Two sides to every story: Causes and consequences of selective exposure to balanced political information

Although the current information environment offers citizens an unprecedented opportunity to engage in selective exposure behavior, namely to seek mostly pro-attitudinal information about politics and public affairs, the debate about the prevalence and consequences of selective exposure in a high-choice media environment is largely inconclusive. Moreover, the majority of the scholarship has focused on studying the selection and effects of one-sided political content (i.e., pro- or counter-attitudinal), and has paid little attention to balanced content, even though it is available in the media environment and consumed by citizens. Using a series of online experiments, this dissertation uncovers the psychological underpinnings of balanced exposure and its attitudinal outcomes about contested and highly relevant socio-political issues, such as climate change, health care reform and refugees. Results of the dissertation show that: First, selective exposure is not a prevalent phenomenon among citizens. Second, exposure to balanced media content is the preferred choice for different groups of citizens. Third, citizens who personally care about a political issue prefer balanced messages which use numbers and statistics to argue two sides of a story. Fourth, balanced content plays a crucial role in shaping how people process political information. We learn that whether individuals are motivated to reinforce their opinions or to reach accurate conclusions, they interpret balanced content in a similar unbiased manner. Finally, the availability, selection and unbiased processing of balanced political information is not enough to promote moderate political views on contested socio-political issues