Selecting Science Information in Web 2.0: How Source Cues, Message Sidedness, and Need for Cognition Influence Users' Exposure to Blog Posts

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 80-96

  Winter, Stephan ^a   Krämer, Nicole C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DUISBURG ESSEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Blogs; Elaboration likelihood model; Message sidedness; Science communication; Selective exposure; Source cues; Web 2.0

Indexed keywords

ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODELS; MESSAGE SIDEDNESS; NEED FOR COGNITIONS; SCIENCE COMMUNICATIONS; SELECTIVE EXPOSURE; SOURCE CUE; USER-GENERATED; WEB 2.0;

BLOGS;

EID: 84867418517     PISSN: None     EISSN: 10836101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01596.x     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Allen, M. (1991). Meta-analysis comparing the persuasiveness of one-sided and two-sided messages. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 390-404. doi:10.1080/10570319109374395
2. Atkin, C. K. (1973). Instrumental utilities and information seeking. In P. Clarke (Ed.), New models for mass communication research (pp. 205-242). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
3. Bless, H., Wänke, M., Bohner, G., Fellhauer, R. F., & Schwarz, N. (1994). Need for Cognition: Eine Skala zur Erfassung von Engagement und Freude bei Denkaufgaben [Need for cognition: A scale for the assessment of involvement and enjoyment of cognitive tasks]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 25, 147-154. doi:urn:nbn:de:0070-bipr-17241
4. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2006). Epistemological beliefs, interest, and gender as predictors of Internet-based learning activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 1027-1042. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.026
5. Bromme, R., Kienhues, D., & Porsch, T. (2010). Who knows what and who can we believe? Epistemological beliefs are beliefs about knowledge (mostly) attained from others. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 163-193). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
6. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116
7. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197-253. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197
8. Crowley, A. E., & Hoyer, W. D. (1994). An integrative framework for understanding two-sided persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 561-574. doi:10.1086/209370
9. Donath, J. (1999). Identity and deception in the virtual community. In M. A. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp. 29-59). New York, NY: Routledge.
10. Donsbach, W. (1991). Exposure to political content in newspapers: The impact of cognitive dissonance on readers' selectivity. European Journal of Communication, 6, 155-186. doi:10.1177/0267323191006002003
11. Eisend, M. (2007). Understanding two-sided persuasion: An empirical assessment of theoretical approaches. Psychology & Marketing, 24, 615-640. doi:10.1002/mar.20176
12. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
13. Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2008). Digital media and youth: Unparalleled opportunity and unprecedented responsibility. In M. J. Metzger, & A. J. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 5-27). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. Friedman, S. M., Dunwoody, S., & Rogers, C. L. (Eds.). (1999). Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. Hagerty, M. R., & Aaker, D. A. (1984). A normative model of consumer information processing. Marketing Science, 3, 227-246. doi:10.1287/mksc.3.3.227
16. Hale, J. L., Mongeau, P. A., & Thomas, R. M. (1991). Cognitive processing of one- and two-sided persuasive messages. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 380-389. doi:10.1080/10570319109374394
17. Hart, W., Albarracín, D., Eagly, A. H., Brechan, I., Lindberg, M. J., & Merrill, L. (2009). Feeling validated versus being correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 555-588. doi:10.1037/a0015701
18. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies in opinion change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
19. Hovland, C. I., Lumsdaine, A. A., & Sheffield, F. D. (1949). Experiments on mass communication. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
20. Insko, C. A. (1967). Theories of attitude change. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
21. Johnson, T. J., Bichard, S. L., & Zhang, W. (2009). Communication communities or "cyberghettos?": A path analysis model examining factors that explain selective exposure to blogs. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15, 60-82. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01492.x
22. Judd, C. M., Kenny, D. A., & McClelland, G. H. (2001). Estimating and testing mediation and moderation in within-participant designs. Psychological Methods, 6, 115-134. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.6.2.115
23. Kardash, C. M., & Scholes, R. J. (1996). Effects of preexisting beliefs, epistemological beliefs, and need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issues. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 260-271. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.3.524
24. Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Meng, J. (2009). Looking the other way: selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counter-attitudinal political information. Communication Research, 36, 426-448. doi:10.1177/0093650209333030
25. Metzger, M. J. (2007). Making sense of credibility on the web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 2078-2091. doi:10.1002/asi.20672
26. O'Keefe, D. J. (1999). How to handle opposing arguments in persuasive messages: A meta-analytic review of the effects of one-sided and two-sided messages. In M. E. Roloff (Ed.), Communication yearbook 22 (pp. 209-249). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27. Pease, M. E., Brannon, L. A., & Pilling, V. K. (2006). Increasing selective exposure to health messages by targeting person versus behavior schemas. Health Communication, 19, 231-240. doi:10.1207/s15327027hc1903_5
28. Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., Loersch, C., & McCaslin, M. J. (2009). The need for cognition. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 318-329). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
29. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion. Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer Verlag.
30. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847-855. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.41.5.847
31. Petty, R. E., Rucker, D. D., Bizer G. Y., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2004). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In J. S. Seiter & R. H. Gass (Eds.), Perspectives on persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining (pp. 65-89). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
32. Pirolli, P., & Card, S. K. (1999). Information foraging. Psychological Review, 106, 643-675. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.643
33. Siegel, S. (1976). Nichtparametrische statistische Methoden [Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences]. Frankfurt, Germany: Fachbuchhandlung für Psychologie.
34. Sundar, S. S., Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Hastall, M. (2007). News cues: Do indicators of newsworthiness by newsbots affect our perception of news stories? Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 58, 366-378. doi:10.1002/asi.20511
35. Wilson, E. J., & Sherrell, D. L. (1993). Source effects in communication and persuasion research: A meta-analysis of effect size. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21, 101-112. doi:10.1007/BF02894421
36. Winter, S., Krämer, N. C., Appel, J., & Schielke, K. (2010). Information selection in the blogosphere - The effect of expertise, community rating, and age. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 802-807). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.