Feeling validated versus being correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to information.

Abstract

A meta-analysis assessed whether exposure to information is guided by defense or accuracy motives. The studies examined information preferences in relation to attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors in situations that provided choices between congenial information, which supported participants' pre-existing attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors, and uncongenial information, which challenged these tendencies. Analyses indicated a moderate preference for congenial over uncongenial information (d. = 0.36). As predicted, this congeniality bias was moderated by variables that affect the strength of participants' defense motivation and accuracy motivation. In support of the importance of defense motivation, the congeniality bias was weaker when participants' attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors were supported prior to information selection, when participants' attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors were not relevant to their values or not held with conviction, when the available information was low in quality, when participants' closed-mindedness was low, and when their confidence in the attitude, belief, or behavior was high. In support of the importance of accuracy motivation, an uncongeniality bias emerged when uncongenial information was relevant to accomplishing a current goal.

Comprehension of Multiple Documents With Conflicting Information: A Two-Step Model of Validation

“…First, the model assumes that the epistemic monitoring process is an involuntary and passive component of comprehension, that is, it operates independently from a specific goal or motivational state (such as the motivation to defend beliefs; Giner-Sorolila & Chaiken, 1997). Second, the nondeliberate preferential processing of beliefconsistent information takes place during comprehension rather than, for example, in the stage of selecting information, which has been the focus of selective exposure theory research (Hart et al, 2009). Third, the model focuses on text-belief consistency effects in comprehension and memory rather than belief-stabilizing and belief-strengthening effects.…”

Identifying Ingrained Historical Cognitive Biases Influencing Contemporary Pastoral Responses Depriving Suicide-Bereaved People of Essential Protective Factors

“…Lowered percentage shift or 'nil' shifts to favourable responses in post-workshop surveys may evidence a cognitive bias toward rejecting new information presented. This could be because the participant preferred to hold onto established beliefs, experienced difficulty in responding to a 'not-yet-experienced' context, or perhaps were in need of additional time to process new information presented (Aronson et al 1995(Aronson et al -2010Cooper 2013;Hart et al 2009). …”

Conceptualizing leadership perceptions as attitudes: Using attitude theory to further understand the leadership process

“…A central tenet of the theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) is that people are motivated to maintain consistency of their cognitive structure. Because cognitive inconsistency is aversive (e.g., Jonas, Diehl, & Brömer, 1997;Maio, Bell, & Esses, 1996;Nordgren, van Harreveld, & van der Pligt, 2006) it is argued that people predominantly seek out and pay close attention to new information that confirms their existing attitudes and avoid information that might contradict their attitudes (see meta-analysis by Hart et al, 2009). This preference for supportive information over opposing information has traditionally been termed 'selective exposure' and as a 'confirmation bias' (Jonas, SchulzHardt, Frey, & Thelen, 2001).…”