The influence of threat and right-wing authoritarianism on the selection of online (dis)information—a conceptual replication and extension of Lavine et al. (2005)

Abstract

Abstract Over the decades, communication research has investigated the situational and personal conditions under which people particularly prefer attitude-consistent over attitude-inconsistent content (confirmation bias). In a central study, Lavine et al. (2005) [Lavine, H., Lodge, M., & Freitas, K. (2005). Authoritarianism, threat, and motivated reasoning. Political Psychology, 26(2), 219–244.] examined how right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and threat cause bias when processing political information. Their laboratory experiment suggested that right-wing authoritarians prefer attitude-consistent information in the presence of a threat. Given new crisis environments accompanied by various threats, we re-examined this interaction effect and conceptually replicated Lavine et al.'s central hypothesis in a contemporary media environment. In an online experiment (N = 1,118), we focused on selective exposure to verified news and disinformation and tracked participants’ selection unobtrusively. Contrary to expectations, the interaction between different threats and RWA did not increase selective exposure to attitude-consistent (dis)information. The results challenge the hypothesis’ underlying framework and make it necessary to consider new ways of advancing the theoretical model.