Calls to “break up” radical echo chambers by injecting them with alternative viewpoints are common. Yet, thus far there is little evidence about the impact of such counter-messaging. To what extent and how do individuals who inhabit a radical echo chamber engage with messages that challenge their core beliefs? Drawing on data from the radical right forum Stormfront we address this question with a large-scale content and longitudinal analysis of users’ posting behavior, which analyses more than 35,000 English language contributions to the forum spanning 2011 through 2013. Our findings show that engaging with oppositional views is actually a core practice among Stromfront users which invites active participation and encourages engagement. Indeed, many “echoes” in the echo chamber we studied were not core beliefs being restated, but the sound of opposing viewpoints being undermined and marginalized. These findings underscore the limited potential for counter-messages to undermine radical echo chambers.

Several theoretical perspectives suggest that when individuals are exposed to counter-attitudinal evidence or arguments, their pre-existing opinions and beliefs are reinforced, resulting in a phenomenon sometimes known as ‘backlash’. This article formalizes the concept of backlash and specifies how it can be measured. It then presents the results from three survey experiments – two on Mechanical Turk and one on a nationally representative sample – that find no evidence of backlash, even under theoretically favorable conditions. While a casual reading of the literature on information processing suggests that backlash is rampant, these results indicate that it is much rarer than commonly supposed.

In this article, we take issue with the claim by Sunstein and others that online discussion takes place in echo chambers, and suggest that the dynamics of online debates could be more aptly described by the logic of 'trench warfare', in which opinions are reinforced through contradiction as well as confirmation. We use a unique online survey and an experimental approach to investigate and test echo chamber and trench warfare dynamics in online debates. The results show that people do indeed claim to discuss with those who hold opposite views from themselves. Furthermore, our survey experiments suggest that both confirming and contradicting arguments have similar effects on attitude reinforcement. Together, this indicates that both echo chamber and trench warfare dynamics - a situation where attitudes are reinforced through both confirmation and disconfirmation biases - characterize online debates. However, we also find that two-sided neutral arguments have weaker effects on reinforcement than one-sided confirming and contradicting arguments, suggesting that online debates could contribute to collective learning and qualification of arguments.

Persuasive communication campaigns are often used to promote proenvironmental actions, even though their effectiveness has been mixed. Previous research has tested cognitive-based models in explaining proenvironmental choice, but few studies have examined the potential impact of emotional dimensions. This experimental study tests the persuasive effect of argument quality, source expertise, and emotions on the implicit attitudes toward sustainable travel choices. This was a 2 x 2 x 2 between-subjects research design with an additional measured variable of involvement with the topic of sustainable transport. A video including the experimental manipulations was presented, followed by the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Consistent with the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), in the case of high involvement, implicit attitudes were more positive in the condition of high-quality arguments, while in case of low involvement, implicit attitudes were more positive in the condition of high source expertise. In addition, the main effect of anticipated negative emotions was significant.

Selective exposure research indicates that news consumers tend to seek out attitude-consistent information and avoid attitude-challenging information. This study examines online news credibility and cognitive dissonance as theoretical explanations for partisan selective exposure behavior. After viewing an attitudinally consistent, challenging, or politically balanced online news source, cognitive dissonance, credibility perceptions, and likelihood of selective exposure were measured. Results showed that people judge attitude-consistent and neutral news sources as more credible than attitude-challenging news sources, and although people experience slightly more cognitive dissonance when exposed to attitude-challenging news sources, overall dissonance levels were quite low. These results refute the cognitive dissonance explanation for selective exposure and suggest a new explanation that is based on credibility perceptions rather than psychological discomfort with attitude-challenging information.

Countering conventional theory, this study found that online homophily and heterophily—connectivity with both similar and dissimilar others—are not necessarily countervailing phenomena, among representative surveys of internet users from five Arab countries: Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Lebanon, Qatar, and UAE (N = 4,198). Respondents who said the Internet has increased their contact with politically and religiously similar people also tended to say it increased their contact with politically and religiously dissimilar people. A four-item scale measuring online political and religious homophily and heterophily was reliable (a = .754 overall;.79 among Arab nationals), and is referred to in this article as an ‘idea chamber’ index. Confirmatory Factor Analysis and inter-item correlations of scale items are two additional tests that affirm the internal consistency of the measure. Implications for research on digital communication are discussed.

According to cultural cognition theory, individuals hold opinions about politically contested issues like climate change that are consistent with their "cultural way of life," conforming their opinions to how they think society should be organized and to what they perceive are the attitudes of their cultural peers. Yet despite dozens of cultural cognition studies, none have directly examined the role of the news media in facilitating these differential interpretations. To address this gap, drawing on a national survey of US adults administered in 2015, we statistically modeled the cultural cognition process in relation to news choices and media effects on public attitudes about climate change. Individuals possessing strongly held cultural worldviews, our findings show, not only choose news outlets where they expect to find culturally congruent arguments about climate change, but they also selectively process the arguments they encounter. Overall, our study demonstrates the substantial role that cultural cognition in combination with news media choices play in contributing to opinion polarization on climate change and other politicized science topics.

\n The psychological bases of the selection and attitudinal response to news media have received ample attention in political communication research. However, the\n interplay\n between three crucial factors in today’s online, high-choice news media settings remains understudied: (1) textual versus multimodal (text-plus-visual) communication; (2) attitude congruent versus attitude incongruent versus balanced content; and (3) political versus nonpolitical genres. Relying on an experimental study of refugee and gun control news in the United States (\n N\n = 1,159), this paper investigates how people select and avoid, and also the extent to which they agree with, congenial, uncongenial, and balanced political news in a realistic multimodal selective-exposure setting in which political news is presented alongside sports and entertainment news. Although the findings partially depend on the issue, we find that the presence of multimodal (compared to textual) entertainment and sport items can increase avoidance of political news. Multimodal (compared to textual) political news augments attitude congruent selective exposure instead of encouraging cross-cutting selective exposure. Once selected, multimodal political news articles evoke stronger emotions and lead to higher issue agreement than textual news, regardless of an article’s attitude congruence. By linking research on text-alone to multimodal selective exposure, this study shows that visuals in high-choice media environments can contribute to the selective avoidance of political news generally and cross-cutting political news more specifically.\n