Selective Exposure

Forced Exposure Versus Selective Exposure Research Designs

Media effects on audiences are mostly studied in forced exposure research settings that neglect selective exposure. Participants are brought into direct contact with media stimuli in these settings, and short-term effects or long-term consequences (e.g., changes in attitudes or behavioral intentions) are recorded. While this research strategy is easy to implement and cost-effective, the media use situation is highly artificial, as respondents are prevented from choosing between different messages or from avoiding them altogether.

Selective exposure designs, in contrast, give respondents more control over their media and message choices by allowing them to decide which available option to select and which to ignore. These designs correspond well with participants’ everyday media use habits and are therefore more likely to yield ecologically valid findings, particularly due to reduced demand characteristics, novelty effects, and psychological reactance. Yet, selective exposure designs are more complex to realize and require the accurate recording of participants’ media choices or preferences. They may still impose a certain amount of restrictions, for example, regarding the number of available choices or the time span permitted for media use.

Selective exposure designs provide researchers with selection likelihood estimates of the examined stimuli, in addition to media effect measures at least for those individuals who exposed themselves to the stimuli. Most importantly, they can also reduce the likelihood of researchers coming to misleading conclusions about the real-world effectiveness of media stimuli. For example, findings from forced exposure studies could suggest that certain threatening messages (e.g., fear appeals) are more persuasive than nonthreatening messages. In reality, however, a substantial amount of participants can be realistically assumed to avoid threatening messages, or to immediately engage in defensive information processing (e.g., denial, selective interpretation, counter-arguing) in order to minimize or even reverse the message’s impact on their attitudes and beliefs. In this fictitious example, selective exposure designs that consider differential exposure rates might yield the opposite conclusion, namely that nonthreatening messages are more effective in real life, mainly because they are less likely to be avoided.

...