Feeling validated versus being correct: a meta-analysis of selective exposure to information - PubMed (original) (raw)

Meta-Analysis

. 2009 Jul;135(4):555-88.

doi: 10.1037/a0015701.

Affiliations

Meta-Analysis

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

William Hart et al. Psychol Bull. 2009 Jul.

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.

Copyright (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1

The opposing motivations and their concrete instantiations influence exposure to congenial over uncongenial information (congeniality bias).

Figure 2

Figure 2

Stem-and-leaf plot of effect sizes (_d_s).

Figure 2

Figure 2

Stem-and-leaf plot of effect sizes (_d_s).

Figure 3

Figure 3

This funnel plot presents mean effect sizes on the Y-axis and sample sizes on the X-axis; a symmetric and inverted funnel shape suggests no publication bias

Figure 4

Figure 4

Normal quantile plot. The line on the diagonal indicates normality; the lines around the diagonal represent the 95% confidence interval around the normality line.

References

    1. Abelson RP. Conviction. American Psychologist. 1988;43:267–276.
    1. Adams JS. Reduction of cognitive dissonance by seeking consonant information. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1961;62:74–78. -PubMed
    1. Adorno T, Frenkel-Brunswick E, Levinson D, Sanford N. The authoritarian personality. Harper & Row; New York: 1950.
    1. Albarracín D. Cognition and persuasion: An analysis of information processing in response to persuasive communications. In: Zanna MP, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic Press; San Diego, CA: 2002. pp. 61–130.
    1. Albarracín D, Durantini MR, Earl A, Gunnoe J, Leeper J. Beyond the most willing audiences: A meta-intervention to increase participation in HIV prevention intervention. Health Psychology. in press. -PMC -PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources