What is Selective Exposure?

Selective exposure is a term used to describe the process that individuals utilize when selecting
information and making decisions. The selective exposure definition refers to the subconscious
and unconscious tendency of a listener to focus on information that confirms the individual's
perceptions on a certain topic. Additionally, the selective exposure theory states that an
individual will intentionally avoid information that goes against their existing perceptions on a
certain topic. There are four types of selective exposure, which include:

 News and entertainment — Individuals are more interested in either the news or
entertainment.
 Messages about varying issues — Individuals listen to messages they find personally
important.
 The medium the message comes from — Individuals often choose the internet over more
mainstream outlets.
 Like-minded messages — Individuals pay attention to messages that agree with their own
beliefs and opinions.

According to the exposure theory, individuals decide to expose themselves to certain types of
content for various reasons. For example, an individual may utilize selective exposure to avoid or
reduce cognitive dissonance, which is the state of being psychologically uncomfortable. An
individual may become psychologically uncomfortable when they are presented with information
that causes them to have a debate internally in their mind. Cognitive dissonance may occur when
an individual is faced with a difficult decision or when they are trying to make sense of a
controversial topic, such as abortion, gun control, or gay rights.

In addition, an individual may utilize selective exposure based on their perception of quality
information. For example, if an individual believes information to be of high-quality, they are
more likely to listen to it; however, an individual's perception of quality is influenced by their
beliefs. The credibility of the speaker can also have an impact on what information the listener
takes in. For example, a listener is likely to focus on the flaws of a speech given by a speaker
who is viewed as not being credible.

Furthermore, an individual may utilize selective exposure to avoid changing their view on a
topic. When an individual refuses to change their view on a topic, their ability to make decisions
can be hindered. Decision making can become more difficult when an individual fails to listen to
new information.

To reduce selective exposure, a listener should be aware of the selective exposure theory. Being
aware of this phenomenon may help the listener to have an open mind when listening to the
speaker. Speakers can avoid selective exposure by considering the usefulness of the information
being provided, as well as the level of curiosity of the listener. It is important to evaluate the
listener's beliefs and attitude towards a topic. If the listener's beliefs or attitudes do not align with
those of the speaker, then selective exposure may occur. A speaker can also reduce selective
exposure by being credible and honest.
Those who find new information often draw their attention towards areas where they hold personal
attachment. Thus, people are driven toward pieces of information that are coherent with their own
expectations or beliefs as a result of this selective exposure theory occurring in action.

What are the three factors that counteract selective exposure?

Perceived usefulness of information, perceived norm of fairness, and curiosity of valuable
information are three factors that can counteract selective exposure. This image, which can be
seen as a young woman or an older woman, serves as an example of how individuals can choose
to perceive the same image differently.

Attention-Based Design and Selective Exposure Amid COVID-19

Misinformation Sharing
 Zaid Amin, Nazlena Mohamad Ali, A. Smeaton
 Published in HCI 2021
 Business

One of the significant limitations in human behaviour when receiving online information is our lack of
visual cognitive abilities, the ability to pay greater attention in a short time. The question arises about
how we handle online messages, which contain and send people with the same associated interests as
ourselves, regarding social influences and individual beliefs. This study aims to provide some insight into
misinformation sharing. The availability of enormous amounts of COVID-19 information makes the
selectivity of messages likely limited by the distortion of perceptions in the communicating
environment. It is also in line with the fact that human attention is essentially limited and depends on
the conditions and tasks at hand. To understand this phenomenon, we proposed a Tuning Attention
Model (TAM). The model proposes tuning and intervene in a user's attention behaviour by incorporating
an attention-based design when users decide to share COVID-19 misinformation. In pilot study results,
we found that attention behaviour negatively correlated with misinformation sharing behaviour. The
results justify that when attention behaviour increased, misinformation sharing behaviour will decrease.
We suggest an attention-based design approached on social media application's that could intervene in
user attention and avoid selective exposure caused by the spread of COVID-19 misinformation. The
study expected to produce continuous knowledge leading to non-coercive handling of sharing COVID-19
misinformation behaviour and laying the basis for overcoming misinformation issues. 

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Attention-Based-Design-and-Selective-Exposure-Amid-Amin-
Ali/2c877bd979cf8c4df94a0924a99ab75ca644417f

Politics are more likely to inspire selective exposure among consumers as opposed to single exposure
decisions. For example, in their 2009 meta-analysis of Selective Exposure Theory, Hart et al. reported
that "A 2004 survey by The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press (2006) found that
Republicans are about 1.5 times more likely to report watching Fox News regularly than are Democrats
(34% for Republicans and 20% of Democrats). In contrast, Democrats are 1.5 times more likely to report
watching CNN regularly than Republicans (28% of Democrats vs. 19% of Republicans). Even more
striking, Republicans are approximately five times more likely than Democrats to report watching "The
O'Reilly Factor" regularly and are seven times more likely to report listening to "Rush Limbaugh"
regularly."[32] As a result, when the opinions of Republicans who only tune into conservative media
outlets were compared to those of their fellow conservatives in a study by Stroud (2010), their beliefs
were considered to be more polarized. The same result was retrieved from the study of liberals as well.
[33]
Due to our greater tendency toward selective exposure, current political campaigns have been
characterized as being extremely partisan and polarized. As Bennett and Iyengar (2008) commented,
"The new, more diversified information environment makes it not only more feasible for consumers to
seek out news they might find agreeable but also provides a strong economic incentive for news
organizations to cater to their viewers' political preferences." [33] Selective exposure thus plays a role in
shaping and reinforcing individuals' political attitudes. In the context of these findings, Stroud (2008)
comments "The findings presented here should at least raise the eyebrows of those concerned with the
noncommercial role of the press in our democratic system, with its role in providing the public with the
tools to be good citizens." The role of public broadcasting, through its noncommercial role, is to
counterbalance media outlets that deliberately devote their coverage to one political direction, thus
driving selective exposure and political division in a democracy.

Source (32 and 33)

 Hart, William; Albarracín, Dolores; Eagly, Alice H.; Brechan, Inge; Lindberg, Matthew J.; Merrill, Lisa
(2009). "Feeling validated versus being correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to information"
(PDF). Psychological Bulletin. 135 (4): 555–588. doi:10.1037/a0015701. PMC  4797953. PMID  19586162.

 Perloff, R. M. (2013). Political persuasion. In James Price Dillard and Lijiang Shen (Eds.), The SAGE
Handbook of Persuasion: Developments in Theory and Practice. Retrieved from the Gale Virtual
Reference Library database.

People will watch what they are interested in. It is the media’s responsibility then to find things
that will get them interested. For example, different running mates in an election, or maybe even
just that nights football scores. If the media can grab the public’s attention in some way then they
can change public opinion but only if they get listeners. The media cannot accomplish anything
without an audience. In the case of selective perception, everyone is different. The media must
always be very careful about what they say or how they say it. People will find other meanings
or even read into what is being said. During this war, we have bombed Afghanistan. The media
has portrayed stories about the civilian Afghans that are being killed. Some may feel that we
should not hut the innocent anymore. Still others say that this is an act of war and look at how
many civilians we have lost already. Here the media has the ability to possibly change public
opinion based on the way that people perceive things.
Source: https://educheer.com/essays/media-selective-exposure/

What is confirmation bias? Confirmation bias is defined as the “tendency to process information
by looking for, or interpreting, information that is consistent with one’s existing beliefs.
This biased approach to decision making is largely unintentional and often results in ignoring
inconsistent information. Existing beliefs can include one’s expectations in a given situation and
predictions about a particular outcome. People are especially likely to process information to
support their own beliefs when the issue is highly important or self-relevant.” (Source:
https://www.britannica.com/science/confirmation-bias)

With the advent of social media and private messaging platforms, it seems this gave a faster way
to spread misinformation, or affirm our confirmation bias.  I’ve seen it all too often.  People
share articles, even if they know it’s fake news, because it “confirms” what they perceive to be
the “truth.”  People share on private message groups articles which re-affirms what they think is
true.  When you point it out, that the article they shared is fake news, in some instances, they
justify sharing it because it was sent to them by private messaging or posted on social media, by
someone they know, thus, supposedly, providing some credibility to the story.

In terms of importance, confirmation bias is important because it may lead people to hold
strongly to false beliefs or to give more weight to information that supports their beliefs than is
warranted by the evidence. People may be overconfident in their beliefs because they have
accumulated evidence to support them, when in reality much evidence refuting their beliefs was
overlooked or ignored, evidence which, if considered, would lead to less confidence in one’s
beliefs. These factors may lead to risky decision making and lead people to overlook warning
signs and other important information.  This means, someone could prefer to read articles with
titles that tend to reaffirm what they already want to believe, or cherry-pick a report or news
item.  Where they disregard portions they don’t like, and only quote or believe portions which
affirm what they like.  A very clear example here is people watching programs, especially in the
US.   A big swath of Americans watch a particular news channel and their opinion shows,
believing what they watch to be real news, when in truth and in fact, it’s just opinion, and in
many instances, are skewed views of issues.  But still many continue to consider those shows as
truths.

Another clear example of this was when former US President Trump was still active on Twitter. 
He would relentlessly tweet lies, but his supporters would quote those tweets like it were based
on facts.  They would, because for them, it’s what they consider to be the truth, and he tweeting
it, “confirms” their bias about it.  But the reality of it was Trump just kept tweeting lies and half-
truths.

Confirmation bias not only refers to the news and politics though.  It also refers to everyday
activities.  Your preference for a particular car brand, your choice of where to shop, etc.  You
tend to read articles which reinforce your views of brands, etc. I tell you, it’s hard to overcome
confirmation bias, but if we want to be better, if we want to ferret out the truth, we have to
continually have an open mind about things.  We need to be open to the possibility that we might
have a view of things that are not right, and if someone points it out, we owe it to ourselves to
listen and weigh things, with an open mind.  Don’t argue with someone without first giving him
or her the opportunity to explain things.  You can argue and discuss, AFTER the person has
spoken.  I have a rule.  I tell myself that I have to learn something every day.  It might be
something I just discovered or learned that day; or it could also mean correcting something
wrong, which I previously considered right.
The Duterte COVID-19 response

The pandemic response of President Rodrigo Duterte was not without criticism on matters of
public health policy, public funds management, and governance.

 PH scores lowest among ASEAN countries in gov’t pandemic response – survey

 ‘NCR Plus’ bubble vs COVID-19 pointless with lax LGU borders
 PH may be among last in Southeast Asia to reach herd immunity
 What you need to know about Duterte’s COVID-19 loans
 Many unknowns in Duterte’s COVID-19 jab as PH fights vaccine hesitancy
 EXPLAINER: What went wrong with Duterte’s pandemic response?
 EXPLAINER: The Philippines’ fight vs vaccine hesitancy
 Hesitancy not a major driver for PH’s low vaccination rates
 President Duterte, you can still get COVID-19 under control
 Duterte’s longest SONA leaves Filipinos hanging on pandemic recovery
 Often-ignored COA fuels pandemic outrage vs Duterte gov’t
 DOH’s poor use of P67 billion COVID-19 funds led to ‘missed opportunities’ – auditors
 DOH failed to spend P2.07 billion after parking it in PS-DBM in 2020
 How the Duterte gov’t shut out local PPE producers during a pandemic
 PH’s last-minute quarantine changes force travelers to spend thousands

Jobs and economy

The health crisis coincided with an economic crisis that was experienced locally and globally.
Here’s what it was like for Filipinos in 2021.

 Philippines offers nurses in exchange for vaccines from Britain, Germany

 Labor secretary Bello aims to deploy more nurses, healthcare staff overseas
 With fresh lockdowns, 3.88 million Filipinos jobless in August 2021
 Philippines lowers 2021 economic growth target over fresh lockdowns, Delta
 Delta variant puts Philippine economy among most vulnerable in Asia
 COVID-19 pandemic to cost PH P41.4 trillion over next 4 decades – NEDA
 Philippine GDP growth slows but beats forecasts at 7.1% in Q3 2021
 Philippines raises deployment cap of healthcare workers to 7,000

The political crisis in the Philippines has reached a very advanced stage. Mass anger over catastrophic
social conditions, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, is emerging alongside machinations within
rival sections of the elite for the removal of President Rodrigo Duterte. The possibility of a constitutional
coup against Duterte, through the withdrawal of military support for his presidency and the installation
of Vice President Leni Robredo in his place, is being openly discussed.

Moving forward, Rye called upon the government “to take out politics” and get all sectors in the
Philippines “on the same page” in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. Personal interests were
placed

The impact of the COVID-19 on public health and the economy are, undeniably, the most
obvious. However, the effects of the virus, when mixed with politics, are perhaps just as
dangerous. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the expanded role of
governments in fighting the pandemic increases opportunities for its leaders to abuse their
entrusted power. The Philippines perhaps is a prime example.

Just a month ago, the controversial Anti-Terrorism Act was signed into law by President Rodrigo
Duterte. They said that the law is necessary to combat insurgencies and safeguard freedoms. But
critics worry it will be used to silence political opposition. Among the contentious provisions of
the law are those that broadly define what counts as “terrorism” and that allow warrantless
arrests and detention based on mere suspicion. Seeing how effortlessly some law enforcers,
empowered by the president’s words, can fabricate evidence and manufacture suspicion, it is
feared that this law will have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and the freedom of the
press.

Despite the widespread opposition to the passage of the law, it was not met with the usual
protests on the streets. Most advocates and civil society groups were unable to organize and
peacefully demonstrate with a strict lockdown in place. But the frustration and opposition were
palpable on social media, where bots and troll armies did their best to drown them out.

The virus and our increasing dependence on the internet have also provided the president the
aircover to threaten private companies in the telecommunications sector. Under the guise of
improving the country’s internet service, the president threatened to “expropriate” their
operations if they do not enhance their “less-than-ideal” internet service by December. All this
while conveniently ignoring his own government’s role in holding up the expansion of the
country’s digital infrastructure.

Also, who can forget how Duterte finally delivered on his threat to close down the country’s
largest broadcast network just a few months after the pandemic hit. With the help of his allies in
the House of Representatives, ABS-CBN‘s franchise renewal was blocked. The closure of the
broadcast company meant that thousands of its employees now count among the millions of
Filipinos who have lost their jobs during the pandemic. ABS-CBN’s closure also robbed the
Filipino public of a key source of credible health and safety information related to COVID-19.

At a recent webinar organized by the Philippine Bar Association on mass media and the law,
Dean Mel Sta. Maria Jr., of the Far Eastern University Institute of Law, described the blocking of
ABS-CBN’s franchise as a “macrocosm” of the government’s attacks on Philippine media.
Through clever maneuvering of the legal system, Sta. Maria said that the government was able to
“weaponize” the law against its critics and political opposition. He also pointed out that “the
facade may be technically legal, but the underpinning motivations and the consequent result are
unconstitutional against public policy, morals, and good custom.” 

Even Duterte’s threat against the telecommunication sector in his fifth State of the Nation
Address, he said, was an example of the weaponization of the law. According to Sta. Maria,
Duterte’s impromptu threats are an abuse of the president’s immunity from suit and points out
that “a legal right abused to the maximum to cause fear, using legal immunity pursuant to the law
is, in effect, weaponizing that law.”
In the battle against COVID-19, the focus is primarily on addressing its health and economic
effects and rightly so, with the number of cases growing and the number of jobs shrinking.
However, COVID-19 has also created an opportunity for government leaders to abuse their
power, which in turn weakens their ability to respond to public health and economic challenges.
As such, it is essential that we also address the political and governance aspects of this pandemic.

Left unabated, COVID-19’s political mutation will undoubtedly lead to further degradation of
public health and even more economic damages. We cannot sit idly by and allow those in office
to normalize the abuse of power and the weaponization of the law. After all, the only vaccine for
corruption is vigilance and transparency.

https://www.philstar.com/news-commentary/2020/08/22/2037107/commentary-covid-19s-political-
mutation-and-weaponization-law

Researchers have found that most people rely on a system of selective exposure in which they
seek out and pay attention to information that supports their preexisting views. As Sweeny et al.
(2010) describe, “…people often opt to remain ignorant.” The worry is that this deliberate close-
mindedness will impact sound decision-making and hinder social movement success.

According to these researchers, a multitude of personality traits interact to influence a person’s

tendency toward selective exposure. For instance, some engage information as a coping
mechanism; while others ignore information as a coping mechanism. Likewise, some people are
more comfortable with uncertainty than others. Ease of obtaining and interpreting information, as
well as the amount of control a person feels over the consequences of that information are also
critical.

Therefore, sensitivity to individual characteristics is important for activists. Personal dispositions

of audience members are largely outside of an activist’s control, but veganism can be presented
as an attainable and viable alternative. Information about the transition to veganism should be
easy to access and a variety of strategies for achieving this transition should be provided to
reduce the potential for selection bias to surface.

Hart et al. (2009) found that selection bias was highest when it was relevant to accomplishing a
goal. For instance, a nonvegan person wishing to lose weight may seek out diets that affirm their
flesh-based consumption patterns, such as the Atkin’s Diet. This bias can be reduced if an
individual’s attitudes are supported prior to their seeking information, but only if their attitudes
are not strongly held or relevant to their values.

For instance, an activist may acknowledge that switching to a plant-based diet will mean
forgoing traditional “meat” and dairy fare and offer some tempting alternatives to prevent
selection bias from emerging. Activists must also be strategic in their timing, and may gear up
for food-centered holidays when people are likely to start thinking about seeking information on
their diet. Planning ahead for New Year’s when resolutions are made and information is sought
would be another wise strategy.
Other inhibiting factors that activist should be aware of include the individual’s level of close-
mindedness and confidence in their attitudes. Those who are particularly confident may not feel
threatened by exposure to opposing information and are consequently less likely to exhibit
information avoidance. Strength of attitude, it turns out, is not as influential to resistance as is the
existence of a particular goal.

https://www.coreyleewrenn.com/selective-exposure/