1 From politicians to pundits to the people themselves, Americans overwhelmingly agree that the country is more polarized than

ever before (Pew Research Center for People and the Press, 2011). Some blame it on the politicians and Washington insiders. Others blame it on activists like the 2010 Tea Partiers. Others blame it on something a bit more ubiquitous, something thats pervaded and eventually revolutionized our society the Internet. The present research demonstrates that the Internet can, and indeed does, polarize some individuals, leaving many questioning the effects of the Internet on our democratic society. During its earliest conception, scholars have debated over the political function and usability of the Internet. One school argued that its ubiquity and accessibility would spark democratic innovation and broaden the public sphere (Friedland, 1996; Browning, 2002; Hauben & Hauben, 1997; Hill & Hughes, 1998). This would allow those previously denied access to politicians and government influencers to have a say in the political process. Yet others argued that the Internet, with its limitless space and easy-toaccess interface, would create a more polarized society, as it allowed citizens to chose their own content and therefore immerse themselves in their own partisan views (Negroponte, 1995; Shapiro, 1999; Sunstein, 2001). If true, the idea that the Internet encourages this level of selectivity has serious implications for American democracy. In his 2001 book, Sunstein warns readers that the Internet gives individuals the ability to filter what they want to read, see, and hear (p. 3). Instead of a newspaper editor or television producer acting as a gatekeeper to filter news, individuals are empowered to select the news themselves, filtering out whatever does not pertain to them and consuming only what they are interested in and agree with

2 (Mutz & Martin, 2001). The more they filter, the more they become polarized and entrenched in ideas, attitudes, and opinions similar to their own (Brundidge, 2010). This enclosed space, a result of political fragmentation and social polarization, is known as an echo chamber (Jamieson & Capella, 2008; Sunstein, 2001). The rise of social networking sites can broaden this echo chamber, as citizens actively post and share specific content (Hampton, Session, & Her, 2010).

Revisiting the selective exposure debate The proliferation of online communication channels, and the niche markets and audience fragmentation that resulted, have revived the debate about the existence of selective exposure and its effects on citizens (Bennett & Iyengar, 2008; Garrett, 2009; Knobloch-Westerwick & Meng, 2009; Stroud, 2008; Valentino et al., 2009). Hartmann (2009) and Prior (2005) both suggest that the way people make decisions is affected by the number of options available, and those options have greatly increased in the digital age. Because citizens have multiple choices, they can polarize themselves by consuming only content that shares, rather than challenges, their point of view (Mutz & Martin, 2001). These ideas develop from the theory of selective exposure, the idea that individuals are inclined to seek out sources that reinforce, rather than challenge, their beliefs, ideas, and attitudes (Frey, 1986; Garrett, 2009). This theoretical perspective fits within the framework of Festingers theory of cognitive dissonance which states that individuals have a tendency to seek consistency among their cognitions, such as their beliefs and their opinions (Festinger, 1957). When inconsistency occurs, one will work to

3 eliminate the dissonance to restore a balanced consistency of information and ideals. However, the malleability of an individuals Internet experience allows them to bypass the dissonant information and instead focus on only that which interests them. Purposely avoiding opinion-challenging information can lead to heightened political intolerance, a potentially damaging characteristic for a democratic electorate (Garrett, 2009). Having a well-rounded body of knowledge is essential to developing a well-informed decision, one that comes from careful deliberation of both sides of an issue (Delli-Carpini, Cook, & Jacobs, 2004). In the absence of balanced information seeking, individuals cannot engage in deliberative forums, which allow individuals to form and alter their opinions (Lindeman, 2002). In addition, deliberation is key to cultivating compromise and political tolerance as individuals are exposed to a variety of opinions and viewpoints. Without it, individuals are in danger of living in polarized, intolerant political environment (Baum & Groeling, 2008). In recent years, scholars have examined whether or not individuals use the freedom of digital media to isolate themselves and engage in partisan selectivity. One set of scholars has argued against the existence of selective exposure since its earliest days (Freedman & Sears, 1965). In the contemporary debate, scholars like Kinder (2003), Zaller (1992), and Chaffee and Miyo (1983) continue to assert that individuals do not chose specific media outlets simply because they share their political dispositions and ideologies. Other scholars assert that selective exposure does exist, although its effects may not be as damaging as Sunstein proposed. In 2011, Pew Research Center found that 54 percent of online media users agreed that the Internet makes it easier to connect with

4 others who share their ideological views (Pew Research Center, 2011). However, the fact that the Internet makes it easier to seek out like-minded individuals does not translate into completely polarized media consumers. Garrett (2009) found that even though the Internet allows for more control, individuals do not use it to completely isolate themselves in their own partisan views. Using the 2004 National Annenberg Election survey data, Stroud (2010) concluded that an individuals political beliefs and dispositions influence their media selection choices, although this does not directly correlate to those individuals choosing to consume information from only like-minded media outlets. However, Iyengar and Hahn (2009) concluded that selective exposure is more likely to manifest itself in the new media environment simply because of the multitude of options individuals have. Yet another group of scholars argues that selective exposure and the need to alleviate any cognitive dissonance plays an active role in individual choice. Zillman and Bryant (1985) developed the affective-dependent theory which posits that people tend to minimize exposure to negative or aversive stimuli and maximize exposure to pleasurable stimuli. Jones (2005) further argued this viewpoint, asserting that individuals are often biased towards their own previously held beliefs or desires. Finally, some scholars posit that the extent to which an individual engages in selective exposure depends on environmental or other moderating factors. Valentino et. al. (2009) suggests that individuals are likely to seek out opinion-reinforcing information unless seeking more balanced information benefits them and lessens their anxiety levels. In addition, Mutz (2006) asserts that when our political or media environment is more polarized over national issues (such as war), individuals tend to adopt more polarized

5 viewpoints as well and seek sources that agree with their ideological viewpoints. Although contemporary researchers have yet to reach a conclusive agreement on the debate surrounding the existence of selective exposure, research demonstrates that certain individuals do prefer to seek out websites that share their points of view (Pew Research Center, 2011). However, this likeminded selectivity is not consistent across all types of Internet users. The following sections outline research on certain types of Internet sites and users, seeking to demonstrate the moderating variables influencing an individuals online media choice. There are several factors that influence what types of media and content individuals choose to expose themselves to. These factors include their involvement in the blogosphere and on social networking sites, their gender, and their level of Internet trust. Each of these factors are explored below.

Networks of influence: the blogosphere and social networking sites The blogosphere tends to be full of partisan, like-minded individuals connected through online communities (Davis, 2009). Blog authors exhibit strong homophily, or a tendency for similar individuals to be in contact more frequently than those who are dissimilar to them (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001). These blog authors are much more likely to link to other bloggers in accordance with their ideological opinion than they are to refer to the opposition, which only further amplifies the information within the echo chamber. In a 2004 study of 40 prominent blogs, Adamic & Glance (2005) found that only 15 percent of bloggers linked to a blog from an opposite ideological view.

6 Many of the most popular blogs are indeed overtly partisan in nature. Baum and Groeling (2008) conducted an extensive content analysis of many media outlets including two popular partisan blogs, Daily Kos on the left and Free Republic on the right, concluding that both sites demonstrated strong preferences for ideologically congenial information. These blogs tend not to be shy about their political leanings. Under the Goals of Daily Kos, a blogger openly declared the liberal nature of the blog, stating, this site is a primarily Democratic site, with a heavy emphasis on progressive politics. It is not intended for Republicans, or conservatives (Dkosopedia, 2008). Free Republic does not hide their political leanings either, declaring we're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America (Free Republic, 2008). Lawrence, Sides, and Farrell (2010) state that blogs from both ends of the ideological spectrum exhibit largely cloistered cocoons of cognitive consonance (p.152). By selecting a partisan blog, most readers are making an active decision to consume information and interact in a community that holds certain ideals, viewpoints, and beliefs consistent with a defined political ideology. Most blog readers are content with gaining only ideologically reinforcing information, as most left-wing blog readers are overwhelming liberal and Democrat and most right-wing blog readers are conservative and Republican (Lawrence, Sides, & Farrell, 2010). Continuous exposure to these partisan blogs can easily push a readers opinions even farther toward one end of the ideological spectrum (Lawrence, Sides, & Farrell, 2010, p. 149). Social networking sites also offers individuals a chance to connect and engage in an online community either with other likeminded individuals or more institutionalized

7 figures like the news media, government figures, or political candidates. Social media typically refers to any type of platform that allows for user-generated content, promoting open interaction in a one-to-one, one-to-many, or many-to-one way (Bruns, 2006; Leung, 2009). Bruns (2006) refers to social media as produsage, an organic production model of communication eliminating the boundaries of producer and consumer. Social media networks have a dual purpose in the political communication arena. Individuals can virtually connect with politicians and candidates they previously could not access by friending or following them on popular social networks such as Facebook or Twitter, helping to democratize the political process (Morris, 1999). Accessing candidates via social media became increasingly popular in the 2008 election with all of the main candidates having an active social media presence (Panagopoulos, 2009). However, social networks also encourage individuals to interact with other like-minded individuals to discuss and share ideas and views about politics (Ancu & Cozma, 2009). Social media users can express themselves politically by making donations, joining political groups, posting status updates encouraging their friends to vote, or participating in virtual town hall meetings (Kushin & Yamamoto, 2010). Because individuals actively chose who is in their social networks, they are already engaging in selectivity. They create their own spheres of influence, choosing what types of viewpoints or ideologies theyll be influenced by depending on who theyve accepted into that social network. If individuals select Twitter followers or subscribe to Facebook feeds simply because they agree with the users ideologies and viewpoints, they are susceptible to creating an individualized echo chamber, exposing themselves only to a small amount of like viewpoints.

8 However, Garrett and Resnick (2011) disagrees with critics who assert that the Internet threatens diversity. He states that there is not an inherent human desire to filter out other viewpoints. Rather, the danger is in narrow channels and crude personalization techniques that fail to meet peoples true preferences (Garrett & Resnick, 2011, p. 10). Social media networks can therefore be used as tools to personalize, rather than diversify, information sources, even if it is somewhat unconsciously. Because individuals often actively select to read these blogs or to build and participate in these social networks, we propose [H1] Individuals who consume more online news and post comments, questions, or information about politics anywhere online are more likely to visit websites that share their point of view.

Gender-based information seeking and the new media age Sociodemographic information, including age, gender, race, religion, education, and political affiliation, can also influence an individuals media consumption and media choices (Lauf, 2001; Pew Research Center for People and the Press, 2008). Although each of these can influence an individuals news choice, we will focus our attention here on the impact of gender on digital media choices and consumption. According to a 2008 study from the Pew Research Center for People and the Press, men are more likely to consume news on a regular basis. Men and women also differ in what types of news they typically consume with men more interested in sports, international affairs, and Washington political news, while women attend to more news stories about weather, health and safety, natural disasters, and tabloid news (Pew

9 Research Center for People and the Press, 2008). Maccoby (1988) suggests that sexbased socialization produces the psychological traits influencing this differentiation in news interests. These preferences often develop early in life, as boys prefer violence and conflict and girls prefer more nurturing content from a young age (Knobloch et. al, 2005). These interests influence what types of stories and content men and women seek out, and as a result, can influence other important variables like political knowledge (Nash & Hoffman, 2009). In addition to gender differences regarding what types of news they consume, men and women differ regarding how they consume this news 50% of men get news on a digital platform on any given day, compared to 39% of women (Pew Research Center for People and the Press, 2008). However, both men and women are equally likely to get news from Twitter or another social networking site. Knobloch-Westerwick and Alter (2007) conclude that news consumers tend to follow sex- and gender- typed interests when making media choices, as women prefer to read about more social or interpersonal issues than men and men prefer to read about more achievement/performance stories than women. Previous research has explored how broad gender orientations, which occur through a socialization process, affect information choice (Baumeister & Sommer, 1997; Cross & Madson, 1997). Many scholars also produce evidence regarding how media-based stereotypes influence an individuals gender identity (Bandura, 2001; Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, Signorelli, & Shanahan, 2002; Signorelli, 2001). These studies have focused primarily on the impact of gender on consumption of traditional mass media. However, little research has addressed how men and women

10 engage in different types of information-seeking and interaction online. The present study explores the active media choices men and women make, as well as their preferences towards online sources and sites that share and/or challenge their points of view. When considering the type of sex- and gender- based preferences that guide an individuals overall media choice, we propose that [H2] Men who use the Internet more frequently are more likely to go to sites that do not share their point of view while women are more likely to go to sites that do share their point of view.

Internet trust and selectivity Trust is the expectation that the trustors interaction with the trustee will lead to gains, rather than losses (Coleman, 1990). Trust revolves around an expectation that another individual, organization, or entity can be relied on (Rotter, 1967). In the context of politics and the media, there has been a sharp decline in media trust (Bennet, Staci, & Flickinger, 2001; Capella & Jamieson, 1997; Meyer, 2004; Cooper, 2008; Pew Research Center, 2011). However, as more news and media moves online, individuals attitudes and feelings towards the Internet likely play a key role in determining their overall online news consumption levels and information-seeking processes. There are two main influences here an individuals level of trust in the Internet and an individuals level of trust in the media. First, two major factors influence an individuals level of Internet trust perceived source credibility and message credibility (Flanagin & Metzger, 2007). Credibility is key because if people do not find a specific

11 source or message credible, they oftentimes disregard it altogether (Gaziano, 1987). Individuals often judge a website or online source in terms of how credible they perceive the source to be (Stepp, 2001, Flanagin & Metzger, 2007). For example, institutional websites are perceived as more credible than commercial, advocacy, or personal websites (Flanagin & Metzger, 2007). Source credibility becomes even more important when considering the limitless space of the Internet inviting anyone to be a publisher or join in the conversation through the comments section of a blog or other online forums (Lasica, 1996). This eliminates the role of the traditional media gatekeeper, meaning that content publishers do not have to adhere to the traditional journalistic norms and ethics, nor do they have to filter their content through an editor or producer. The Internet can easily become full of unverified information, which only threatens the information-gathering environment (Tsfati, 2010). In addition to source credibility, individuals also judge a website on message credibility (Flanagin & Metzger, 2007). Message credibility is typically judged on four main criteria quality, accuracy, currency, and intensity (Metzger, Flanagin, Eyal, et. al., 2003). Although message credibility is a key component of gauging overall online credibility, many conclude that other factors, such as the source itself or how the message is produced, are much more influential on an individuals evaluation of the material (Norris & Sanders, 2003; Warnick, 2007). In addition, prior knowledge of a topic affects perceptions of message credibility (Eastin, 2001). Beyond individual trust in the Internet content itself, how much an individual trusts the media affects overall news choices. Political trust, ideology, and political partisanship are all three factors influencing an individuals trust in the media (Lee,

12 2010). As more institutional outlets offer similar online content, individuals begin to associate traditional and digital sources more closely, causing their overall perceptions about credibility to mirror each other (Johnson & Kaye, 2010; Project for Excellence in Journalism, 2006). Tsfati found that how much an individual trusts the Internet and digital technology influences the type of content they seek out and how much time they spend with this content (2010). In addition, individual levels of trust in the traditional, offline media correlates to their levels of trust in online media. For example, audiences who trusted the mass media more read more mainstream news online while audiences who trusted the mainstream media less read more alternative news online (Tsfati, 2010). As evidenced here, Internet trust levels influence individual media choice as they select mainstream and/or alternative media. Therefore, we propose [H3] People who feel more comfortable and efficacious using the Internet are more likely to go to sites that share their point of view.

Methods

Sample The following data was collected from a telephone survey conducted among voting-age Delawareans in July and August 2011. The Center for Political Communication (CPC) at the University of Delaware provided a panel of respondents who had previously agreed to participate in a CPC survey. Panelists had previously participated in a survey administered by the CPC in April 2011.

13 Results are based on telephone interviews conducted by Survey Technology & Research Center, Allentown, PA, using a panel of 1,000 Delaware residents. The survey took place from July 21 to August 9, 2011. A total of 708 respondents participated. Interviews were conducted with landline and cell phones, depending on the preferred contact number of the respondents. Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who agreed to participate in UDs Center for Political Communication surveys. The data have not been weighted. Because the sample is based on those who initially self-selected for participation in the panel rather than a probability sample, no estimates of sampling error can be calculated. All sample surveys and polls may be subject to multiple sources of error, including, but not limited to sampling error, coverage error, and measurement error.

Demographic makeup The mean age of our sample is 62.80, and s.d. is 13.88. As for gender, our sample mean is .50, indicating that half of our sample is female and the other half is male. Regarding employment, 34.0 percent of our sample reported to being employed full-time, 8.1 employed part-time, 47.6 retired, 4.4 percent homemaker, and 5.9 percent not employed. Our sample included 91.1 percent white, 7.1 percent black, 0.7 percent Asian, and the rest were American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, or other. On average, people in our sample had a four-year college degree (s.d. = 1.42), with most ranging from some college to some graduate school. We measured education as (1) less than high school, (2) high school graduate, (3) some college, (4)

14 four-year degree, (5) some graduate school, and (6) graduate degree.

Measures Survey questions focused on new media use, 2012 election attitudes, and a new measure of technological efficacy. In addition, respondents provided personal demographic information and their level of political knowledge, based on five standard measures. This research focuses specifically on selective exposure, as determined by which types of information individuals consume online.

Selective exposure measure To measure selective exposure, respondents were asked the following question: In general, when you get political or campaign information online, would you say most of the sites you go to SHARE your point of view, DONT HAVE a particular point of view, or CHALLENGE your own point of view? Participants responded by answering share, dont have, or challenge. In addition, 41 participants (3.8 percent) provided the answer share and challenge. As our dependent variable, we recoded answers into either share (1) or dont share (0) as our two categorical variables. The Dont share category includes all responses other than share, such as dont have, challenge, or share and challenge. Our results suggest that 67.5 percent of our respondents went to websites that did not share their points of view while 32.5 percent of our respondents went to websites that did share their points of view. Each of the following questions suggests certain groups or users are more likely to go to websites that share their points of view. These groups/users are based on the

15 following categories: amount of activity in online discussion forums (social networks, blogs, websites, etc.), gender influences, and levels of Internet trust.

Social networks and blogs To determine how active individuals are in online forums, respondents were asked the following question: Have you ever posted comments, questions or information about politics in any of these places online? The interviewer then listed five different online platforms, allowing the participant time to answer yes or no after each item. The online platforms offered were: in an online discussion, a listserv, or other online group forum; on a blog, your own or someone elses; on a social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace, or LinkedIn; on Twitter; on a website of any other kind, such as a political, campaign, or news site that allows comments and discussion. Each respondent had the opportunity to answer to all five platforms. These items were randomized each time with the last item (regarding website usage) being asked last every single time and measured on an additive scale with a of mean .69, and s.d. 1.14.

Internet trust Individual Internet trust levels were determined through five key measures. The interviewer read the participants five statements, and respondents indicated the degree to which they agreed with the statement by responding on a five-point Likert scale: strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, strongly disagree. The five measures read as follows: 1. I feel good about how things go when I get or share information on the Internet. 2. The Internet has enough safeguards to make me feel comfortable using it to get

16 and share information. 3. I feel assured that legal and technological advances on the Internet make it safe for me to get and share information there. 4. I feel confident that technological advances on the Internet make it safe for me to get and share information there. 5. In general, the Internet is a robust and safe environment in which to get and share information. When combined, these five questions produce a single measure of Internet trust. For the purposes of this research, we refer to Internet trust as how comfortable and efficacious people feel using the Internet. These measures were developed using Eastin and LaRoses 2000 scale of factors determining Internet trust. Our mean is 2.87, which is slightly above our middle score on the five-point Internet trust scale. Standard deviation is 0.86. This was a reliable scale, and our Cronbachs alpha = 0.86.

Control variables Each of the other factors served as control measures in our study. Political efficacy was measured on a five-point Likert scale (1=strongly agree, 2=agree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=disagree, and 5=strongly agree) through six different questions: 1. People like me dont have any say about what the government does. 2. Sometimes politics and government seem so complicated that a person like me cant really understand whats going on. 3. Voting is the only way that people like me can have any say about how the government runs things. 4. Generally speaking, those we elect to Congress in Washington lose touch with the people pretty quickly. 5. I dont think public officials care much what people like me think. 6. Parties are only interested in peoples votes but not in their opinions. Our mean is 2.80, s.d.= 0.82, and Cronbachs alpha = .76, indicating that our scale is significant.

17 In addition, we measured political knowledge through a five-question scale: 1. Do you happen to know what job or political office is now held by Joe Biden? 2. Whose responsibility is it to determine if a law is constitutional or notis it the president, the Congress, or the Supreme Court? 3. How much of a majority is reqired for the U.S. Senate and House to override a presidential veto? 4. Do you happen to know which party currently has the most members in the House of Representatives in Washington? 5. Which of the two major political parties would you say is more conservative at the national level? We evaluated political knowledge by adding the number of correct answers to each of the five measures. Our mean is 4.12 (s.d. = 1.01), indicating that most of our participants scored high in political knowledge. To evaluate internet self-efficacy, we asked participants: In general would you say you feel confident in doing the following activities on the Internet? using a fivepoint Likert scale (1=very confident, 2=confident, 3=somewhat confident, 4=not at all confident, or 5=not sure). Panelists responded to each of these eight measures: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Finding information online Communicating with others online Downloading and uploading files online. Talking about the Internet hardware, like a network or router. Talking about Internet software, like a search engine or web browser. Troubleshooting Internet problems Using a specific Internet program or app, like Facebook Knowing where to get help on Internet questions if I need it. Our mean measures 2.45, s.d. measures 0.79, and Cronbachs alpha measures 0.90, indicating that our eight-question scale is statistically valid. To evaluate individual news use, we asked participants: Thinking about the last week, how many days (0-7) did you watch NATIONAL television news on broadcast networks like ABC or CBS? watch LOCAL television news program on broadcast networks like ABC or CBS?

18 watch television news on CABLE networks, like CNN or FOX News? read a print newspaper? view news on a news organizations site? view news on a blog or personal site? view news through updates on a social networking site like Facebook? These answers were evaluated by how many days each week individuals sought out these sources. Our mean is 1.41, indicating that on average, individuals sought out each of these sources once or more per week. Our standard deviation is 1.60. To measure political interest, we asked participants, How much interest do you have in following news about the upcoming (2012) elections for the Republican presidential nomination? Answers were coded on a five-point Likert scale as follows: 1=a great deal, 2=quite a bit, 3=only some, 4=very little, and 5=no interest at all. Our mean is 3.65 (s.d.=.52), indicating that our participants are somewhat interested in the upcoming election. Finally, we identified participants party identification by asking, Are you currently registered as a Democrat, Republican, or Independent? In our sample, 47.6 percent are registered Democrats, 34.8 percent as Republicans, and 17.7 as Independents.

Results Direct logistic regression was performed to assess the impact of a number of factors on the likelihood that respondents would report they went to websites that shared their points of view. The model contained three independent variables (posting online activity, gender, and Internet trust). The full model containing all predictors was

19 statistically significant, indicating that the model was able to distinguish between respondents who reported they went to websites that shared their points of view and those who went to websites that did not only share their points of view. The model as a whole explained between 11.6 percent (Cox and Snell R square) and 16.1 percent (Nagelkerke R squared) of the variance in online news choice and correctly classified 68.9 percent of cases. Only four of the independent variables made a unique statistically significant contribution to the model (gender, online news use, posting online, and Internet trust). Posting comments online was a significant predictor of going to websites that share ones point of view (Exp(B) =1.32). This indicates that the more an individual post comments online through social media, blogs, or forums, the more likely they are to go to websites that share their point of view. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is supported. According to this logistic regression, our second hypothesis, suggesting that men will go to websites that do not share their points of view while women will go to websites that do share their points of view, is false. The odds ratio of our males versus females measure had an odds ratio of 1.98. This suggests that not only are males more likely to go to websites that share their points of view, but rather they are almost two times more likely than women to report doing this. Finally, our third hypothesis suggested that people with higher levels of Internet trust will go to websites that share their views. The odds ratio of our Internet trust variable was .779, indicating that the lower an individuals reported Internet trust levels are, the more likely they are to go to websites that share their views. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was not supported. In addition, our results showed that the independent variable of online news use is

20 statistically significant (.003). The odds ratio of online news use was 1.204, suggesting that the greater an individuals online news consumption, the more likely one is to go to websites that share views.

Discussion From the earliest days of the Internet, scholars suggested that its connectivity and ubiquity held the key to a truly open democracy where individuals could connect with other citizens, politicians, and news outlets to seek, find, and share information (i.e. Friedland, 1996, Hauben & Hauben, 1997; Hill & Hughes, 1998). However, as some scholars praised the Internet for its ability to place power in the hands of the citizens, others warned that citizens could create their own network and essentially expose themselves to only one viewpoint (Sunstein, 2001). Over twenty years later, scholars, citizens, and politicians are still finding new ways to use and develop the Internet. Just as Sunstein predicted, individuals can now create their own Internet experiences through a variety of platforms. They can customize their news consumption by opting into RSS feeds they view on their Google Reader. They can create their own virtual Daily Me through paper.li, a publishing site that aggregates an individuals news feed into one, easy-to-read online newspaper each day. Sunsteins greatest fears have been realized, but is it really a cause for concern? Our results suggest that although there are certain moderating factors that cause an individual to seek out websites that solely share their point of view, people as a whole do not exclude various viewpoints from their media environments. Less than half of our participants reported to visiting websites that only shared his or her point of view In

21 general, posting comments, being male, and reporting lower levels of Internet trust predicts going to websites that share ones point of view. In his study of trust and digital technologies, Tsfati (2010) found that an individuals Internet trust levels affected their media choice. Although our hypothesis was not supported, our results showed similar evidence, indicating that lower Internet trust levels predict going to websites that share ones point of view. This suggests that individuals who are less comfortable and familiar with the Internet seek out sites that agree with their predisposed ideals and values. They select these websites that they are already comfortable with in hopes of alleviating any type of conflict or cognitive dissonance. Individuals with higher levels of Internet trust may be more apt to visit websites that do not share their points of view because they are more comfortable exploring the Internet. Because they are more confident finding information online, it only makes sense that they would visit a variety of websites, not only those that agree with their ideological predispositions. Because men prefer conflict more so than women, we asserted that they would seek out sources that challenge their points of view. However, according to our results, men are two times more likely than women to seek out sources that agree with their points of view. This result can be explained because of two main factors -- how men get their news and what types of news they read. According to a 2008 study conducted by Pew Research Center for People and the Press, 50 percent of men get news on a digital platform on any given day, compared to 39 percent of women. Because seeking out news online is a more active behavior, men must be more deliberate in which news they chose

22 to seek out. Therefore, they are more likely to seek out websites that share their points of view simply because they are using those websites to feed them the most important headlines. In addition, men traditionally prefer to read more about sports, international affairs, and Washington politics, as women prefer news about weather, health and safety, natural disaster, and tabloid news (Pew Research Center for People and the Press, 2008). Because men prefer to read more about international affairs and Washington politics, they are more likely to seek out this news through websites that agree with their points of view, an assertion consistent with our results. Finally, our first hypothesis which suggested individuals who post comments will go to websites that share their points of view was supported. Because individuals must seek out material they wish to comment on and chose which individuals/organizations they wish to include in their network, they are likely comfortable in those online spaces and are therefore more inclined to comment and interact there. True to the theory of cognitive dissonance, individuals are unlikely to actively comment in spaces which are unfamiliar to them or challenge their points of view.

Limitations One of the most prominent limitations of this study is our sample is confined to Delawareans and therefore is not representative of the population at large. In addition, respondents agreed to participate in UDs Center for Political Communication studies and therefore were self-selected as participants. On the whole, these participants are more politically engaged, which may not allow for a truly representative sample. Finally, our

23 survey addressed a variety of questions about digital technology choices, attitudes, and behaviors. Therefore, we included only one question to measure selective exposure, presenting a somewhat limited view of the subject.

Future Research Although our research addresses a variety of moderating variables within the digital technology and selective exposure debate, many questions still remain. As the Internet develops, social networks becoming increasingly more important and influential. However, our question specifically asked what types of websites individuals go to. Future researchers should inquire into how individuals chose to build their social networks and who they chose to include. Do they confine their networks only to individuals who agree with their points of view or do they seek out various points of view? In addition, researchers should further delve into how individuals define which websites do or do not agree with their points of view. Are they seeking out issue organization sites or simply mainstream media organization sites? Do their decisions reflect the media choices they make offline? (i.e. Are they visiting websites of national newspapers or cable news networks that they consume offline?)

Conclusion Although the digital age has renewed interest in selective exposure research, scholars continuously conclude that the Internet is not solely responsible for our polarized political environment (Garrett, 2009; Valentino et. al., 2009). Merely having a variety of online information sources does not cause individuals to cocoon themselves in an echo

24 chamber of like-minded individuals and opinions. Instead, they often use choice to gain more information and therefore make more informed decisions. Overall, online action mirrors offline action. As we saw in our results about gender-based news choice, men tend to prefer more politically- and internationally- based stories whereas women prefer more feature-y pieces. According to our results, men prefer websites that share their point of view, which only makes sense since they are likely seeking out political news, rather than females who are seeking out information about the weather, health and safety, or entertainment. The idea that males go to websites that share their points of view does not indicate that they are more polarized or secluded, but rather they are making news choices online the same way they make them offline. In conclusion, selective exposure exists it always has and it always will. It does affect individual choices. However, the existence of selective exposure itself does not necessarily result in isolation or polarization. Moderating variables, from demographics to environmental factors, when paired up with each other, truly determine an individuals online (and offline) news choices. Works Cited Adamic, L. & Glance, N. (2005). The political blogosphere and the 2004 US election: divided they blog. Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Link discovery, p. 36-42. Ancu, M. & Cozma, R. (2009). Myspace politics: uses and gratifications of befriending candidates. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53, 567-583. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media psychology, 3, 265-299. Baum, M. & Groeling, T. (2008). New media and the polarization of American political discourse. Political Communication, 25(4), 345-365. Baumeister, R. & Sommer, K. (1997). What do men want? Gender differences and two spheres of belongingness: Comment on Cross and Madson (1997). Psychological Bulletin, 122, 38-44.

25 Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58, 707731. Bennet, S., Staci, L., & Flickinger, R. (2001). Assessing Americans opinions about the news medias fairness in 1996 and 1998. Political Communication, 18, 163-182. Browning, G. (2002). Electronic democracy: using the Internet to transform American politics. Medford, NJ: CyberAge Books. Brundidge, J. (2010). Encountering difference in the contemporary public sphere: the contribution of the Internet on the homogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of Communication, 60, 680-700. Bruns, A. (2006). Towards produsage: Futures for user-lead content production. In F. Sudweeks, H. Hrachovec, & C. Ess (Eds.) Proceedings cultural attitudes towards communication and technology (pp. 275-284). Perth, Australia: Murdoch University. Capella, J. & Jamieson, K. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. New York: Oxford University Press. Chaffee, S. & Miyo, Y. (1983). Selective exposure and the reinforcement hypothesis. Communication Research, 10, 3-36. Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Cooper, T. (2008). Between the summits: what Americans think about ethics. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 23(1), 15-27. Cross, S. & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122 5-37. Davis, R. (2009). Typing politics: the role of blogs in American politics. New York: Oxford University Press. Delli-Carpini, M.X., Cook, F., & Jacobs, L. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: a review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315-344. Dkosopedia. (2008). Troll rating. Retrieved July 29, 2010 from http://www. dkosopedia.com/wiki/Troll_rating. Eastin, M. (2001). Credibility assessments of online health information: the effects of source expertise and knowledge of content. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(4).

26 Eastin, M. & LaRose, R. L. (2000). Internet self-efficacy and the psychology of the digital divide. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication. 6(1). Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Flanagin, A. & Metzger, M. (2000). Perceptions of internet information credibility. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(3), 515-540. Flanagin, A. & Metzger, M. (2007) Digital media and youth: unparalleled opportunity and unprecedented responsibility. Edited by Miriam Metzger and Andrew Flanagin, The John & Catherine MacArthur Foundation Series of Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, p. 5-28. Flanagin, A. & Metzger, M. (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. Free Republic. (2008). Welcome to free republic. Retrieved July 29, 2010, from http://www.freerepublic.com/home.htm. Freedman, J. & Sears, D. (1965). Selective Exposure. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. (pp. 57-97). San Diego: Academic Press. Friedland, L. (1996). Electronic democracy and the new citizenship. Media, Culture & Society, 18(2), 185212. Frey, D. (1986). Recent research on selective exposure to information. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. (Vol. 19) (pp. 41-80). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Garrett, R. K. (2009). Politically Motivated Reinforcement Seeking : Reframing the Selective Exposure Debate. Journal of Communication, 59(2001), 676-699. Garrett, R. K. (2009). Echo chambers online ?: Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 265285. Garrett, R.K. & Resnick, P. (2011). Resisting Political Fragmentation on the Internet. Daedalus, in press. Gaziano, C. (1987). How credible is the credibility crisis? Journalism Quarterly, 65, 267278. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorelli, S. & Shanahan, J. (2002).Growing up with television: cultivation processes. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.) Media effects: Advances in theory and research. (pp. 43-67). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Greenburg Quinlan Rosner Research. (2000). The Roper Center for Public Opinion

27 Research, University of Connecticut. Hampton, K., Sessions, L., & Her, E. (2010). Core networks, social isolation, and new media. Information, Communication, & Society, 14(1), 130-155. Hartmann, T. (2009). Media choice: a theoretical and empirical overview. New York, NY: Routledge. Hauben, M. & Hauben, R. (1997). Netizens: on the history and impact of Usenet and the Internet. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Press Society. Hill, K. & Hughes, J. (1998). Cyberpolitics: citizen activism in the age of the Internet. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red Media , Blue Media : Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use. Journal of Communication, 59, 19-39. Jamieson, K. & Capella, J. (2008). Echo chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media establishment. Oxford University Press. Johnson, T. & Kaye, B. (2010). Still cruising and believing? An analysis of online credibility across three presidential campaigns. American Behavioral Scientist, 54(1), 57-77. Kinder, D. (2003). Communication and politics in the age of information. In D.O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 357393). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Knobloch-Westerwick, S. & Alter, S. (2007). The gender news divide: Americans sextyped selective exposure to online news topics. Journal of Communication, 57, 739-758. Knobloch-Westerwick, S., C. Callison, L. Chen, A. Fritzsche, & D. Zillman. (2005). Childrens sex-stereotyped self-socialization through selective exposure to entertainment fare: Cross-cultural experiments in Germany, China, and the United States. Journal of Communication, 55, 122-138. 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. Kushin, M. & Yamamoto, M. (2010). Did social media really matter? College students use of online media and political decision making in the 2008 election. Mass Communication and Society, 13(5), 608-630. Lauf, E. (2001). The vanishing young reader Sociodemographic determinants of newspaper use as a source of political information in Europe, 1980-98. CommunicationsEuropean Journal of Communications, 16, 233-243.

28 Lasica, J. (1996). New gain. American Journalism Review, 20-33. Lawrence, E., Sides, J., & Farrell, H. (2010). Self-segregation or deliberation? Blog readership, participation, and polarization in American Politics. Perspectives On Politics, 8(1), 141-157. Lee, T. (2010). Why they dont trust the media: an examination of factors predicting trust. American Behavioral Scientist, 54(1), 8-21. Leung, L. (2009). User-generated content on the Internet: An examination of gratifications, civic engagement, and psychological empowerment. New Media & Society, 11, 1327-1347. Lindeman, M. (2002). Opinion quality and policy preferences in deliberative research. In M.X. Delli-Carpini, L. Huddy, & R. Shaprio (Eds.) Research in micropolitics: political decision making, deliberation, and participation. (pp. 195-221). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Maccoby, E. (1988). Gender as a social category. Development Psychology, 24, 513-520. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. (2001). Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444. Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., Eyal, K., Lemus, D. R., & McCann, R. (2003). Credibility in the 21st century: integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 27,(pp. 293-335). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Meyer, P. (2004). The vanishing newspaper. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press. Morris, D. (1999). Vote.com: How big-money lobbyists and the media are losing their influence and the internet is giving power to the people. Los Angeles: Renaissance Books. Mutz, D. (2006). How the mass media divide us. In P.S. Nivola & D.W. Brady (Eds.) Red and blue nation? Characteristics and causes of Americas polarized politics (Vol. 1, pp. 223-242). Washington: Brookings Institution Press. Mutz, D. & Martin, P. (2001). Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: the role of mass media. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 97114. Nash, J., & Hoffman, L. H. (2009). Explaining the gap: The interaction of gender and news enjoyment in predicting political knowledge. Communication Research Reports, 26(2), 114-122. Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Vintage Books.

29 Norris, P. & Sanders, D. (2003). Medium or message? Campaign learning from the 2001 British general election. Political communication, 20(3), 233-262. Panagopoulos, C. (Ed.) (2009). Politicking online: the transformation of election campaign communications. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Pew Research Center for People and the Press (2011). Beyond red vs. blue: the political typology. Retrieved November 3, 2011 from <http://www.peoplepress.org/2011/05/04/beyond-red-vs-blue-the-political-typology/> Pew Research Center for People and the Press (2011). Press widely criticized, but trusted more than other information sources. Retrieved November 8, 2011 from < http://www.people-press.org/2011/09/22/press-widely-criticized-but-trustedmore-than-other-institutions/> Pew Research Center for People and the Press. (2010). Americans spending more time following news. Retreived November 2, 2011 from < http://www.peoplepress.org/2010/09/12/americans-spending-more-time-following-the-news/> Pew Research Center for People and the Press. (2008). Where men and women differ in following the news. Retrieved November 2, 2011 from <http://pewresearch.org/ pubs/722/men-women-follow-news> Prior, M. (2005). News vs. entertainment: How increasing media choice widens gaps in political knowledge and turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 577-592. Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2006). State of the news media, 2006. Retrieved November 8, 2011, from < http://stateofthemedia.org/2006/> Rotter, J. (1967). A new scale for measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35, 651-656. Signorelli, N. (2001). Televisions gender role images and contribution to stereotyping Past, present, future. In D.G. Singer & J.L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media. (pp.341-357). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Shapiro, A. (1999). The control revolution: how the Internet is putting individuals in charge and changing the world we know. New York: Public Affairs. Sunstein, C. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Stepp, C. (2001). Signs of Progress. New York: Ford Foundation. Stroud, N. (2008). Media use and political predisposition: revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior, 30, 341-366.

30 Stroud, N. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 556-576. Tsfati, Y. (2010). Online news exposure and trust in the mainstream media: exploring possible associations. American Behavioral Scientist, 54(22), 22-42. Valentino, N. A., Banks, A. J., Hutchings, V. L., & Davis, A. K. (2009). Selective exposure in the Internet age : the interaction between anxiety and information utility. Political Psychology, 30(4), 591-613. Warnick, B. (2007). Rhetoric Online. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zillman, D. & Bryant, J. (1985). Selective exposure to communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.