Selective Exposure to Deserved Outcomesrepository.essex.ac.uk › 17767 › 1 ›...
Transcript of Selective Exposure to Deserved Outcomesrepository.essex.ac.uk › 17767 › 1 ›...
SelectiveExposure1
SelectiveExposuretoDeservedOutcomes
AnnelieJ.Harvey
DepartmentofPsychology,AngliaRuskinUniversity,Cambridge,UnitedKingdom
MitchellJ.Callan*
DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofEssex,Colchester,UnitedKingdom
RobbieM.Sutton
SchoolofPsychology,UniversityofKent,Canterbury,UnitedKingdom
TomFoulsham
DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofEssex,Colchester,UnitedKingdom
WilliamJ.Matthews
DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofCambridge,Cambridge,UnitedKingdom
*Correspondingauthor
Authors’note:
A.HarveyandM.Callancontributedequally.WethankRaelDawtryforhishelpfulcommentsonapreviousdraft.
SelectiveExposure2
Abstract
Researchhasshownthatpeopleoftenreinterprettheirexperiencesofothers’harmandsufferingto
maintainthefunctionalbeliefthatpeoplegetwhattheydeserve(e.g.,byblamingthevictim).Rather
thanfocusingonsuchreactiveresponsestoharmandsuffering,across7studiesweexamined
whetherpeopleselectivelyandproactivelychoosetobeexposedtoinformationaboutdeserved
ratherthanundeservedoutcomes.Weconsistentlyfoundthatparticipantsselectivelychosetolearn
thatbad(good)thingshappenedtobad(good)people(Studies1to7)—thatis,theyselectively
exposedthemselvestodeservedoutcomes.Thiseffectwasmediatedbytheperceived
deservingnessofoutcomes(Studies2and3),andwasreducedwhenparticipantslearnedthat
wrongdoersotherwisereceived“justdeserts”fortheirtransgressions(Study7).Participantswere
notsimplyselectivelyavoidinginformationaboutundeservedoutcomesbutactivelysought
informationaboutdeservedoutcomes(Studies3and4),andparticipantsinvestedeffortinthis
patternofselectiveexposure,seekingoutinformationaboutdeservedoutcomesevenwhenitwas
moretime-consumingtofindthanundeservedoutcomes(Studies5and6).Takentogether,these
findingscastlightonamoreproactive,anticipatorymeansbywhichpeoplemaintainacommitment
todeservingness.
Keywords:informationseeking;selectiveexposure;deservingness;beliefinajustworld
SelectiveExposure3
SelectiveExposuretoDeservedOutcomes
Alongtraditionofresearchintothepsychologyofjusticehasdemonstratedthatpeoplecare
abouttherelationshipbetweenthevalueofpeopleandthevalueoftheiroutcomes—thatis,they
careaboutdeservingness(Sabbagh&Schmitt,2016).Judgmentsofwhatisdeservedorundeserved
generallyfollowfromthesubjectiveperceptionoftherelationbetweenthevalueofpeople’sactions
andthevalueoftheiroutcomes,suchthatagood(bad)personreceivinganegative(positive)
outcomeisperceivedasundeserved,whereasthesamegood(bad)personreceivingapositive
(negative)outcomeisseenasdeserved(seeFeather,1999;Hafer,2011;Lerner,Miller,&Holmes,
1976).
Lerner(1977)arguedthatpeoplearemotivatedtobelievethattheyliveinaworldwhere
peoplegenerallygetwhattheydeserve,becausedoingsoenablesthemtocommittolong-term
goalswithconfidence.Becausebelievingina“just-world”isfunctional,peopleoftenreinterpret
theirexperiencesofunjusteventstomaintainperceptionsofdeservingness(forreviews,seeEllard,
Harvey,&Callan,2016;Hafer&Bègue,2005).Theclassicexampleofthisprocessisthederogation
ofinnocentvictims(Lerner&Simmons,1966),butrecentresearchhascastlightonavarietyof
otherwayspeoplemaintainacommitmenttojusticeanddeservingness(Callan&Ellard,2010),
includingmisrememberingdetailsofpastinjustices(Callan,Kay,Ellard,&Davidenko,2009;Marsh&
Greenberg,2006),perceivingfuturebenefitsforavictim’ssuffering(Hafer&Gosse,2011;Harvey&
Callan,2014),andofferingtohelpvictims(Bal&vandenBos,2015;Harvey,Callan,&Matthews,
2015).
Onefeaturecuttingacrossthesestrategiesformaintainingacommitmenttojusticeand
deservingnessisthattheyinvolvepeople’sreactiveresponsestoharmandsuffering.Take,for
example,immanentjusticereasoning,whichinvolvesbelievingthatabadoutcomewascausedby
someone’spriorimmoralbehavior,howeverphysicallyimplausiblesuchacausalconnectionmight
be(Callan,Sutton,Harvey,&Dawtry,2014).HarveyandCallan(2014)foundthatparticipants
causallyattributedafreakcaraccidenttothevictim’spriorconducttoagreaterextentwhenhe
SelectiveExposure4
previouslystolefromchildren(vs.didnotsteal).Further,participants’beliefsaboutwhathe
deservedmediatedthesecausalattributions—badoutcomeshappentobadpeoplebecausethey
deservethem.Throughimmanentjusticereasoning,then,peopleare,inretrospect,makingsenseof
arandombadoutcomebylocatingits“cause”inthepriormisdeedsoftheunfortunatevictim.
Butaconcernfordeservingnessmayalsoestablishanactive,anticipatorypreferencetosee
deservedoutcomes.Itiswell-documentedthatduringinformationseeking,peopletendto
selectivelyexposethemselvestoinformationthatisconsistentratherthaninconsistentwiththeir
attitudes,beliefs,anddecisions(forreviews,seeFrey,1986;Hart,Albarracín,Eagly,Brechan,
Lindberg,Lee,&Merrill,2009;Smith,Fabrigar,&Norris,2008).Inatypicalselectiveexposure
experiment,participantsareaskedtocommittoanattitude,opinion,ordecisionregardinganissue
andthenaregiventheopportunitytoreceiveadditionalinformationconcerningtheissue.The
additionalinformationisusuallypresentedasalistofshortstatements,commentaries,orabstracts
summarizingopposingperspectivesontheissue(ostensiblyfrompreviousparticipants,experts,
newsarticles,etc.).Forexample,Jonas,Schulz-Hardt,Frey,andThelan(2001)foundthat
participantstendedtochooseadditionalinformationthatsupportedratherthanconflictedwith
theirinitial“policy”decisionconcerningwhetherthegovernmentshouldfundalternativehealing
methodsoronlytraditionalmedicine.Thistendencyforpeopletoseekoutconfirmatoryinformation
hasbeenfoundinavarietyofdomains,includingsocialstereotypes(e.g.,Johnston,1996),smoking
activity(e.g.,Canon&Matthews,1972),investmentdecisions(Jonas&Frey,2003),attitudes
towardstoilettraining(Maccoby,Maccoby,Romney&Adams,1961),attitudestowardcapital
punishment(Smith,Fabrigar,Powell,&Estrada,2007),andreligiousbeliefs(McFarland&Warren,
1992).
Basedonlyontheknowledgeofanotherperson’smoralcharacterorconduct,observers
maybesimilarlybiasedtowardreceivingoutcomeinformationthatisconsistentwithwhatthat
persondeserves.Forexample,peoplemightprefertolearnthataserialrapistwascrippledinacar
crashmorethanlearningthathewonalottery,andtheymightgotosomelengthstodoso,
SelectiveExposure5
presumablybecauserapistsaremoredeservingofbeinginjuredthantheyareofwinninglotteries.
Likewise,peoplemightprefertolearnthatacharityworkerwonalotterymorethanlearningthathe
wascrippledinacarcrash,againbecauseoftheirconcernsaboutdeservingness.Suchselective
exposuretobad(good)outcomesforbad(good)peoplepointstoamoreproactive,anticipatory
routeforpeopletomaintainasenseofjusticeanddeservingnessthanhasbeenpreviously
recognized.Specifically,selectiveexposuretodeservedoutcomesmighthelppeoplenavigate
throughtheworldinawaythatsustainstheassumptionthatitisajustandfairplacewherepeople
getwhattheydeserve.Indeed,ifpeopleselectivelychoosetolearnaboutdeservedratherthan
undeservedoutcomes,thentheycanshieldthemselvesfromthepotentiallyunsettlingprospectthat
theworldisnotsofair,just,andnon-randomafterall.
Basedondissonancetheory(Festinger,1957),themainexplanationforselectiveexposure
tocongenialinformationisdefensemotivation,orthedesiretodefendone’sbeliefs,attitudes,or
decisions(seeHartetal.,2009).Accordingtothisaccount,peopleselectivelyexposethemselvesto
informationcongenialtotheirpriorattitudesanddecisionstoreduceoravoidthepotentialconcern
associatedwiththepossibilitythattheymightbewrong.Intheirmeta-analysis,Hartetal.(2009)
foundthattheeffectsofselectiveexposuretoconfirmatoryinformationincreasedasafunctionof
factorsthatincreasedefensemotivation,suchasmakingdecisionsunderhigh(vs.low)choice,
dedicatingtimeandefforttomakeadecision,justifyingdecisionstoothers,andreportinghigh
commitmenttoabeliefordecision.Whatweareproposinghere—thatpeopleselectivelyexpose
themselvestodeservedoutcomes—issimilarinsofaraspeoplearemotivatedtodefendthebelief
thatpeoplegetwhattheydeserve(Lerner,1980).Indeed,believinginajustworldmightbe
importantenoughtopeoplethatsimplypassivelyreceivinginformationaboutanotherperson’s
moralcharacterorconductmaybesufficienttoinstigateanactivesearchfordeservedoutcomes
whenthereisanopportunitytodoso.
SelectiveExposure6
Buildingonproceduresandmeasuresfromtheselectiveexposureliterature,wetestedthe
generalhypothesisthatpeoplewillselectivelychoosetolearnthatbad(good)thingshappenedto
bad(good)people.Theresultsofarecenteye-trackingstudylendweighttothishypothesis:Callan,
Ferguson,andBindemann(2013)foundthatthegoodorbadmoralconductofcharactersportrayed
withinaudio-visualscenesbiasedparticipants’anticipatorygazepreferencestoimagesofgoodor
badoutcomesjustbeforetheactualoutcomeswererevealed.Theseresultssuggestthatpeople
expect,viatheireye-movements,bad(good)thingstohappentobad(good)people.Butwhether
peopleselectivelychoosetolearnabout,andwillconsciouslyandactivelysearchfor,outcomesthat
areevaluativelyconsistentwiththemoralcharacterorconductofothershasyettobeexamined.
Specifically,althoughimpliedintheirwork,Callanetal.didnotdirectlyshowthatpeople’seye-gaze
preferencesforgood(bad)outcomesoccurringtogood(bad)peoplewerespecificallyduetotheir
concernsaboutdeservingness,nordidtheireye-trackingapproachallowthemtestpredictions
aboutwhetherpeoplemightincursomecosttoselectivelychoosetoreceiveadditionalinformation
aboutdeservedoutcomes.Wethereforeextendedpreviousresearchbyexamining(a)theactual
choicespeoplemakewhenfacedwiththeknowledgethatsomeoneismorallygoodorbad;(b)
whetherpeoplemightincursomecost,bywayoftheirtime,toreceivedeservingness-congruent
outcomeinformation(Studies4to6;cf.Frey,1981);and,importantly,(c)whethertheseselective
exposureeffectsoccurbecauseofpeople’sconcernsaboutdeservingness(Studies2,3,and7).
Sampling
Acrossstudiestheminimumrequiredsamplesizeswerefixedaheadofdatacollection;
however,thefinalsamplesizeswerenotcompletelypredeterminedduetotheremovalofsome
participants(e.g.,forfailingstorycomprehensioncheckquestions;seebelow).Poweranalyses
showedthatoursampleshadatleast80%power(usuallymuchhigher)todetect“medium”effect
sizes(e.g.,dz=.50forwithin-subjectscontrasts;two-tailed,α=.05).Wereportallmeasures,
manipulations,andexclusionsinthesestudies.
SelectiveExposure7
STUDY1
InStudy1,wepresentedparticipantswithaseriesofshortnarrativesdescribingdifferent
peopleengagingineithermorallygoodorbadbehavior.Wethenaskedparticipantstoratethe
extenttowhichtheywantedtolearnaboutdifferentpossiblegoodandbadoutcomesoccurringto
thetargetindividuals.Onthebasisoftheforegoinganalysis,wepredictedthatparticipantswould
wanttoreadmoreaboutthedeservingness-congruentoutcomesthanthedeservingness-
incongruentoutcomes.
Method
Participants
ParticipantsfromtheUnitedStateswererecruitedthroughAmazon’sMechanicalTurk(N=
48;54.2%females;Mage=36.52;SDage=12.80).
Materialsandprocedure
Wetoldparticipantsthestudywasabout“investigatingtheprocessingofnarrative
information”andthattheywouldrate(cf.Brannon,Tagler,&Eagly,2007;Lowin,1969)theextentto
whichtheywantedtoreaddifferentpossibleconclusionstoanumberofshortstories.
AdaptedfromCallanetal.(2013),andemployingafullywithin-subjectsdesign,we
presentedparticipantswith4shortstories(seeonlinesupplementalmaterialsforallofthescenarios
anditemsweusedacrossstudies):2describingagoodperson(e.g.,Jennysavedadrowningpuppy)
and2describingabadperson(e.g.,Sallystolefromacharitycollectionbox).Forexample,foroneof
thestoriesparticipantsread:
Aweekago,JennywaswalkingalongtheRiverWyewhenshespottedapuppydrowningintheriver.Riskingherownlife,Jennydivedintotheriverandsavedthepuppyfromdrowning.
Followingeachstory,participantsreadtwosentencesrepresentingadditionalpiecesof
informationaboutthetargetindividuals.Onesentencerepresentedagoodoutcome(e.g.,“One
weeklater,Jennywassittinginherlivingroomwhenshereceivednewsthatshehadwonanewcar
inasweepstakeshehadentered”)andtheotherrepresentedabadoutcome(e.g.,“Oneweeklater,
SelectiveExposure8
Jennywassittinginherlivingroomwhenshereceivednewsthatherhusbandwasinaterriblecar
accident”).1Participantswereaskedtoratetheextenttowhichtheywantedtoreadtheseendings
tothestories(1=Idonotwanttoreadthesedetailslateroninthesurveyto7=Iwanttoreadthese
detailslateroninthesurvey),ostensiblybecausetheirratingswoulddeterminetheconclusionsto
thestoriesthattheywouldactuallyreadandevaluate.Thestorieswerepresentedtoparticipantsin
afullycounter-balancedrandomorder.
ResultsandDiscussion
Participants’ratingsofwantingtheoutcomeinformationweresubmittedtoalinearmixed
effectsmodelusingthelme4package(Bates,Maechler,Bolker,&Walker,2015,version1.1-10)inR
(RCoreTeam,2015,version3.2.0).Thisformofregressionallowsustomodeleachparticipant’s8
separateresponsesasafunctionoffixedandrandomeffects,ratherthanrequiringustoaverage
thetwoexamplesofgood/badpeopletoformasingleobservationpercellofthedesign,asin
traditionalANOVA.ThemodelincludedfixedeffectsforPerson(goodvs.bad,coded+1and-1),
Outcomeratings(goodvs.bad,coded+1and-1)andthePersonXOutcomeinteraction.We
includedrandominterceptsforparticipantsandscenarios,andrandomslopesbyparticipantsforthe
effectsofPerson,Outcome,andPersonXOutcomeandbyscenariosfortheeffectofOutcome.That
is,weallowedbothmaineffectsandtheinteractiontovaryacrossparticipants,andallowedthe
effectsofOutcometovaryacrossscenarios.Notethat,becauseeachscenarioisonlyeverassociated
withonetypeofperson,wedidnotincludeby-scenariorandomslopesforPersonortheinteraction.
Randomeffectswereuncorrelated(Barr,Levy,Scheepers,&Tily,2013);includingthecorrelation
termsledtooverfittingandafailuretoconverge.WeusedSatterthwaiteapproximationsto
calculatep-valuesusingthelmerTestpackage(Kuznetsova,Brockhoff&Christensen,2015).Analyses
revealedasignificantPersonXOutcomeinteraction,b=0.52;95%CIof0.31,0.73;t=4.77,p<.001
(seeFigure1).Neithermaineffectachievedstatisticalsignificance(bothps>.25).Analysingthedata
1Inaseparatevalidationstudy(N=49),wefoundthatforeachofthescenariosweusedinStudy1,thegood(bad)targetcharacterswereperceivedasmoredeservingofthegood(bad)outcomes(allps<.001,dzs>.68).Detailsandfullstatisticalreportingofthisvalidationstudyarepresentedinthesupplementarymaterials.
SelectiveExposure9
withaconventional2x2ANOVAaftertakingthemeanofthetwoscenariosforagivenPersontype
yieldedexactlythesameconclusions.
Figure1.Theextenttowhichparticipantswantedtoreadoutcomeinformationasfunctionofthevalueofthetargets’moralvalueandthevalueoftheoutcomeinformation(Study1).Errorbarsshow95%CIsofthemeans.
Follow-upanalysesrevealedthatparticipantswantedtoreadthegoodoutcomeinformation
morethanthebadoutcomeinformationafterfirstreadingaboutagoodperson,B=0.513;95%CI
of0.305,0.757;t=6.18,p<.001(rbetweendependentmeasures=-.09).Whenreadingaboutabad
person,participantswantedtoreadthebadoutcomeinformationmorethanthegoodoutcome
information,B=-0.503;95%CIof-0.742,-0.263;t=-5.75,p<.001(rbetweendependentmeasures
=.01).Therefore,participantswantedtoreadconclusionstothenarrativesthatwereconsistent
withwhatthetargets’deserved—bad(good)thingshappentobad(good)people.
SelectiveExposure10
STUDY2
ThepurposeofStudy2wastwo-fold:(a)toreplicateourStudy1findingsusingabetween-
ratherthanwithin-subjectsdesign(withtheformerbeinglesssusceptibletocarry-overor
participantexpectationeffects),and(b)toexaminethemediatingrolethatperceiveddeservingness
playsintheeffectsofatargetperson’smoralvalueonparticipants’selectiveexposuretogoodand
badoutcomeinformation.
Method
Participants
ParticipantsfromtheU.S.A.wererecruitedonlinethroughMTurk(N=138;31.2%females;
Mage=30.45;SDage=10.07).Toensureindependenceofthedata,twoadditionalparticipantswere
notincludedinanalysesbecauseofduplicateIPaddresses(weretainedthedataforonlythefirst
occurrenceofeachduplicateIP).
Materialsandprocedure
Study2wassimilartoStudy1butweadoptedabetween-subjectsdesignsuchthateach
participantonlyreadandrespondedtooneshortstory.Participantsfirstreadaboutaman,named
Geoff,whoeitherthrewapuppyinariver(badperson)orsavedapuppyfromdrowninginariver
(goodperson):
(goodperson)Aweekago,GeoffwaswalkingalongtheRiverWyewhenhespottedapuppydrowningintheriver.Riskinghisownlife,Geoffdivedintotheriverandsavedthepuppyfromdrowning.(badperson)Aweekago,GeoffwaswalkingalongtheRiverWyewhenhespottedapuppyalongthebankoftheriver.Withnoregardforitslife,Geoffpickedupthepuppyandthrewitintheriver.Participantswerethenaskedtoanswerquestionsabout“thepossibleconclusionstothis
narrative”.ParticipantsfirstratedthedegreetowhichtheybelievedGeoffdeservedtoexperience
eachoftwooutcomes:“TowhatextentdoyoubelieveGeoffdeservestowinanewcarina
sweepstakeheenters?”and“TowhatextentdoyoubelievethatGeoffdeservestobeinaterrible
caraccidentthatleaveshiminhospitalinaseriouscondition?”(1=Notatalldeservingto7=Very
SelectiveExposure11
deserving).Next,mirroringtheoutcomesforthedeservingnessratings,participantsratedtheextent
towhichtheywantedtoreadaboutGeoffreceivingtwooutcomes:winningacarinasweepstake
andbeinginaterriblecaraccident(1=Idonotwanttoreadthesedetailslateroninthesurvey,7=I
wanttoreadthesedetailslateroninthesurvey).
ResultsandDiscussion
Becausethereisonlyoneobservationperconditionfromeachparticipant,andonlyone
scenario,weanalysedthedatawithaconventionalANOVAratherthanattemptingtofitamixed-
effectsmodel.A2(person:badvs.good)by2(outcomeinformation:badvs.good)mixedANOVA
withPersonasthebetween-subjectsfactorrevealedasignificantinteractionforparticipants’
judgmentsofdeservingness,F(1,135)=252.91,p<.001,ω2=.63(oneparticipantdidnotanswer
thedeservingnessquestions).
Figure2.Perceptionsofdeservingness(leftpanel)andratingsofwantingtoreadoutcomeinformation(rightpanel)asfunctionofthevalueofthetargets’moralvalueandthevalueoftheoutcomeinformation(Study2).Errorbarsshow95%CIsofthemeans.
ShowninFigure2(leftpanel),participantsinthegoodpersonconditionratedGeoffasmore
deservingofthegoodoutcomethanthebadoutcome,t(69)=17.55,p<.001,dz=2.10(rbetween
SelectiveExposure12
repeatedmeasures=-.034).Conversely,participantsinthebadpersonconditionratedGeoffas
moredeservingofthebadoutcomethanthegoodoutcome,t(69)=-7.37,p<.001,dz=-0.90(r
betweenrepeatedmeasures=-.306).TherewerealsosignificantmaineffectsofPersonand
OutcomeInformation(bothps<.01).
Therewasalsoasignificantinteractionforparticipants’ratingsofhowmuchtheywantedto
readthepotentialoutcomeinformation,F(1,136)=83.01,p<.001,ω2=.37.ShowninFigure2
(rightpanel),participantsinthegoodpersonconditionwantedtoreadthegoodoutcome
informationtoagreaterextentthanthebadoutcomeinformation,t(69)=6.52,p<.001,dz=0.78(r
betweenrepeatedmeasures=-.344).Participantsinthebadpersonconditionwantedtoreadthe
badoutcomeinformationmorethanthegoodoutcomeinformation,t(67)=-6.46,p<.001,dz=-
0.78(rbetweenrepeatedmeasures=.211).Neithermaineffectachievedstatisticalsignificance(ps
>.37).
Toexaminewhetherparticipants’perceptionsofdeservingnessmediatedtheeffectofthe
target’smoralworthontheirwantingtoreadgoodversusbadoutcomeinformation,wefirst
computeddifferencescoresforbothparticipants’ratingsofdeservingnessandtheirratingsof
wantingoftheoutcomeinformation;positivevaluesrepresentparticipants’beliefthatGeoff
deservedagoodoutcomemorethanabadoutcomeandthattheywantedtoreviewthegood
outcomeinformationmorethanthebadoutcomeinformation.Thesedifferencescoreswerehighly
correlated,r=.74,p<.001(pooledacrossconditions),suchthatthemoreparticipantsbelieved
Geoffdeservedagood(vs.bad)outcome,themoretheywantedtoreviewgood(vs.bad)outcome
informationlaterinthesurvey.
Bootstrappedanalyses(Preacher&Hayes,2008;10,000resamples)revealedthatperceived
deservingnessmediatedtheeffectofthetarget’smoralworth(good=1vs.bad=-1)ontherelative
ratingsofwantinggoodvs.badoutcomeinformation(indirecteffect=1.696,95%BiasCorrected
andAcceleratedConfidenceInterval[BCaCI]of1.147,2.24;seeFigure3).Theseresultssuggestthat
SelectiveExposure13
oneofthereasonswhyparticipantswantedtoreviewgood(bad)outcomeinformationforagood
(bad)personwasbecausetheybelievedhedeservedit.
Figure3.Theinfluenceofthemoralworthofthetargetcharacteronselectiveexposureofthegood(vs.bad)outcomesthroughperceiveddeservingnessofthegood(vs.bad)outcomes.Valuesshowunstandardizedregressioncoefficients.*p<.05
STUDY3
Studies1and2foundthatparticipantswantedtoexposethemselvestooutcomeinformationthat
wasevaluativelycongruentwithwhatotherpeopledeserved.InStudy3,weaimedtoreplicate
thesefindingsusingadifferentselectiveexposureparadigm.Specifically,ratherthanhaving
participantsratetheextenttowhichtheywantedtoreceivegoodandbadoutcomeinformation,we
askedthemtochooseamongseveraldifferentgoodandbadoutcomestoreview(cf.Jonas,etal.,
2001).Wealsoexploredtheinterplaybetweenselectiveexposureandselectiveavoidancebyasking
participantstoseparatelychoosetheoutcomestheywantedtoreadandtheoutcomestheydidnot
wanttoread(cf.Frey&Wicklund,1978,Rhine,1967).Onepossibilityisthatratherthanselectively
seekingoutcomeinformationthatiscongruentwithwhatothersdeserve(e.g.,thatacharityworker
wonthelottery),peoplemightselectivelyavoidoutcomeinformationthatconflictswiththeirneed
toseethatpeoplegetwhattheydeserve(e.g.,thatacharityworkerwascrippledinacarcrash).Of
course,selectiveexposureandselectiveavoidancecouldbeoppositesidesofthesamecoininsofar
asbothenablepeopletomaintaintheassumptionthatpeoplegetwhattheydeserve.LikeStudy2,
SelectiveExposure14
wealsoaskedparticipantstoratetheextenttowhichthetargetpersondeservedvariousgoodand
badoutcomesasapotentialmediatorofselectiveexposureandselectiveavoidance.
Method
Participants
ParticipantsfromtheU.S.A.wererecruitedonlinethroughMTurk(N=137;46%females,
0.7%unreported;Mage=33.57;SDage=11.68).Fouradditionalparticipantswerenotincludedin
analysesbecauseofduplicateIPs(n=2)orfailingasimplestorycomprehensioncheck(“Inthestory
youreadatthebeginningofthesurvey,whatdidChrisdotothepuppy?”;n=2).
Materialsandprocedure
LikeStudy2,participantsreadastoryaboutaperson(thenameChriswasusedinStudy3)
whoeitherdrownedapuppyinariver(badperson)orsavedapuppyfromdrowninginariver(good
person).Afterreadingthestory,participantswereasked,“TowhatextentdoyoubelieveChris
deservesto…”andthensawalistof8outcomesthattheywereaskedtorateona7-pointscale(1=
Notatalldeservingto7=Agreatdealdeserving).Ofthe8outcomes,4werebadoutcomes(α=
.98):“…beinjuredinacaraccident”,“…befiredfromhisjob”,“…contractamajorillness”and“have
hisapartmentdestroyedbyaflood”.Theother4outcomesweregoodoutcomes(α=.98):“…win
$100,000playingascratchcardlotteryticket”,“…havehisstocksandsharesskyrocket”,“…begivena
promotionatwork”and“…winaluxurycruisetrip”.
Participantsthensawalistof8possibleoutcomestothestoryaboutChris,whichwere
identicaltotheoutcomesparticipantsratedintermsofhisdeservingness(e.g.,injuredinacar
accident).Weinstructedparticipantstoselectonly2oftheoutcomestheywould“DEFINITELY”want
toreadlaterinthesurveyandonly2outcomesthattheywould“DEFINITELYNOT”wanttoread
(i.e.,weimposedinformationlimits,seeFischer,Jonas,Frey,&Schulz-Hardt,2005).Werandomized
theorderofthequestionssoparticipantswereeitheraskedtochooseamongthe“definitelywant”
outcomesfirstorthe“definitelynotwant”outcomesfirst.
SelectiveExposure15
ResultsandDiscussion
TherewasasignificantPersonXOutcomeInformationinteractionforparticipants’
judgmentsofdeservingness,F(1,134)=306.35,p<.001,ω2=.69.Participantsinthegoodperson
conditionratedChrisasmoredeservingofthegoodoutcomes(M=5.08,SD=1.67)thanthebad
outcomes(M=1.27,SD=0.74),t(68)=16.23,p<.001,dz=1.95(rbetweenrepeatedmeasures=-
.193).ParticipantsinthebadpersonconditionratedChrisasmoredeservingofthebadoutcomes
(M=4.50,SD=2.31)thanthegoodoutcomes(M=1.33,SD=0.83),t(67)=-9.79,p<.001,d=-1.19
(rbetweenrepeatedmeasures=-.28).Neithermaineffectachievedstatisticalsignificance(ps>.11)
Weanalysedthenumberofbadoutcomesparticipantswantedtoread(whichcouldrange
from0to2)betweenthebadandgoodpersonconditions.Becausewefixedthetotalnumberof
choicesparticipantscouldmaketo2,andtherewereanevennumberofgoodandbadoutcome
options,theresultsareidenticalusingthenumberofgoodoutcomesparticipantschoseasthe
dependentvariable(exceptforoppositesign).Thus,wereportonlytheresultsforthenumberof
badoutcomeparticipantswantedtoread(and,perbelow,onlythegoodoutcometheydidnotwant
toread).
Participantsinthebadpersonconditionchosetoreadmorebadoutcomeslaterinthe
survey(M=1.75,SD=0.56)thanparticipantsinthegoodpersoncondition(M=0.26,SD=0.56),
t(134.99)=15.61,p<.001,d=2.66(hereandthroughout,degreesoffreedomwereWelch-
correctedwherenecessary).Participantsinthebadpersonconditionalsochosenottoreceivemore
goodoutcomesonaverage(M=1.59,SD=0.78)thanparticipantsinthegoodpersoncondition(M=
0.20,SD=0.53),t(118.16)=12.17,p<.001,d=2.08.Theresidualcomponentsfromtheseanalyses
werenotnormallydistributed,butnon-parametrictests—specifically,Mann-WhitneyUtestsand
percentilebootstrapconfidenceintervals(CI)ofthemeandifferences(5,000samples)—yieldedthe
samepatternofresultsfortheeffectofthemoralvalueofthetargetonthebadoutcomes
participantswantedtoread,Z=9.36,p<.001,95%bootstrapCIof1.30and1.66,andthegood
outcomesparticipantsdidnotwanttoread,Z=8.42,p<.001,95%bootstrapCIof1.16and1.60.
SelectiveExposure16
Participants’choicesofthebadoutcomestheywantedtoreadandthegoodoutcomestheydidnot
wanttoreadwerehighlycorrelated,r=.87,p<.001.
FollowingStudy2,weexaminedwhetherparticipants’perceptionsofdeservingness
mediatedtheeffectofthetarget’smoralworthontheirchoicestoreadandnottoreadgoodand
badoutcomeinformation.Wefirstcomputeddifferencescoresforparticipants’ratingsof
deservingness(meanofthedeservingnessratingsforthebadoutcomesminusthemeanforthe
goodoutcomes).Thesescorescorrelatedhighlywithparticipants’choicestoreceivebadoutcome
informationandnotreceivinggoodoutcomeinformation(rs=.80and.76,ps<.001,respectively).
ShownifFigure4,bootstrappedanalyses(Preacher&Hayes,2008;10,000resamples)revealedthat
perceiveddeservingnessmediatedtheeffectofthetarget’smoralworth(good=1vs.bad=-1)on
wantingtoreceivebadoutcomeinformation(totaleffect=-0.74;indirecteffect=-0.33,95%BCaCI
of-0.485,-0.175)and,inaseparateanalysis,notwantingtoreceivegoodoutcomeinformation
(totaleffect=-0.69;indirecteffect=-0.42,95%BCaCIof-0.589,-0.245).
SelectiveExposure17
Figure4.Theinfluenceofthemoralworthofthetargetcharacteronselectiveexposuretobadoutcomes(topsection)andselectiveavoidanceofgoodoutcomes(bottomsection)throughperceiveddeservingnessofthegood(vs.bad)outcomes.Valuesshowunstandardizedregressioncoefficients.*p<.05
Study4
InStudy3wefoundthatparticipantsselectivelysoughtdeserved,andselectivelyavoided
undeserved,outcomes.OneissuewithourStudy3designisthataskingparticipantstoprovideboth
theoutcomestheywantedtoreadandtheoutcomestheydidnotwanttoreadmayhave
introducedsomeuncertaintyaboutwhichoutcomestheywouldactuallyreadaftertheymadetheir
selections.Assuch,participantsmayhavechosentoreaddeservingness-congruentoutcomesnot
becausetheywantedtoreadthempersebuttoincreasetheprobabilitythattheywouldnotbe
exposedtodeservingness-incongruentoutcomes(orviceversa).InStudy4,wedisentangled
selectiveavoidanceandselectiveexposurebyincludingevaluatively-neutraloutcomeoptionsand
SelectiveExposure18
askingparticipantstoonlychoosetheoutcomestheywantedtoread.Inthisdesign,participants
demonstrateselectiveexposureiftheychoosetoreadcongruentinformationmorethan
incongruentorneutralinformation.Forexample,Jang(2014)foundthatparticipantsselectively
chosetoreadnewsarticlesthatwereconsistentwiththeirpoliticalattitudes(e.g.,“10Reasonstobe
Pro-Choice”forsomeonewithapositiveattitudetowardpro-choice)morethannewsarticlesthat
wereeitherinconsistentwiththeirattitudes(e.g.,“AbortionHarmfultoMentalHealth”)orwere
neutral(e.g.,“AbortionIssueArisesinBudgetDebate”).Therewasalsonodifferencebetween
participants’choicesofnewsarticlesthatwereneutralorinconsistentwiththeirattitudes.Thus,in
Study4,ifparticipantsarenotselectivelyexposingthemselvestodeservingness-congruent
informationthenthereshouldbenoselectiondifferencebetweendeservingness-congruentand
neutraloutcomes.Inotherwords,includingneutraloutcomeinformationintroducesacontrolto
testwhetherparticipantsareselectivelyexposingthemselvestoinformationthatisspecifically
deservingness-congruentandnotsimplyavoidingdeservingness-incongruentinformation.
InStudy4wealsodidnotimposeanylimitsonthenumberofoutcomesparticipantscould
chosetoread,includingtheoptiontoreadnooutcomeswhatsoever.Doingsoeffectivelyintroduced
acosttoinformationseeking(cf.Frey,1981)—choosinganyoutcomesatallwouldmean
participantswouldhavetoforegosomeoftheirfreetimetofurtherreadandevaluatetheirchosen
outcomesratherthansimplyendingthesurvey.
Method
Participants
Participantswererecruitedonline(N=151;41.1%females;Mage=34.26;SDage=11.76)using
MTurk.ElevenadditionalparticipantswerenotincludedinanalysesbecauseofduplicateIPs(n=7)
orfailingasimplestorycomprehensioncheck(n=4;“Inthestoryyoureadatthebeginningofthe
survey,whatdidSallydoatthecornerstore?”).
Materialsandprocedure
Participantswereinvitedtotakepartinastudy“investigatingtheprocessingofnarrative
SelectiveExposure19
information”.TheyfirstreadaboutSally,whowasbuyingbreadandmilkatacornerstore.Halfof
theparticipantsreadthat,afterpaying,Sally“stoleallthechangefromacharitycollectionthatwas
ondisplayatthecounter”(badperson).TheotherhalfreadthatSally“putallhersparechangeinto
thecharitycollectionthatwasondisplayatthecounter”(goodperson).
Afterreadingthestory,participantswerepresentedwithalistof9possibleoutcomesfor
Sally.Ofthe9outcomes,3werebad(“Sallywasinjuredinacaraccident”,“Sally’sground-floor
apartmentwasflooded”,“Sallycamedownwithaseriousillness”),threeweregood(“Sally’swon
$1,000playingascratchcardlotteryticket”,“Sally’sstocksandsharesskyrocket”,“Sallywasgivena
majorpromotionatwork”)andthreewereneutral(“Sallywenttoaconcert”,“Sallystartedwritinga
newblog”,and“Sallytidiedupheroffice”).Participantsweretoldthattherewerenolimitsonthe
numberofoutcomestheycouldchoosetoread(“Whichoftheseevents,ifany,wouldyouliketo
readmoreaboutconcerningSally'slifesoonaftertheincidentatthecornerstore?”).
ResultsandDiscussion
Overall,alargemajorityofparticipants(94.7%)chosetoreceiveatleastoneoftheoutcome
informationoptions(Mode=1,M=2.58,SD=1.95).Participants’choicesfortheoutcomesthey
wantedtoreadweresubjectedto2(Person:goodvs.bad)X3(Outcomes:goodvs.neutralvs.bad)
mixedANOVAwithrepeatedmeasuresonthesecondfactor.Analysesrevealedsignificantmain
effectsforPerson,F(1,149)=12.82,p<.001,ω2=.07,andOutcome,F(1.77,264.04)=12.82,p<
.001,ω2=.07(Greenhouse-Geissercorrected).Moreimportantly,analysesrevealedasignificant
interaction,F(1.77,264.04)=23.63,p<.001,ω2=.12(seeTable1).Theresidualcomponentsfrom
thisanalysiswerenotnormallydistributed.Wethereforesupplementedconventionalfollow-up
pairedsamplest-testswithnon-parametrictests—specifically,WilcoxonSignedRankstestsand
percentilebootstrapconfidenceintervals(CI)ofthemeandifferences(5,000samples).
Follow-upanalysesrevealedthat,withinthebadpersoncondition,participantschosemore
badoutcomesonaveragethanneutraloutcomes,t(73)=4.65,p<.001,WilcoxonSignedRankstest
Z=4.20,p<.001,95%bootstrapCIof0.386and0.965(rbetweenrepeatedmeasures=.06).There
SelectiveExposure20
wasnosignificantdifferencebetweentheneutralandgoodchoiceswithinthebadpersoncondition,
t(73)=-0.66,p=.501,Z=-.90,p=.369,95%bootstrapCIof-0.206and0.107(rbetweenrepeated
measures=.60).Withinthegoodpersoncondition,participantschosemoregoodoutcomeson
averagethanneutraloutcomes,t(76)=-6.33,p<.001,WilcoxonSignedRankstestZ=5.21,p<
.001,95%bootstrapCIof-1.10and-0.57(rbetweenrepeatedmeasures=.25).Therewasno
significantdifferencebetweentheneutralandbadchoiceswithinthegoodpersoncondition,t(76)=
0.82,p=.415,Z=.92,p=.356,95%bootstrapCIof-0.185and0.445(rbetweenrepeatedmeasures
=-.01).
Table1.Theeffectofthemoralvalueofthetargetonparticipants’choicesoftheoutcomeinformationtheywantedtoreadlaterinthesurvey. ValueofOutcome
Bad Neutral Good
ValueofPerson Bad(n=74)
1.11a(1.05) 0.43b(0.74) 0.49b(0.80)
Good(n=77) 0.84b(1.05) 0.71b(0.90) 1.56a(0.98)
NoPersonInformation(N=101)
0.69a(0.87) 0.58a(0.74) 1.00b(0.82)
Note.Valueswithincellsshowmeans(standarddeviations)ofthenumberofchoices.Meanswithinthegoodandbadpersonconditionsandfortheseparate“nopersoninformation”samplethatdonotshareacommonsubscriptacrossrowsaresignificantlydifferent(p<.05).
Whatoutcomesdopeopletendchosetolearnaboutwhentheyarenotgivenany
informationaboutthetargetcharacter’spriormoralconduct?Toaddressthisquestion,werecruited
aseparatesampleofonlineparticipants(N=101;n=1additionalparticipantremovedforhavinga
duplicateIPaddress;55.9%female;Mage=36.15;SDage=12.00)andaskedthemtochooseamong
thesame9outcomeoptionsfor“Sally”asinthemainstudy,butwegavethemnoinformation
aboutherpriormoralconduct.Specifically,theyread:“Belowyouwillseeseveraleventsthat
happenedinthelifeofawomannamedSally.AllthatyouknowaboutSallyishername.Which
SelectiveExposure21
eventswouldyouliketoreadmoreabout?”.ShowninthebottomsectionofTable1,therewasa
tendencyforparticipantstochosetoreadaboutthegoodoutcomesmorethantheneutral
outcomes,t(100)=3.81,p<.001,WilcoxonSignedRankstestZ=3.55,p<.001,95%bootstrapCIof
0.21and0.63,andthegoodoutcomesmorethanthebadoutcomes,t(100)=2.71,p=.008,
WilcoxonSignedRankstestZ=2.50,p=.013,95%bootstrapCIof0.079and0.525.Therewasno
significantdifferencebetweenparticipants’choicesofbadversusneutraloutcomes,t(100)=0.91,p
=.364,WilcoxonSignedRankstestZ=1.04,p=.30,95%bootstrapCIof-0.128and0.347.Thus,
absentanyinformationaboutthetargetperson’spriormoralconduct,participantstendedto
choosetoreceivegoodoutcomeinformationmorethanbadandneutraloutcomeinformation.This
isconsistentwiththeoriesthatsuggestpeoplearePollyanish(e.g.,Taylor&Brown,1988)or
Panglossian(Kayetal.,2007)–thatis,generallybiasedtowardsperceivingtheirsocialenvironments
inamorepositivethannegativelight.Morespecifically,itisconsistentwiththeoreticalmodelsthat
castselectiveexposureasamoodregulatingprocess,inwhichabsentothermotives,peopleprefer
hedonicallypositiveovernegativeinformation(Knobloch&Zillman,2002;Oliver,2003;Zillman,
1988).GiventhepatternofresultsfromourmainsampleinStudy4(topsectionofTable1),this
tendencyseemstoshiftwhenparticipantsdohaveknowledgeofthetargetperson’smoralconduct:
evenwhentheyhadtheopportunitytochoosenooutcomeinformationatall,participants
selectivelyexposedthemselvestobad(good)outcomesforabad(good)person.Giventhatthere
werenodifferencesbetweenthechoicesofneutralandgoodoutcomeswhenthetargetpersonwas
badandneutralandbadoutcomeswhenshewasgood,thesefindingsalsosuggestthatparticipants
areprimarilyselectivelyseekingdeservingness-congruentinformationratherthanselectively
avoidingdeservingness-incongruentinformation.
STUDY5
InStudies5and6weexaminedwhetherparticipantsmightexpendsomeefforttoreceive
outcomeinformationthatisconsistentwithwhatothersdeserve.InStudy5,wemadeitrelatively
easyordifficultforparticipantstoselecttheoutcomeinformationtheywantedtoreceive.Wedidso
SelectiveExposure22
byhavingparticipantssearchwithinvisualarraysforshapesassociatedwithgoodorbadoutcomes,
whichwereeitherrelativelyeasyorhardtofind.Wepredictedthatbecausepeoplewanttoseethat
othersgetwhattheydeserve,participantswouldchoosetoreadgood(bad)outcomeinformation
forgood(bad)peopleevenwhenitwasrelativelymoredifficulttodoso.
Method
Participants
ParticipantsfromtheU.S.A.wererecruitedonlinethroughMTurk(N=49;57.10%female;
Mage=35.94;SDage=9.59).
Materialsandprocedure
Usingafullywithin-subjectsdesign,participantsinStudy5werepresentedwiththesame
shortstories(2describingagoodpersonand2describingabadperson)andchoicesofadditional
goodorbadoutcomeinformationthatweusedinStudy1(seesupplementarymaterials).For
example,foronestoryparticipantsread:
StevewasridingontheLondonUndergroundtoSt.James’sparktomeethisgirlfriendforapleasantoutdoorpicnicinthepark.Whileatastop,afrailoldladyenteredthesamecarriageoccupiedbySteve.Insteadofgettingupandofferinghisseat,Stevescowledattheoldladyandrefusedtogiveuphisseat.Followingeachstory,participantswerepresentedwithtwosentencesthatrepresentedtwo
piecesofadditionalinformationaboutthestory;onedescribingagoodoutcome(e.g.,“Jennywas
sittinginherlivingroomwhenshereceivednewsthatshehadwonanewcarinasweepstakesshe
hadentered”)andonedescribingabadoutcome(e.g.,“Jennywasinaterriblecaraccidentthatleft
herinhospitalinseriouscondition”).Eachoutcomewaspairedwithacoloredshape;weasked
participantstodecidewhichpieceofinformationtheywantedtoreadlaterinthesurveyby
searchingforandclickingontheshapeassociatedwiththatoutcomewithinanarrayofshapesthat
wouldbeshownonthenextpage.
Onthenextpageparticipantsperformedasearchtaskwheretheysawanarrayofdifferent
shapes,includingthetwotargetshapestheyjustlearnedwereassociatedwiththegoodandbad
SelectiveExposure23
outcomeinformationtheycouldreceive(seeFigure5).
Figure5.AnexamplearrayofshapesusedinStudy3.Inthisexample,theredequilateraltriangle(centeroffigure)representedthedeservingnesscongruentinformationandthebluerhombusrepresentedthedeservingnessincongruentinformation.
Wetoldparticipantstofindandclickontheshapeinthearraythatrepresentedthe
informationtheywantedtoreadlaterinthesurvey.Wedesignedeacharraywithreferenceto
performanceinvisualsearchexperiments,andthetheoriesthathavebeenadvancedtoexplainthis
performance(e.g.,FeatureIntegrationTheory:Triesman&Gelade,1980;GuidedSearch:Wolfe,
1994).Inessence,thesetheoriesproposethatitismoredifficult(lessefficient)tofindtargetitems
thatsharefeatureswithdistractoritems.Targetswhicharedefinedbyasingleuniquefeature(e.g.,
theblueiteminFigure4)seemto“pop-out”andarefoundquicklyregardlessofthenumberof
surroundingitemsandwithouthavingtoallocatefocusedattention.Targetswhicharedefinedbya
conjunctionoffeatures(e.g.,theredequilateraltriangleinFigure4)takemuchlongertofindand
arethoughttoinvolveamorelaborioussearchwhereattentionismovedseriallyfromitem-to-item.
Inthepresentstudy,theshaperepresentingthedeservingness-congruentinformation(e.g.,
agoodoutcomeforagoodperson)wasalwaysthesamecolorasthedistractorshapes(e.g.,thered
SelectiveExposure24
equilateraltriangleinFigure5),andwasthereforelesseasytofind.Theshaperepresentingthe
deservingness-incongruentinformationwasalwaysa“pop-out”targetwithadifferentcolortoall
theothershapesinthearray(e.g.,thebluerhombusinFigure5),andwouldthereforebefound
“preattentively”withlittleeffort.Inotherwords,wemadeitmoredifficultforparticipantstofind
informationthatwascongruent(vs.incongruent)withwhatthetargetsdeserved.Weasked
whetherparticipantswouldstillchoosecongruentinformationevenwhentheirvisualattentionwas
capturedbytheincongruentoutcome,makingitamuchquickeroptiontochoose.
Results
Weusedmixedeffectslogisticregressiontoanalyzeparticipants’choicesofoutcomes
acrossthescenarios.ThedependentvariablewaswhetherparticipantschoseaGoodoutcome
(coded1)oraBadoutcome(coded0).ThepredictorvariablewasPerson(good,coded1,vs.bad,
coded-1).Weincludedrandominterceptsforparticipantsandscenarios,andrandomslopesby
participantsfortheeffectofPerson(withcorrelatedrandomeffects).Therewasanoveralltendency
tofavourGoodoutcomes,Bintercept=3.42,Z=3.83,95%CI1.67and5.18,p<.001(cf.Study4);more
importantly,participantsweremorelikelytochooseagoodoutcomeforagoodperson(73%)than
forabadperson(34%),Bperson=4.15,Z=4.71,95%CIof2.43and5.88,p<.001.
STUDY6
Evenwhenitwasrelativelydifficulttodoso,participantsinStudy5tendedtosearchforand
chooseoutcomesconsistentwithwhatthetargetpersonsdeserved.OurassumptioninStudy5was
thatparticipants’attentionwasinitiallydrawntothedistractorshape,andthatparticipantsthen
hadtodisengageandavoidthetemptationtochoosethisshapebyactivelysearchingfortheshape
associatedwiththedeservingness-congruentoutcome.Astrongertestofthisassumptionisto
examinedifferencesinresponsetimesduringvisualsearchforeachtypeofshape.Whenashapeis
bothvisuallysalient(e.g.,islargerandadifferentcolorthanothershapeswithinanarray)and
associatedwiththeinformationthatparticipantsgenerallywanttoview(i.e.,thedeservingness-
congruentinformationiseasiertofind),responsesshouldbequick.Incontrast,whenashapeisnot
SelectiveExposure25
visuallysalient(e.g.,issmallerandthesamecolorasothershapes)andisassociatedwithwhat
participantswanttoview(i.e.,thedeservingness-congruentinformationishardertofind),then
responsesshouldbeslower,assumingparticipantsareengaginginamoreactive,elaboratesearch
forthisdesiredinformation.
Method
Participants
ParticipantsfromtheU.S.A.wererecruitedonlinethroughMTurk(N=176;46%females;
Mage=33.47;SDage=11.15).Thirtyadditionalparticipantswereexcludedfromanalysesbecauseof
duplicateIPaddresses(n=6),failingasimplemultiplechoicestorycomprehensioncheck(n=8),
skippingthesearchtaskaltogether(n=8),selectingbothshapes(n=7),orhavingnotimingdata
registered(n=1).
Materialsandprocedure
Wetoldparticipantsthattheywouldreadoneshort“incomplete”storyaboutanindividual
goingabouthisdailylife.Participantswerethentoldtheywouldbeshowntwoshapes,each
representingtwodifferentoutcomesfortheprotagonist.Theirtaskwastofindandclickonthe
shapewithinanarrayofshapesthatrepresentedtheoutcomeinformationtheywantedtoread.
Allparticipantsreadthesameshortstory,whichdescribedamannamedGeoffwhothrewa
puppyintoariver(wefocusedonabadpersoninStudy6tosimplifythedesign).Participantswere
thenpresentedwithtwopiecesofadditionalinformation,representedbytwoseparatesentences.
OnesentencedescribedGeoffwinninganewcarinasweepstake(goodoutcome);theother
sentencedescribedGeoffbeinginvolvedinaterriblecaraccidentthatlefthiminhospitalinserious
condition(badoutcome).
Twoshapeswereused:alargeorangecircleandasmallbluestar.ShowninFigure6,the
orangecirclewasthelargestiteminthedisplayandwasdefinedbyauniquecolor,makingita“pop-
out”target.Thebluestarwassmallerandthesamecolorasmultipledistractors,sowepredicted
thatparticipantswouldbemuchlessefficientandsloweratfindingit.Theshapeassociatedwith
SelectiveExposure26
eachoutcomewasvariedbetweensubjectssuchthatthecongruentoutcomewaseitherharder
(bluestar)oreasier(orangecircle)tofind.
Afterthesearchtask,participantsansweredastorycomprehensioncheckitem:“Inthebrief
storyyouread,theman(Geoff):(a)divedintotheriverandsavedthepuppy,(b)threwthepuppy
intotheriver,or(c)whatstory?”.Next,theyanswered‘yes’or‘no’toaquestionaboutwhether
theyselectedtheshapetheyinitiallywanted(“Duringthesearchtask,didyouendupfindingand
selectingtheshapeyouinitiallywantedtofind?”),and,ifno,whytheydidnotselecttheshapethey
initiallywantedtosearchfor(theoptionswere“Icouldn’tfindit”,“Ithoughtitprobablywasn’t
actuallyinthearrayofshapes”and“other,pleasespecify”).
Figure6.ThearrayofshapesusedinStudy4.Theorangecirclewastheeasy-to-findshapeandthebluestarwasthehard-to-findshape.Participantsweretoldeitherthatdeservingness-consistentorinconsistentinformationwasassociatedwithoneoftheseshapes.
ResultsandDiscussion
Agreaterproportionofparticipantschosethedeservingnesscongruentoutcome(72%)than
theincongruentoutcome,χ2contingencytest=32.82,p<.001.Thistendency,however,differedas
afunctionofhoweasyorharditwastofindthecongruentoutcome,χ2contingencytest=26.11,p<
.001,suchthatalargerproportionofparticipantschosetheshapeassociatedwiththecongruent
SelectiveExposure27
outcomewhenitwaseasiertofind(89%)thanwhenitwashardertofind(54%).Moreimportantly,
analysisofparticipants’log-transformedsearchtimes2revealedthatparticipantstooklongerto
chooseashapewhenthedeservingness-congruentinformationwasharder(M=2.73,SD=1.01)
thanwhenitwaseasier(M=1.70,SD=1.15)tofind,t(171.92)=6.29,p<.001,d=.95.
Ancillarysub-groupanalysesshowedthatparticipantswhochosethecircle(theeasier-to-
findoption)tooklongertodosowhenitwasassociatedwiththeincongruent(good)outcome(n=
40;M=2.23,SD=1.16)thanwiththecongruent(bad)outcome(n=79;M=1.50,SD=1.04),
t(71.03)=3.39,p=.001,d=.66.Therewerenosignificantdifferencesinsearchtimesamong
participantswhochosethestar(theharder-to-findoption)whenitwasassociatedwiththe
incongruentoutcome(n=10;M=3.25,SD=0.82)versusthecongruentoutcome(n=47;M=3.14,
SD=0.62),t(11.27)=-0.40,p=.70,d=-0.15.Thedifferenceofthesedifferenceswassignificant,F(1,
172)=4.86,p=.029.Further,20participantsreportednotultimatelychoosingtheshapethey
wantedtochoose,andalloftheseparticipantschosetheeasier-to-findcircle(80%reportedthey
couldnotfindthebluestar;20%thoughtitactuallywasn’tinthearray).Amongparticipantswho
chosethecircle,asignificantlygreaterproportionreportedselectingtheshapetheydidnotwantto
selectwhenthecirclewasassociatedwiththeincongruentoutcome(14/40,35%)thanwhenitwas
associatedwiththecongruentoutcome(6/79,8%)χ2=14.26,p<.001.Theseresultssuggeststhat
eventhoughmanyparticipantsultimatelychosetheeasier-to-findoptionwhenitwasassociated
withthedeservingness-incongruentoutcome,theywereactivelysearchingforthedeservingness-
congruentoutcome,becausetheytooklongertomaketheirchoiceinsteadofimmediatelyselecting
theeasy-to-findshape.
Study7
Weproposedthataconcernfordeservingnessisoneofthereasonswhypeoplemight
selectivelyexposethemselvestobad(good)thingshappeningtobad(good)people,andtheindirect
2Forpurposeofanalysis,searchtimewaslog-transformedtohelpsymmetrizethedata.Theresultsaresimilarusingrawsearchtimes(Ms=22.87vs.10.74seconds),t(161.84)=4.36,p<.001,d=.66.
SelectiveExposure28
effectsofperceiveddeservingnesswefoundinStudies2and3suggestthatthisisthecase.
However,oneissuewiththesemediationfindingsisthatperceiveddeservingnesswasmeasured
ratherthanmanipulated,soitscausalinfluenceisunclear(i.e.,deservingnessmightbeajustification
for,ratherthanacauseof,selectiveexposuretogoodandbadoutcomes).Study7,then,was
designedtoprovidefurtherevidencefortheideathataconcernfordeservingnessunderlies
selectiveexposuretooutcomes.Wedidsobyadoptingamoderation-of-processdesign(Spencer,
Zanna,&Fong,2005).Specifically,drawingonresearchshowingthat“affirmationsofjustice”can
reducepeople’stendenciestoengageinstrategiestomaintainacommitmenttodeservingness(e.g.,
immanentjusticereasoning;seeCallanetal.,2014),participantsinStudy7learnedaboutbad
peoplewhodidordidnotreceive“justdeserts”fortheirtransgressionsbeforeweaskedthemto
ratehowmuchtheywantedtoreceivegoodandbadoutcomeinformation.Ifaconcernfor
deservingnessunderliestheseselectiveexposureeffects,thenlearningthatabadpersonalready
gotwhattheydeserved—thatis,receivedtheir“justdeserts”—shouldreducethenecessityfor
participantstoselectivelyexposethemselvestobadoutcomeinformation.
Method
Participants
ParticipantsfromtheU.S.A.wererecruitedonlinethroughAmazon’sMechanicalTurk(N=
77;45%female;Mage=35.98;SDage=12.60).Datafrom6additionalparticipantswerenotincludedin
analysesbecausetheyeitherincorrectlyansweredasimple,multiple-choicestorycomprehension
question(n=5;“InthestoryyoureadaboutSally,whatdidshedoatthecornerstore?”)ordidnot
answeralloftheitems(n=1).
Materialsandprocedure
Weinformedparticipantsthattheywouldreadshortandincompletenarratives,before
beingaskedtoratehowmuchtheywantedtoreaddifferentpiecesofadditionalinformationabout
thestories.Weinformedparticipantsthisadditionalinformationwouldbeshowntotheminfullat
theendofthesurvey.
SelectiveExposure29
Weusedtwostories,eachdescribingabadperson(Sallystolefromacharitycollectionand
Stevewasmeantoanelderlyperson).Participantsreadandrespondedtoeachofthestories,but
oneofthestoriesendedwiththetarget—SallyorSteve—receivingjustdesertsforhis/her
transgression.FortheSallystory,halftheparticipantslearnedthat“onherwayoutofthestore,
Sallywasapproachedbyamanwhomuggedandassaultedher,smashingherfacetothegroundand
stealingherpursecontaininghercellphoneandothervaluablepossessions.”Forthestoryabout
Steve,halftheparticipantsreadthathewas“crossingthestreetafterleavingthesubwaywhenhe
wasstruckbyataxirunningaredlight.Stevesurvivedtheincidentbutlosttheuseofhislegs.”Thus,
participantsreadtwostories,eachdescribinga“bad”person,oneofwhichconcludedwitha
deservingnessaffirmation.WhetherparticipantslearnedthatSallyorStevereceivedjustdesertswas
determinedrandomlybetweenparticipantsandthetwostorieswerepresentedtoparticipantsina
randomorder.
LikeStudy1,participantswerethenpresentedwithtwopiecesofadditionalinformation
(eachsummarizedinasentence)thatdescribeaneventoccurringtoSteve/Sallyaftertheincident(s)
describedinthestories.Participantswereaskedtoratethedegreetowhichtheywantedtoread
abouttheseoutcomeslaterinthesurvey.Onesentencerepresentedagoodoutcome(Sallywona
luxurycruise;Stevewonalottery)andtheotherdescribedabadoutcome(Sallycontractedaserious
illness;Steve’sapartmentwasdestroyedbyflooding).Participantsratedtheextenttowhichthey
wantedtoreadeachoftheoutcomes(1=Idonotwanttoreadthesedetailslateroninthesurveyto
6=Iwanttoreadthesedetailslateroninthesurvey).
ResultsandDiscussion
Participants’ratingsofhowmuchtheywantedtoreadabouttheoutcomeswereaveraged
acrossthetwoscenariosandsubjectedtoa2(OutcometoRead:goodvs.bad)X2(Justice
Affirmation:affirmationvs.noaffirmation)fullywithin-subjectsANOVA.Analysesrevealeda
significantmaineffectofOutcome,F(1,76)=9.98,p=.002,whichwassignificantlymoderatedby
SelectiveExposure30
JusticeAffirmation,F(1,76)=7.90,p=.006,ω2=.08(seeFigure7).3Follow-upanalysesshowedthat
participantswantedtoreadaboutbadoutcomestoagreaterextentthangoodoutcomeswhen
therewasnojusticeaffirmation,t(76)=3.99,p<.001(rbetweenrepeatedmeasures=-0.37).There
was,however,nosignificantdifferencebetweenratingsofwantingthegoodandbadoutcomes
whenjusticewasaffirmed,t(76)=1.48,p=.144(rbetweenrepeatedmeasures=-0.21).Linear
mixedeffectsmodellingproducedthesameresults,butsufferedsomeproblemswithestimation.
Thus,selectiveexposuretodeservedoutcomesisreducedwhendeservingnessisotherwise
affirmed,lendingfurtherweighttotheideathatthesortsofeffectswehaveexaminedaredueto
people’sconcernsaboutseeingthatpeoplegetwhattheydeserve.
Figure7.Theeffectofjusticeaffirmationontheextenttowhichparticipantswantedtoreadgoodandbadoutcomeinformationforbadpeople.Errorbarsshow95%CIsofthemeans.
3Addingabetween-subjectsfactorthatindicatedwhichscenarioincludedajusticeaffirmationdidnotrevealanysignificantmainorinteractioneffectsofscenario(allps>.29).
SelectiveExposure31
GeneralDiscussion
Employingarangeofstimuliandtasks,thepresentstudiesprovideconsistentsupportfor
thegeneralhypothesisthatpeoplechoosetobeexposedtoinformationaboutdeservedratherthan
undeservedoutcomes.Thiseffectwasmediatedbytheperceiveddeservingnessofoutcomes
(Studies2and3),andwasnotevidentwhenparticipantsknewthatwrongdoershadalready
receivedjustdesertsfortheirtransgressions(Study7).Participantswerenotsimplyselectively
avoidinginformationaboutundeservedoutcomesbutactivelysoughtinformationaboutjust
outcomes(Studies3and4).Participantsinvestedeffortinthispatternofselectiveexposure,seeking
outinformationaboutdeserved(vs.undeserved)outcomesevenwhenitwasmoredifficulttodoso
(Studies5and6).Further,responsetimedatashowedthatparticipantstooklongertosearchfor
informationaboutdeservedoutcomes,andsuggestedthatevenparticipantswhochosetoview
informationaboutundeservedoutcomeshadfirstsearchedforinformationaboutdeserved
outcomes(Study6).
Itwouldseemfunctionallyimportantforpeopletotakeabalanced,utilitarianapproachto
seekinginformationaboutthegoodandbadthingsthatcanhappen.Thiswouldenablepeopleboth
tohopeforandworktowardsthebestwhileavoidingandpreparingfortheworst.Peopleclearly
deviatefromthisaccuracymotivationinthepresentstudies.Ofnote,inStudy4,participantssought
outpositiveratherthannegativeoutcomesinthelifeofapersonwhosemoralstatustheydidnot
know.Thispositivitybiasisconsistentwiththeoreticalmodelsofselectiveexposureasamood
regulatingprocessthathelpspeopleconstruct“positiveillusions”abouttheworld(Oliver,2003;
Zillman,1988;moregenerally,Taylor&Brown,1988).Ofmoreinterest,however,isthatthis
tendencywasaccentuatedwhenparticipantsthoughttheoutcomeshappenedtogoodpeople,but
reversedwhentheythoughttheyhappenedtobadpeople.Thus,thepreferencetolearnabout
hedonicallypositiveoutcomeswastrumpedbythedesiretolearnaboutdeservedoutcomes:
SelectiveExposure32
horrificcarcrashesandterminalillnessesweremoreattractivethandazzlingstrokesofluckand
socialtriumphs,solongastheyweremoredeserved.
Thepresentfindingsbuildupontheeye-trackingfindingsofCallanetal.(2013).The
anticipatorybiasofparticipants’eye-movementstheyfoundcanbeinterpretedasapreferenceto
seedeservedratherthanundeservedoutcomes,broadlyconsistentwiththepresentresults.
However,theycanalsobeinterpretedasapreconsciousexpectationthattheoutcomewillbejust,
consistentwithhowsuchpredictiveeye-movementsareinterpretedintheliteratureonreadingand
storycomprehension.Moreover,Callanetal.werenotabletodifferentiatebetweenpeople’s
expectationsofdeservedoutcomesandthedeliberatechoicespeoplemaketoreceiveinformation
consistentwiththeviewthatpeoplegetwhattheydeserve.Thepresentresultsthereforeprovide
thefirstunambiguousevidencethatparticipants,evenattheexpenseoftheirtime,activelyand
deliberatelychoosetoencounterinformationconsistentwithwhatisdeserved.
Thepresentfindingsuncoveratheoreticallyimportant,hithertounexploredmeansbywhich
peoplepreservethebeliefthattheworldisajustplacefromdisconfirmatoryevidence.Otherwell-
knownstrategiessuchasimmanentjusticereasoning,ultimatejusticereasoning,andvictim
derogationhavebeenshowntoplayanimportantroleinpreservingthepsychologicalbenefitsof
just-worldbeliefs(Ellard,Harvey,&Callan,2016),includingtheabilitytodelaygratification(Callan,
Harvey,&Sutton,2014;Callan,Harvey,Dawtry,&Sutton,2013).However,thesestrategiesinvolve
processingofinformationafterithasbeenencountered,andrunintoimportantpsychological
constraints.Forexample,derogatinginnocentvictimsofmisfortunemayruncountertopeople’s
moralstandards(Hafer&Bègue,2005),andimmanentjusticereasoningrunscountertoreality
constraintsbecauseitisincompatiblewithpeople’sknowledgeofhowthephysicalworldoperates
(Callanetal.,2014).
Incontrast,selectiveexposureallowspeopletoexposethemselvestobiasedsamplesof
outcomeinformationinamannerthatisfreefromtheseconstraints.Inprinciple,evenifpeople
reasoninanunbiasedmanner,throughselectiveexposuretheymaydrawthebiasedconclusionthat
SelectiveExposure33
theworldisarelativelyfairplaceinwhichpeoplegetwhattheydeserve.Suchselectiveexposureto
deservedoutcomesmighthaveimportantimplicationsforhowpeoplesustainandcultivatebeliefs
aboutdeservingnessandcommunicatethosebeliefstoothers.Forexample,wecanexpectthatif
peopleselectivelyexposethemselvestodeservedmorethanundeservedoutcomes,thentheymight
bemorelikelyremembereventsasmorejustandfairthanabalanced,unbiasedassessmentofthe
objectivecircumstancesmighthaveindicated(cf.Callanetal.,2009).Thatis,ifpeopleselectively
exposethemselvestoinformationthatelaboratesondeservedoutcomes,thenthelogicaloutcome
isthattheyhaveanopportunitytorehearsethatinformation.Suchmemorybiasesmighthave
furtherconsequencesforinformationretransmission(Cappella,Kim,&Albarracín,2015)—people
mightcommunicatetoothersthateventswerejustandfairpreciselybecausetheyselectivelychose
andremembertheminthatway.Exploringthisinterplaybetweenselectiveexposure,memory
biases,andsocialcommunicationremainsanimportantavenueforfutureresearch.
OnelimitationofthepresentresearchisourrelianceonsamplesfromAmazon’sMechanical
Turk.ResearchhashighlightedsomeofthestrengthsofMTurkcomparedtotraditionalsampling,
includingMTurkparticipantsbeingmoredemographicallydiversethanstandardundergraduate
samples,therapidandinexpensivenatureofrecruitment,andthesometimessuperiorqualityof
data(e.g.,Buhrmester,Kwang,&Gosling,2011;Clifford,Jewell,&Waggoner,2015;Hauser&
Schwarz,2016).AlthoughMTurksamplesaremorediversethantraditionalsamples,Paolacciand
Chandler(2014)warnedthattheyarenotrepresentativeofthegeneralpopulation.Theyalso
highlightedthatparticipantswhofrequentlyuseMTurkmaybecomefamiliarwithcommonlyused
procedures,materials,andmeasuresandthereforetheirresponsesmaynotbe“organic,”whereas
otherworkersmightnotbefullyattentiveorrespondhonestly.Wetriedtolimittheseconcernsby
usingnovelmaterials,screeningparticipantsformultipleresponses,andremovingparticipantswho
wereclearlynotattendingtoandreadingthematerials.Nonetheless,futureresearchshould
considerreplicatingandextendingourfindingsusingmorerepresentativeandnon-Western
samples.
SelectiveExposure34
Conclusions
Lerner’s(1980)justworldtheorywasimpelledbyaparadox:despitealltheevidencetothe
contrary,peopleappeartobelievethattheworldisajustplace.Itproposedtworesolutionsofthis
paradox.First,itportrayedthe‘justworld’asafictionconstructedanddefendedinthemindofthe
perceiver.Thus,whentheyencounterinjustice,peoplederogatevictimsandfindothercognitive
waysofpreservingtheirfaithinjustice.Second,itframedthe‘justworld’asanidyllicblueprintthat
motivatespeopletobehaviorallyredressinnocentsuffering,andsoreducethedisparitybetween
theiridyllandreality.Thepresentstudiesprovideacomplementaryperspective.Theysuggestthat
the‘justworld’doesnotonlyexistinthemindoftheperceiver,butcanalsobeunderstoodasa
handpickedregionoftheobjectiveworld.Within(vs.beyond)itsdeliberatelylimitedhorizons,
injusticeisrareandjusticecommonplace,suchthatevenanunbiasedobservermightfindjust-world
beliefstobeempiricallywarranted.Indeed,researchinformedbythecognitive-ecologicalapproach
tosocialcognition(Fiedler,2000)hasshownthatsamplingfrombiasedinformationmaylead
unbiasedobserverstodrawbiasedconclusionsaboutthefairnessoftheirsociety(Dawtry,Sutton,&
Sibley,2015).Thepresentstudiesshowthatpeoplearepreparedtoinvesttimeandeffortto
constraintheirexperienceinthisway.Bydoingso,theymaysavethemselvesconsiderableeffort
anddiscomfortinthelongerrun—Inaworldthatseldomcontainsinjustice,cognitiveandbehavioral
strategiestominimizeinjusticeareseldomrequired.
SelectiveExposure35
References
Bal,M.,&vandenBos,K.(2015).Puttingthe“I”and“Us”injustice:Derogatoryandbenevolent
reactionstowardinnocentvictimsinself-focusedandother-focusedindividuals.SocialJustice
Research,28,274-292.
Barr,D.J.,Levy,R.,Scheepers,C.,&Tily,H.J.(2013).Randomeffectsstructureforconfirmatory
hypothesistesting:Keepitmaximal.JournalofMemoryandLanguage,68,255–278.
Bates,D.,Maechler,M.,Bolker,B.,&Walker,S.(2015).FittingLinearMixed-EffectsModelsUsing
lme4.JournalofStatisticalSoftware,67(1),1-48.
Brannon,L.A.,Tagler,M.J.,&Eagly,A.H.(2007).Themoderatingroleofattitudestrengthin
selectiveexposuretoinformation.JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,43,611–617.
Buhrmester,M.,Kwang,T.,&Gosling,S.D.(2011).Amazon'sMechanicalTurkanewsourceof
inexpensive,yethigh-quality,data?PerspectivesonPsychologicalScience,6,3-5.
Callan,M.J.,&Ellard,J.H.(2010).Beyondderogationandblameofvictims:Justworlddynamicsin
everydaylife.InD.R.Bobocel,A.C.Kay,M.P.Zanna,&J.M.Olson(Eds.).Thepsychologyof
justiceandlegitimacy:TheOntarioSymposium(Vol.11,pp.53-77).NewYork:Psychology
Press.
Callan,M.J.,Ferguson,H.J.,&Bindemann,M.(2013).Eyemovementstoaudiovisualscenesreveal
expectationsofajustworld.JournalofExperimentalPsychology:General,142,34-40.
Callan,M.J.,Harvey,A.J.,&Sutton,R.M.(2014).Rejectingvictimsofmisfortunereducesdelay
discounting.JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,51,41-44.
Callan,M.J.,Harvey,A.J.,Dawtry,R.J.,&Sutton,R.M.(2013).Throughthelookingglass:Long-term
goalfocusincreasesimmanentjusticereasoning.BritishJournalofSocialPsychology,52,377-
385.
Callan,M.J.,Kay,A.C.,Davidenko,N.,&Ellard,J.H.(2009).Theeffectsofjusticemotivationon
memoryforself-andother-relevantevents.JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,45,
614-623.
SelectiveExposure36
Callan,M.J.,Sutton,R.M.,Harvey,A.J.,&Dawtry,R.J.(2014).Immanentjusticereasoning:Theory,
research,andcurrentdirections.InJ.M.Olson&M.P.Zanna(Eds.),AdvancesinExperimental
SocialPsychology(Vol.49,pp.105-161).London:AcademicPress.
Cappella,J.N.,Kim,H.S.,&Albarracín,D.(2015).Selectionandtransmissionprocessesfor
informationintheemergingmediaenvironment:Psychologicalmotivesandmessage
characteristics.MediaPsychology,18,396-424.
Canon,L.K.,&Matthews,K.E.(1972).Concernoverpersonalhealthandsmoking-relevantbeliefs
andbehavior.ProceedingsoftheAnnualConventionoftheAmericanPsychological
Association,7,271–272.
Clifford,S.,Jewell,R.M.,&Waggoner,P.D.(2015).AresamplesdrawnfromMechanicalTurkvalid
forresearchonpoliticalideology?ResearchandPolitics,2,1-9.
Dawtry,R.J.,Sutton,R.M.,&Sibley,C.G.(2015).Whywealthierpeoplethinkpeoplearewealthier,
andwhyitmatters:Fromsocialsamplingtoattitudestoredistribution.Psychological
Science,26(9),1389-1400.
Ellard,J.H.,Harvey,A.J.,&Callan,M.J.(2016).Thejusticemotive:History,theory,andresearch.In
C.Sabbagh&M.Schmitt(Eds.),HandbookofSocialJusticeTheoryandResearch(pp.127-143).
NewYork:Springer.
Festinger,L.(1957).Atheoryofcognitivedissonance.Stanford,CCA:StanfordUniversityPress.
Fiedler,K.(2000).Bewareofsamples!Acognitive-ecologicalsamplingapproachtojudgment
biases.PsychologicalReview,107,659–676.
Fischer,P.,Jonas,E.,Frey,D.,&Schulz-Hardt,S.(2005).Selectiveexposuretoinformation:The
impactofinformationlimits.EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology,35,469–492.
Frey,D.(1986).Recentresearchonselectiveexposuretoinformation.InL.Berkowitz(Ed.),Advances
inexperimentalsocialpsychology(Vol.19,pp.41–80).NewYork:AcademicPress.
Frey,D.,&Wicklund,R.(1978).Aclarificationofselectiveexposure:Theimpactofchoice.Journalof
ExperimentalSocialPsychology,14,132–139.
SelectiveExposure37
Hafer,C.L.(2011).Thepsychologyofdeservingnessandacceptanceofhumanrights.InE.Kals&J.
Maes(Eds.),Justiceandconflicts:Theoreticalandempiricalcontributions(pp.407–427).
Hafer,C.L.,&Bègue,L.(2005).Experimentalresearchonjustworldtheory:Problems,
developments,andfuturechallenges.PsychologicalBulletin,131,128–166.
Hafer,C.L.,&Gosse,L.(2011).Predictingalternativestrategiesforpreservingabeliefinajust
world:Thecaseofrepressivecopingstyle.EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology,41,730–
739.
Hart,W.,Albarracín,D.,Eagly,A.H.,Brechan,I.,Lindberg,M.,Lee,K.,&Merrill,L.(2009).Feeling
validatedversusbeingcorrect:Ameta-analysisofselectiveexposuretoinformation.
PsychologicalBulletin,135,555–588.
Harvey,A.J.,&Callan,M.J.(2014).Getting"justdeserts"orseeingthe"silverlining":Therelation
betweenjudgmentsofimmanentandultimatejustice.PLoSONE,9,e101803.
Harvey,A.J.,Callan,M.J.,&Matthews,W.J.(2014).Howmuchdoeseffortfulthinkingunderlie
observers’reactionstovictimization?SocialJusticeResearch,27,175-208.
Hauser,D.J.,&Schwarz,N.(2016).AttentiveTurkers:MTurkparticipantsperformbetterononline
attentionchecksthandosubjectpoolparticipants.BehaviorResearchMethods,48(1),400–
407.
Kuznetsova,K.,Brockhoff,P.B.,&Christensen,R.H.B.(2016).lmerTest:TestsinLinearMixed
EffectsModels.Rpackageversion2.0-30.http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest
Johnston,L.(1996).Resistingchange:Information-seekingandstereotypechange.EuropeanJournal
ofSocialPsychology,26,799-825.
Jonas,E.,&Frey,D.(2003).SearchingforinformationaboutfinancialdecisionsinEuroversusDM.
EuropeanPsychologist,8,92-96.
Jonas,E.,Schulz-Hardt,S.,Frey,D.,&Thelen,N.(2001).Confirmationbiasinsequentialinformation
searchafterpreliminarydecisions:Anexpansionofdissonancetheoreticalresearchon
SelectiveExposure38
“selectiveexposuretoinformation.”JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,80,557–
571.
Kay,A.C.,Jost,J.T.,Mandisodza,A.N.,Sherman,S.J.,Petrocelli,J.V.,&Johnson,A.L.(2007).
Panglossianideologyintheserviceofsystemjustification:Howcomplementarystereotypes
helpustorationalizeinequality.InM.P.Zanna(Ed.),Advancesinexperimentalsocial
psychology(Vol.38,pp.305–358).SanDiego,CA:AcademicPress.
Knobloch,S.,&Zillmann,D.(2002).Moodmanagementviathedigitaljukebox.Journalof
Communication,52,351-366.
Lerner,M.J.(1977).Thejusticemotive.Somehypothesesastoitsoriginsandforms.Journalof
Personality,45,1–32.
Lerner,M.J.(1980).Thebeliefinajustworld:Afundamentaldelusion.NewYork:PlenumPress.
Lerner,M.J.,&Simmons,C.H.(1966).Observer’sreactiontothe‘‘innocentvictim”:Compassionor
rejection?JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,4(2),203–210.
Lowin,A.(1969).Furtherevidenceforanapproach–avoidanceinterpretationofselectiveexposure.
JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,5,265–271.
Maccoby,E.E.,Maccoby,N.,Romney,A.K.,&Adams,J.S.(1961).Socialreinforcementinattitude
change.JournalofAbnormalandSocialPsychology,63,109–115.
McFarland,S.G.,&Warren,J.C.(1992).Religiousorientationsandselectiveexposureamong
fundamentalistChristians.JournalfortheScientificStudyofReligion,31,163-244.
Marsh,D.P.,&Greenberg,M.S.(2006).Theinfluenceofeyewitnesssimilaritytoacrimevictimand
culpabilityonwitness’recall.AppliedPsychologyinCriminalJustice,2,43–56.
Oliver,M.B.(2003).Moodmanagementandselectiveexposure.InJ.Bryant,D.Roskos-Ewoldsen,&
J.Cantor(eds.),Communicationandemotion:EssaysinhonorofDolfZillmann(pp.85–106).
Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Paolacci,G.,&Chandler,J.(2014).InsidetheTurk:UnderstandingMechanicalTurkasaparticipant
pool.CurrentDirectionsinPsychologicalScience,23,184–188.
SelectiveExposure39
Preacher,K.J.,&Hayes,A.F.(2008).Asymptoticandresamplingstrategiesforassessingand
comparingindirecteffectsinmultiplemediatormodels.BehaviorResearchMethods,40,879–
891.
Rhine,R.J.(1967).The1964presidentialelectionandcurvesofinformationseekingandavoiding.
JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,5,416–423.
Sabbagh,C.,&Schmitt,M.(Eds.).(2016).Handbookofsocialjusticetheoryandresearch.New
York:Springer.
Smith,S.M.,Fabrigar,L.R.,&Norris,M.E.(2008).Reflectingonsixdecadesofselectiveexposure
research:Progress,challenges,andopportunities.SocialandPersonalityPsychologyCompass,
2,464–493.
Spencer,S.J.,Zanna,M.P.,&Fong,G.T.(2005).Establishingacausalchain:Whyexperimentsare
oftenmoreeffectiveinexaminingpsychologicalprocessthanmeditationalanalyses.Journalof
PersonalityandSocialPsychology,89,845–851.
Smith,S.M.,Fabrigar,L.R.,Powell,D.M.,&Estrada,M.(2007).Theroleofinformationprocessing
capacityandgoalsinattitude-congruentselectiveexposureeffects.PersonalityandSocial
PsychologyBulletin,33,948–960.
Taylor,S.E.,&Brown,J.(1988).Illusionandwell-being:Asocialpsychologicalperspectiveonmental
health.PsychologicalBulletin,103,193-210.
Treisman,A.,&Gelade,G.(1980).Afeatureintegrationtheoryofattention.CognitivePsychology,
12,97-136.
Wolfe,J.M.(1994).Guidedsearch2.0:Arevisedmodelofvisualsearch.PsychonomicBulletin&
Review,1,202-238.
Zillmann,D.(1988a).Moodmanagementthroughcommunicationchoices.AmericanBehavioral
Scientist,31,327–341.
SelectiveExposure40
SupplementaryMaterials
Study1
ThefourshortstoriesandtheadditionaloutcomeinformationusedinStudy1.Goodoutcomeinformationisnumbered1andbadoutcomeinformationisnumbered2.
Goodperson BadpersonLastSummer,LukewasonholidayintheCaribbean.Hedecidedtohavelunchinarestaurantnearhishotelrecommendedbylocals.Althoughtherestaurantwasverybusy,Lukethoughttheservicewasexcellentandgreatlyenjoyedthefood.Despitehiswaiterbeingtiedupwithanothercustomer,Lukedecidedtowaituntilhewasavailabletoofferhimgreatpraiseandalargetip.Lateronthatevening,Lukedecidedgoforaswimintheocean.
StevewasridingontheLondonUndergroundtoSt.James’sparktomeethisgirlfriendforapleasantoutdoorpicnicinthepark.Earlierthatday,theweatherforecasthadwarnedofa50/50chanceofthunderstorms.Whileatastop,afrailoldladyenteredthesamecarriageoccupiedbySteve.Insteadofgettingupandofferinghisseat,Stevescowledattheoldladyandrefusedtogiveuphisseat.
Additionaloutcomeinformation:1.Whileswimming,Lukefounda$100billburiedinthesandatthebeach.2.Whileswimming,thecurrentcarriedLukeawayandhedrowned.
Additionaloutcomeinformation:1.WhenSteveemergedfromtheUnderground,helookedupandobservedthattheskywasclearandthesunwasshining.2.WhenSteveemergedfromtheUnderground,helookedupandobservedagrey,cloudyskyfromwhichrainwaspouringdown.
Aweekago,JennywaswalkingalongtheRiverWyewhenshespottedapuppydrowningintheriver.Riskingherownlife,Jennydivedintotheriverandsavedthepuppyfromdrowning.
Lastweek,Sallywasinagreengrocersbuyingfruitandvegetables.Afterpaying,shemadesurethatnoonewaslooking,andstoleallthechangefromacharitycollectionthatwasondisplayatthecounter.
Additionaloutcomeinformation:1.Oneweeklater,Jennywassittinginherlivingroomwhenshereceivednewsthatshehadwonanewcarinasweepstakeshehadentered.2.Oneweeklater,Jennywassittinginherlivingroomwhenshereceivednewsthatherhusbandwasinaterriblecaraccident.
Additionaloutcomeinformation:1.Onherwayoutofthegreengrocers,Sallywasapproachedbyamanwhoofferedherfreesamplesofthefoodonofferinhisdelicatessenacrosstheroad.2.Onherwayoutofthegreengrocers,Sallywasapproachedbyamanwhomuggedher,stealingherbagcontainingherpurseandphoneamongotherpossessions.
SelectiveExposure41
TableS1.RatingsofdeservingnessofoutcomesbyaseparatesampleofMTurkparticipants(N=49,n=1removedforhavingaduplicateIPaddress;36.70%females;Mage=34.55;SDage=9.62)foreachoftheoutcomesbyscenarioweusedinStudy1(presentedinarandomorder).Participantsmaderatingsforeachoftheoutcomesandscenarios(cf.Study1inthemaintext),andtheirratingsofdeservingnessweremadeona7pointscale(e.g.,“TowhatextentdoyoubelieveJennydeservestowinanewcarinasweepstakesheenters?”;1=notatalldeservingto7=verydeserving).
Scenario GoodOutcomeM(SD)
BadOutcomeM(SD) t(p) dz
Lukeleftatip 4.39(1.38) 1.31(0.98) 11.61(<.001) 1.66
Jennysavedpuppy 4.69(1.49) 1.41(1.12) 11.68(<.001) 1.67
Stevemeantolady 1.98(0.99) 4.57(1.51) -8.98(<.001) -1.28
Sallystolechange 1.60(1.07) 3.13(1.75) -4.76(<.001) -0.68
SelectiveExposure42
Study2
TheshortstoriesandtheadditionaloutcomeinformationusedinStudy2.Goodoutcomeinformationisnumbered1andbadoutcomeinformationisnumbered2.
Goodperson BadpersonAweekago,GeoffwaswalkingalongtheRiverWyewhenhespottedapuppydrowningintheriver.Riskinghisownlife,Geoffdivedintotheriverandsavedthepuppyfromdrowning.
Aweekago,GeoffwaswalkingalongtheRiverWyewhenhespottedapuppyalongthebankoftheriver.Withnoregardforitslife,Geoffpickedupthepuppyandthrewitintheriver.
Additionaloutcomeinformation:1.Geoffwassittinginhislivingroomwhenhereceivednewsthathehadwonanewcarinasweepstakehehadentered.2.Geoffwasinaterriblecaraccidentthatlefthiminhospitalinaseriouscondition.
SelectiveExposure43
Study3
TheshortstoriesandtheadditionaloutcomeinformationusedinStudy3.
Additionaloutcomeinformation:
Goodperson BadpersonAweekago,ChriswaswalkingalongtheRiverWyewhenhespottedapuppydrowningintheriver.Riskinghisownlife,Chrisdivedintotheriverandsavedthepuppyfromdrowning.
Aweekago,ChriswaswalkingalongtheRiverWyewhenhespottedapuppyalongthebankoftheriver.Withnoregardforitslife,Chrispickedupthepuppyandforcefullydrowneditintheriver
Goodoutcomes Badoutcomes
• Chris’sstocksandsharesskyrocketed
• Chriswon$100,000playingascratchcardlotteryticket
• Chriswasgivenamajorpromotionatwork
• Chriswonaluxurycruisetrip
• Chriswasinjuredinacaraccident
• Chriswasfiredfromhisjob
• Chriscontractedamajorillness
• Chris’sground-floorapartment
wasdestroyedbyflooding
SelectiveExposure44
Study4
TheshortstoriesandadditionaloutcomeinformationusedinStudy4.
Goodperson BadpersonLastweek,Sallywasinacornerstorebuyingbreadandmilk.Afterpaying,shemadesurethatnoonewaslookingandputallofhersparechangeintoacharitycollectionthatwasondisplayatthecounter.
Lastweek,Sallywasinacornerstorebuyingbreadandmilk.Afterpaying,shemadesurethatnoonewaslookingandstoleallthechangefromacharitycollectionthatwasondisplayatthecounter.
Additionaloutcomeinformation:
Goodoutcomes Badoutcomes Neutraloutcomes
• Sally’sstocksandsharesskyrocketed
• Sallywon$1,000playingascratchcardlotteryticket
• Sallywasgivenamajor
promotionatwork
• Sallywasinjuredinacar
accident
• Sally’sground-floorapartmentwasflooded
• Sallycamedownwitha
seriousillness
• Sallywenttoa
concert
• Sallystartedwritinganewblog
• Sallytidiedup
heroffice
SelectiveExposure45
Study5
TheshortstoriesandadditionaloutcomeinformationusedinStudy5.Goodoutcomeinformationisnumbered1andbadoutcomeinformationisnumbered2.
Goodperson BadpersonLastSummer,LukewasonholidayintheCaribbeanhavinglunchinarestaurantnearhishotel.Althoughtherestaurantwasverybusy,Lukethoughttheservicewasexcellentandgreatlyenjoyedthefood.Despitehiswaiterbeingtiedupwithanothercustomer,Lukedecidedtowaituntilhewasavailabletoofferhimgreatpraiseandalargetip.
StevewasridingontheLondonUndergroundtoSt.James’sparktomeethisgirlfriendforapleasantoutdoorpicnicinthepark.Whileatastop,afrailoldladyenteredthesamecarriageoccupiedbySteve.Insteadofgettingupandofferinghisseat,Stevescowledattheoldladyandrefusedtogiveuphisseat.
Additionaloutcomeinformation:1.Whileswimming,Lukefound$100billburiedinthesandatthebeach.2.Whileswimming,thecurrentcarriedLukeawayandhedrowned.
Additionaloutcomeinformation:1.WhenSteveemergedfromtheUnderground,helookedupandobservedthattheskywasclearandthesunwasshining.2.WhenSteveemergedfromtheUnderground,helookedupandobservedagray,cloudyskyfromwhichrainwaspouringdown.
Aweekago,JennywaswalkingalongtheRiverWyewhenshespottedapuppydrowningintheriver.Riskingherownlife,Jennydivedintotheriverandsavedthepuppyfromdrowning.
Lastweek,Sallywasinagreengrocersbuyingfruitandvegetables.Afterpaying,shemadesurethatnoonewaslooking,andstoleallthechangefromacharitycollectionthatwasondisplayatthecounter.
Additionaloutcomeinformation:1.Jennywassittinginherlivingroomwhenshereceivednewsthatshehadwonanewcarinasweepstakeshehadentered.2.Jennywasinaterriblecaraccidentthatleftherinhospitalinseriouscondition.
Additionaloutcomeinformation:1.Onherwayoutofthegreengrocers,Sallywasapproachedbyamanwhoofferedherfreesamplesofthefoodonofferinhisdelicatessenacrosstheroad.2.Onherwayoutofthegreengrocers,Sallywasapproachedbyamanwhomuggedher,stealingherbagcontainingherpurseandphoneamongotherpossessions.
SelectiveExposure46
Study6
Theshortstory,instructions,andtheadditionaloutcomeinformationusedinStudy6.
BadpersonAweekago,GeoffwaswalkingalongtheRiverWyewhenhespottedapuppyalongthebankoftheriver.Withnoregardforitslife,Geoffpickedupthepuppyandthrewitintheriver.Instructions:Onthenextpageyouwillseeabusyarrayofdifferentshapes-includingthetwobelow.Thetwoshapesbelowrepresentdifferentpiecesofinformationyoucanreceivelaterinthissurveyaboutthenarrativeabove(pleasereaditagain,justtobesure).PleaseREMEMBERandthen,onthefollowingpage,searchforandCLICKontheshapewhichrepresentstheinformationyouwanttoreceiveadditionaldetailsaboutlaterinthesurvey.Whichpieceofadditionalinformationwouldyouliketoreadmoreaboutconcerningtheabovestory?Notethatbothshapescanactuallybefoundinthevisualarray,soit'simportantthatyousearchforandclickontheshapeyouwant.Pleaseclickthenextbuttontosearchforandselecttheshapeassociatedwiththeadditionalinformationyouwanttoreviewaboutthisstory.Additionaloutcomeinformation(associatedeitherwithaneasy-orhard-to-findshape):1.Geoffwassittinginhislivingroomwhenhereceivednewsthathehadwonanewcarinasweepstakehehadentered.2.Geoffwasinaterriblecaraccidentthatlefthiminhospitalinaseriouscondition.
SelectiveExposure47
Study7
TheshortstoriesandadditionaloutcomeinformationusedinStudy7.Goodoutcomeinformationisnumbered1andbadoutcomeinformationisnumbered2.
Deservingnessnotaffirmed DeservingnessaffirmedLastweek,Sallywasinacornerstorebuyingbreadandmilk.Afterpaying,shemadesurethatnoonewaslooking,andstoleallthechangefromacharitycollectionthatwasondisplayatthecounter.
Lastweek,Sallywasinacornerstorebuyingbreadandmilk.Afterpaying,shemadesurethatnoonewaslooking,andstoleallthechangefromacharitycollectionthatwasondisplayatthecounter.
Onherwayoutofthestore,Sallywasapproachedbyamanwhomuggedandassaultedher,smashingherfacetothegroundandstealingherpursecontaininghercellphoneandothervaluablepossessions.
Additionaloutcomeinformation:
1. Sallywonaluxurycruisetripinanonlinesweepstakessheentered2. Sallycamedownwithaseriousillness
Deservingnessnotaffirmed DeservingnessaffirmedStevewasridingonthesubway.Whileatastop,afrailoldladyenteredthesamecarriageoccupiedbySteve.Insteadofgettingupandofferinghisseat,Stevescowledattheoldlady,calledhernames,andrefusedtogiveuphisseat.
Stevewasridingonthesubway.Whileatastop,afrailoldladyenteredthesamecarriageoccupiedbySteve.Insteadofgettingupandofferinghisseat,Stevescowledattheoldlady,calledhernames,andrefusedtogiveuphisseat.
Stevewascrossingthestreetafterleavingthesubwaywhenhewasstruckbyataxirunningaredlight.Stevesurvivedtheincidentbutlosttheuseofhislegs.
Additionaloutcomeinformation:
1. Stevewon$10,000playingascratch-cardlotteryticket2. Steve’sgroundfloorapartmentwasdestroyedbyflooding