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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
