaugural Address (Study 1) and from reading statements written by Trump voters (Study 2). Democrats and Republicans overestimated the negative affect they would experience from listening to speeches by opposing-party senators (Study 3). People’s tendency to underestimate the extent to which they agree with opponents’ views drove the affective forecasting error. Finally, correcting biased affective forecasts reduced selective exposure by 24–34% (Studies 4 and 5).

Keywords: Selective exposureAffective forecastingFalse polarizationEmotion

---
However, despite the benefits of holding accurate beliefs, the phenomenon of selective exposure to agreeing information has been well documented in social psychology (Frey, 1986), political science (Iyengar & Hahn, 2009; Sears & Freedman, 1967), and communications (Stroud, 2008). For example, one of the earliest studies on selective exposure demonstrated that mothers were more likely to listen to arguments that supported their beliefs regarding hereditary and environmental factors in childrearing than arguments that contradicted their beliefs (Adams, 1961). More recently, in the domain of political communication, conservatives in an experiment preferred to read articles from the conservative site Fox News, whereas liberals preferred to read articles from more liberal sources such as CNN and NPR (Iyengar & Hahn, 2009). These effects persist even with financial incentives on the line (Frimer, Skitka, & Motyl, 2017). Recent research has also examined how presentation order and structure moderate this phenomenon (Fischer et al., 2011; Jonas, Schulz-Hardt, Frey, & Thelen, 2001).