Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Society for Journalism & Communication (KSJCS)
[ Article ]
Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication - Vol. 68, No. 6, pp.5-42
ISSN: 2586-7369 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Dec 2024
Received 01 Oct 2024 Revised 26 Nov 2024 Accepted 29 Nov 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2024.68.6.001

정치적 집단 정체성이 노동조합 파업 뉴스 선택적 노출에 미치는 영향 : 감정 예측과 태도-정파성 일치 여부의 조절된 매개 효과

김효정** ; 정우진*** ; 김범수****
**부산대학교 미디어커뮤니케이션학과 교수 hyo.kim@pusan.ac.kr
***부산대학교 심리학과 박사수료 wjjung89@gmail.com
****부산대학교 미디어커뮤니케이션학과 부교수 kbs0035@gmail.com
Effects of Political Group Identity on Selective Exposure to Labor Union Strike News : The Moderated Mediation Effect of Affective Forecasting and Attitude-Partisanship Congruence
Hyo Jung Kim** ; Woojin Jung*** ; Bumsoo Kim****
**Professor, Department of Media & Communication, Pusan National University hyo.kim@pusan.ac.kr
***Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Psychology, Pusan National University wjjung89@gmail.com
****Associate Professor, Department of Media & Communication, Pusan National University kbs0035@gmail.com

초록

선택적 노출(selective exposure)은 양분(兩分)된 의견이 있는 사안에 대해 개인이 자신의 기존 태도나 신념에 부합하는 정보를 우선적으로 선택하려는 경향이다. 본 연구는 정치화된 사회 이슈인 국내 노동조합 파업 기사들에 대해 선택적 노출 경향이 나타나는지 검증하고, 정치 커뮤니케이션 관점에서 선택적 노출의 영향 요인들을 탐색하였다. 구체적으로, 개인의 정치적 집단 정체성이 감정 예측을 통해 선택적 노출에 영향을 미치는 매개 모델을 검증하였다. 또한 이러한 변인 간의 관계가 노조 파업 이슈에 대한 개인의 태도-정파성 일치 여부에 따라 차이가 있는지 조절된 매개 모델을 통해 분석하였다. 온라인 설문 전문 기관을 통해 전국 20세 이상 성인(N = 1,000명)을 대상으로 수행한 설문 조사 결과, 국내 노조 파업에 대한 자신의 기존 태도와 일치하는 언론 보도를 더 많이 읽으려고 하는, 선택적 노출 경향이 발견되었다. 또한 자신이 지지하는 정당의 정체성을 깊이 내면화한 사람일수록, 정치 성향과 불/일치하는 뉴스 기사를 접했을 때 느낄 부정적/감정적 감정을 더 강하게 예측하였으며, 이는 선택적 노출 수준의 증가로 연결되었다. 나아가, 정치적 집단 정체성이 감정 예측을 통해 선택적 노출에 미치는 영향은, 노조 파업에 대한 개인의 태도-정파성 일치 여부에 따라 조절되는 것으로 나타났다. 노조 파업에 대한 자신의 태도와 정파성이 일치하는 사람들은 정파 정보에 대한 긍정적, 부정적 감정 예측 수준이 높을수록 노조 파업에 대한 선택적 노출 수준이 증가하였다. 반면, 노조 파업에 대한 태도와 정파성이 불일치하는 집단에서는, 지지 정파에 대한 비판적 정보 노출에 대해 부정적 감정 예측이 높을수록, 노조 파업에 대한 선택적 노출 수준이 감소하는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구의 주요 결과에 대한 함의와 후속 연구를 위한 제안을 논의하였다.

Abstract

Selective exposure refers to the tendency of individuals to preferentially seek out information that aligns with their preexisting attitudes or beliefs about controversial issues. This study investigates whether selective exposure tendencies manifest in the choice of news articles about domestic union strikes, a politicized social issue, and explores the factors influencing selective exposure. Union strikes are controversial in Korean society and generate various political debates and discussions between liberal and conservative partisans. News about union strikes is significantly associated with individuals’ selective exposure This study specifically tested a mediation model to examine how individuals' political group identity influences selective exposure through affective forecasting. Furthermore, a moderated mediation model was employed to analyze whether these relationships differ depending on the congruence or incongruence between individual attitudes toward union strikes and partisanship. A nationwide online survey conducted with adults aged 20 and older (N = 1,000) revealed a tendency to select media coverage that aligns with their existing attitudes toward domestic union strikes. Moreover, individuals who strongly identified with their political party were more likely to forecast stronger affect—either negative or positive—when exposed to news articles that criticize or support their political party. This, in turn, led to increased selective exposure. Additionally, the effect of political group identity on selective exposure through affective forecasting was moderated by the congruence or incongruence between an individual's attitude toward the union strike issue and their party affiliation. Based on the findings, two key takeaways emerge; First, controversial political issues substantially drive news users to engage in selective exposure based on political partisanship, as they aim to avoid cognitive dissonance. Second, news users are able to foresee their affective responses to news reporting on controversial issues such as union strikes. The findings suggest that individuals who support certain political ideologies and parties are more likely to engage in selective exposure to maintain emotional stability and regulate their affect. The findings also imply that individuals reinforce their existing political thoughts and attitudes, especially in contentious political environments. This study highlights the mediating role of affective forecasting and the moderating role of attitude-partisanship congruence in the relationships among political group identity, affective forecasting, and selective exposure to labor union strike news. Based on the findings, the study highlights the importance of internal and external political efficacy in understanding the effects of affective forecasting, as political efficacy shaped by news consumption and political expression is positively associated with both affective forecasting and selective exposure.

Keywords:

selective exposure, political group identity, affective forecasting, union strikes

키워드:

선택적 노출, 정치적 집단 정체성, 감정 예측, 노동조합 파업

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea(이 논문 또는 저서는 2020년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임)[NRF-2020S1A3A2A02097375].

References

  • Albarracín, D., & Mitchell, A. L. (2004). The role of defensive confidence in preference for proattitudinal information: How believing that one is strong can sometimes be a defensive weakness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(12), 1565-1584. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271180]
  • Appiah, O., Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Alter, S. (2013). Ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation: Effects of news valence, character race, and recipient race on selective news reading. Journal of Communication, 63(3), 517-534. [https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12032]
  • Arceneaux, K., Johnson, M., & Murphy, C. (2012). Polarized political communication, oppositional media hostility, and selective exposure. The Journal of Politics, 74(1), 174-186. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S002238161100123X]
  • Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N., & Cook, F. L. (2014). The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior, 36, 235-262. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9238-0]
  • Brader, T., Valentino, N. A., & Suhay, E. (2008). What triggers public opposition to immigration? Anxiety, group cues, and immigration threat. American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 959-978. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00353.x]
  • Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2017). Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(28), 7313-7318. [https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618923114]
  • Brannon, L. A., Tagler, M. J., & Eagly, A. H. (2007). The moderating role of attitude strength in selective exposure to information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(4), 611-617. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.001]
  • Buechel, E. C., Zhang, J., & Morewedge, C. K. (2017). Impact bias or underestimation? Outcome specifications predict the direction of affective forecasting errors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(5), 746-761. [https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000306]
  • Camaj, L. (2019). From selective exposure to selective information processing: A motivated reasoning approach. Media and Communication, 7(3), 8-11. [https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v7i3.2289]
  • Cancino-Montecinos, S., Björklund, F., & Lindholm, T. (2020). A general model of dissonance reduction: Unifying past accounts via an emotion regulation perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 540081. [https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.540081]
  • Chan, M., & Guo, J. (2013). The role of political efficacy on the relationship between Facebook use and participatory behaviors: A comparative study of young American and Chinese adults. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(6), 460-463. [https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0468]
  • Cho, J., & Kim, G. (2006). The dynamic analysis of strike impact on corporate performance. Korea and the World Economy, 17, 5-40. [조준모·김기승 (2006). 노동조합의 파업이 기업성과에 미치는 효과에 관한 동태적 분석: 패널자료 분석. <한국경제연구>, 17권, 5-40.]
  • Chung, Y., & Choi, Y. (2024). The influence of parents’ positive attitudes and expectations toward children’s video media consumption on children’s learning: The dual mediating role of parental media mediation and epistemic curiosity. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication, 68(3), 83-124. [정유진·최윤정 (2024). 어린이 자녀의 영상미디어 시청에 대한 부모의 긍정적 태도와 기대가 자녀의 학습이해도에 미치는 영향: 부모의 미디어 중재와 지적 호기심의 이중 매개를 중심으로. <한국언론학보>, 68권 3호, 83-124.] [https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2024.68.3.003]
  • Cotton, J. L. (2013). Cognitive dissonance in selective exposure. In D. Zillmann & J. Bryant (Eds.), Selective exposure to communication (pp. 11-33). Routledge.
  • Dejean, S., Lumeau, M., & Peltier, S. (2022). Partisan selective exposure in news consumption. Information Economics and Policy, 60, 100992. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoecopol.2022.100992]
  • Dorison, C. A., Minson, J. A., & Rogers, T. (2019). Selective exposure partly relies on faulty affective forecasts. Cognition, 188, 98-107. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.02.010]
  • Dvir-Gvirsman, S. (2019). Political social identity and selective exposure. Media Psychology, 22(6), 867-889. [https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2018.1554493]
  • Feldman, L., & Hart, P. S. (2018). Is there any hope? How climate change news imagery and text influence audience emotions and support for climate mitigation policies. Risk Analysis, 38(3), 585-602. [https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12868]
  • Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Row, Peterson. [https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503620766]
  • Fischer, P., Schulz-Hardt, S., & Frey, D. (2008). Selective exposure and information quantity: How different information quantities moderate decision makers' preference for consistent and inconsistent information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 231-244. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.94.2.231]
  • Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2007). The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New Media & Society, 9(2), 319-342. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807075015]
  • Frijda, N. H. (1988). The laws of emotion. American Psychologist, 43(5), 349-358. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.43.5.349]
  • Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & Ter Schure, E. (1989). Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 212-228. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.212]
  • Garrett, R. K. (2009). Echo chambers online?: Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(2), 265-285. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01440.x]
  • Gilbert, D. T., Driver-Linn, E., & Wilson, T. D. (2002). The trouble with Vronsky: Impact bias in the forecasting of future affective states. In L. F. Barrett & P. Salovey (Eds.), Emotions and social behavior. The wisdom in feeling: Psychological processes in emotional intelligence (pp. 114-143). Guilford Press.
  • Gilbert, D. T., Lieberman, M. D., Morewedge, C. K., & Wilson, T. D. (2004). The peculiar longevity of things not so bad. Psychological Science, 15(1), 14-19. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01501003.x]
  • Goldman, S. K., & Mutz, D. C. (2011). The friendly media phenomenon: A cross-national analysis of cross-cutting exposure. Political Communication, 28(1), 42-66. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2010.544280]
  • Greene, S. (1999). Understanding party identification: A social identity approach. Political Psychology, 20(2), 393-403. [https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00150]
  • Hallajow, N. (2018). Identity and attitude: Eternal conflict or harmonious coexistence. Journal of Social Sciences, 14(1), 43-54. [https://doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2018.43.54]
  • Hastall, M. R., & Wagner, A. J. M. (2017). Enhancing selective exposure to health messages and health intentions. Journal of Media Psychology, 30(4), 217-231. [https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000197]
  • Hayes, A. F. (2012, February). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling.
  • Heider, F. (1958). The naive analysis of action. In The psychology of interpersonal relations (pp. 79-124). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [https://doi.org/10.1037/10628-004]
  • Huddy, L., Feldman, S., Taber, C., & Lahav, G. (2005). Threat, anxiety, and support of antiterrorism policies. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 593-608. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00144.x]
  • Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 19-39. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x]
  • Iyengar, S., Hahn, K. S., Krosnick, J. A., & Walker, J. (2008). Selective exposure to campaign communication: The role of anticipated agreement and issue public membership. The Journal of Politics, 70(1), 186-200. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381607080139]
  • Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1), 129-146. [https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034]
  • Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405-431. [https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038]
  • Jung, N., Kim, Y., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2011). The mediating role of knowledge and efficacy in the effects of communication on political participation. Mass Communication and Society, 14(4), 407-430. [https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2010.496135]
  • Kim, H. (2017). Psychological reactance against news articles on nuclear energy: Effects of prospect frames and issue frames. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication, 61(5), 130-164. [김효정 (2017). 원자력 기사 프레이밍이 수용자의 심리적 저항에 미치는 영향: 심리적 저항 이론(Psychological Reactance Theory)을 중심으로. <한국언론학보>, 61권 5호, 130-164.] [https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2017.61.5.005]
  • Kim, H., & Jung, W. (2023). Examining selective exposure to news on Covid-19 vaccination: Focusing on the effects of information overload and discrete emotions. Journal of Public Relations, 27(3), 95-122. [김효정·정우진 (2023). 코로나 19 백신 기사에 대한 선택적 노출 연구: 정보과부하와 개별 감정의 영향을 중심으로. <PR 연구>, 27권 3호, 95-122.] [https://doi.org/10.26416/Med.152.2.2023.7910]
  • Kim, M., & Min, Y. (2014). Effects of candidate preference and motivated reasoning on individuals’ selective and cross-cutting exposure: An analysis of cognitive dissonance in an election. Korean Journal of Broadcasting and Telecommunication Studies, 28(2), 7-49. [김미라·민영 (2014). 지지 후보와 추론 동기가 유권자의 선택적 노출과 교차노출에 미치는 영향: 선거에서의 인지부조화를 중심으로. <한국방송학보>, 28권 2호, 7-49.]
  • Kim, Y. (2015). Does disagreement mitigate polarization? How selective exposure and disagreement affect political polarization. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92(4), 915-937. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699015596328]
  • Klebba, L. J., & Winter, S. (2024). Crisis alert: (Dis)information selection and sharing in the COVID-19 pandemic. Communications, 49(2), 318-338. [https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2022-0020]
  • Knobloch, S. (2003). Mood adjustment via mass communication. Journal of Communication, 53(2), 233-250. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb02588.x]
  • Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2012). Selective exposure and reinforcement of attitudes and partisanship before a presidential election. Journal of Communication, 62(4), 628-642. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01651.x]
  • Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2015). The Selective Exposure Self-and Affect-Management (SESAM) model: Applications in the realms of race, politics, and health. Communication Research, 42(7), 959-985. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214539173]
  • Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Hastall, M. R. (2010). Please your self: Social identity effects on selective exposure to news about in- and out-groups. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 515-535. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01495.x]
  • Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Meng, J. (2009). Looking the other way: Selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counterattitudinal political information. Communication Research, 36(3), 426-448. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209333030]
  • Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Meng, J. (2011). Reinforcement of the political self through selective exposure to political messages. Journal of Communication, 61(2), 349-368. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01543.x]
  • Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological bulletin, 108(3), 480-498. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480]
  • Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1944). The controversy over detailed interviews - An offer for negotiation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 8(1), 38-60. [https://doi.org/10.1086/265666]
  • Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. American Psychologist, 46(8), 819-834. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.8.819]
  • Levendusky, M. S. (2013). Why do partisan media polarize viewers? American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 611-623. [https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12008]
  • Linz, J. J., & Stepan, A. C. (1996). Toward consolidated democracies. Journal of democracy, 7(2), 14-33. [https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1996.0031]
  • Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2013). The rationalizing voter. Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139032490]
  • Mallett, R. K., Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2008). Expect the unexpected: Failure to anticipate similarities leads to an intergroup forecasting error. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 265-277. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.94.2.265]
  • Marcus, G. E. (2000). Emotions in politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 3(1), 221-250. [https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.221]
  • Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. University of Chicago Press.
  • Meffert, M. F., & Gschwend, T. (2012, May). When party and issue preferences clash: Selective exposure and attitudinal depolarization. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Phoenix, AZ.
  • Meppelink, C. S., Smit, E. G., Fransen, M. L., & Diviani, N. (2019). “I was right about vaccination”: Confirmation bias and health literacy in online health information seeking. Journal of Health Communication, 24(2), 129-140. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2019.1583701]
  • Messing, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2014). Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research, 41(8), 1042-1063. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212466406]
  • Metzger, M. J., Hartsell, E. H., & Flanagin, A. J. (2020). Cognitive dissonance or credibility? A comparison of two theoretical explanations for selective exposure to partisan news. Communication Research, 47(1), 3-28. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215613136]
  • Mothes, C., & Ohme, J. (2019). Partisan selective exposure in times of political and technological upheaval: A social media field experiment. Media and Communication, 7(3), 42-53. [https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v7i3.2183]
  • Nabi, R. L. (2003). Exploring the framing effects of emotion: Do discrete emotions differentially influence information accessibility, information seeking, and policy preference? Communication Research, 30(2), 224-247. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650202250881]
  • Prior, M. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139878425]
  • Robison, J., & Moskowitz, R. L. (2019). The group basis of partisan affective polarization. The Journal of Politics, 81(3), 1075-1079. [https://doi.org/10.1086/703069]
  • Rodriguez, C. G., Moskowitz, J. P., Salem, R. M., & Ditto, P. H. (2017). Partisan selective exposure: The role of party, ideology and ideological extremity over time. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 3(3), 254-271. [https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000121]
  • Roh, J., & Min, Y. (2012). Effects of politically motivated selective exposure on attitude polarization: A study of non-political online community users. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication, 56(2), 226-248. [노정규·민영 (2012). 정치 정보에 대한 선택적 노출이 태도 극화에 미치는 효과: 비정치적 온라인 커뮤니티 이용자들을 대상으로. <한국언론학보>, 56권 2호, 226-248.]
  • Shin, J. (2023). Current landscape and future challenges in political polarization research. Journal of Research Methodology, 8(3), 35-58. [신정섭 (2023). 정치적 양극화 연구의 현황과 과제. <연구방법논총>, 8권 3호, 35-58.] [https://doi.org/10.21487/jrm.2023.11.8.3.35]
  • Sindermann, C., Elhai, J. D., Moshagen, M., & Montag, C. (2020). Age, gender, personality, ideological attitudes and individual differences in a person's news spectrum: How many and who might be prone to “filter bubbles” and “echo chambers” online? Heliyon, 6(1), e03214. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03214]
  • Song, H. (2017). Why do people (sometimes) become selective about news? The role of emotions and partisan differences in selective approach and avoidance. Mass Communication and Society, 20(1), 47-67. [https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2016.1187755]
  • Stroud, N. J. (2007). Media effects, selective exposure, and Fahrenheit 9/11. Political Communication, 24(4), 415-432. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600701641565]
  • Stroud, N. J. (2008). Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior, 30(3), 341-366. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-007-9050-9]
  • Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 556-576. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x]
  • Sude, D., & Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2022). Selective exposure and attention to attitude-consistent and attitude-discrepant information: Reviewing the evidence. In J. Strömbäck, Å. Wikforss, K. Glüer, T. Lindholm, & H. Oscarsson (Eds.), Knowledge resistance in high-choice information environments (pp. 88-105). Routledge. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003111474-5]
  • Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755-769. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x]
  • Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. Academic Press.
  • Tenenboim-Weinblatt, K., Baden, C., Aharoni, T., & Overbeck, M. (2022). Affective forecasting in elections: A socio-communicative perspective. Human Communication Research, 48(4), 553-566. [https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqac007]
  • Tormala, Z. L. (2016). The role of certainty (and uncertainty) in attitudes and persuasion. Current Opinion in Psychology, 10, 6-11. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.10.017]
  • Valentino, N. A., Brader, T., Groenendyk, E. W., Gregorowicz, K., & Hutchings, V. L. (2011). Election night‘s alright for fighting: The role of emotions in political participation. The Journal of Politics, 73(1), 156-170. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381610000939]
  • Valentino, N. A., Gregorowicz, K., & Groenendyk, E. W. (2009). Efficacy, emotions and the habit of participation. Political Behavior, 31(3), 307-330. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-008-9076-7]
  • Van der Meer, T. G., & Jin, Y. (2020). Seeking formula for misinformation treatment in public health crises: The effects of corrective information type and source. Health Communication, 35(5), 560-575. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1573295]
  • Westerwick, A., Johnson, B. K., & Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2017). Confirmation biases in selective exposure to political online information: Source bias vs. content bias. Communication Monographs, 84(3), 343-364. [https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2016.1272761]
  • Westerwick, A., Sude, D., Robinson, M., & Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2020). Peers versus pros: Confirmation bias in selective exposure to user-generated versus professional media messages and its consequences. Mass Communication and Society, 23(4), 510-536. [https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2020.1721542]
  • Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2003). Affective forecasting. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 345-411. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(03)01006-2]
  • Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2005). Affective forecasting: Knowing what to want. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(3), 131-134. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00355.x]
  • Wilson, T. D., Wheatley, T., Meyers, J. M., Gilbert, D. T., & Axsom, D. (2000). Focalism: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 821-836. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.821]
  • Wojcieszak, M. (2010). ‘Don’t talk to me’: Effects of ideologically homogeneous online groups and politically dissimilar offline ties of extremism. New Media & Society, 12(4), 637-655. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342775]
  • Wojcieszak, M. (2021). What predicts selective exposure online: Testing political attitudes, credibility, and social identity. Communication Research, 48(5), 687-716. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219844868]
  • Wojcieszak, M., & Garrett, R. K. (2018). Social identity, selective exposure, and affective polarization: How priming national identity shapes attitudes toward immigrants via news selection. Human Communication Research, 44(3), 247-273. [https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqx010]
  • Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American psychologist, 35(2), 151-175. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.35.2.151]