Diverse exposure and deliberative practices revisited: proposing three motivations for disagreement processing

Abstract

ABSTRACT Individuals are normatively expected to consume diverse viewpoints to become good citizens capable of deliberation although empirical evidence does not necessarily support this norm. To explain this inconsistency, this study proposes three motivations for disagreement processing – defensive dismissal, defensive deliberation, and balanced deliberation – by drawing from theory of motivated reasoning and the Heuristic-Systematic Model. Analyses of a two-wave survey conducted in the U.S. highlight the importance of motivations behind diverse exposure – rather than mere exposure – in facilitating deliberative practices. Specifically, balanced deliberation motivations can promote cross-cutting discussion through diverse exposure whereas defensive motivations facilitate diverse news sharing on social media.