People choose information sources that agree with their existing views more often than sources that challenge them.
The tendency was inferred from dissonance theory and has been tested extensively since. The consistent finding is a preference of roughly two to one for congenial material rather than an avoidance of the uncongenial, and exposure to opposing views online is often higher than for offline media. The mechanism is real; the popular account of its magnitude is not.
In practice
- A reader who chooses one paper still encounters the other side through it, quoted disapprovingly.
- A team that recruits for cultural fit filters more gently than it believes, and more than it intends.
- Possible explanations
- One explanation is dissonance avoidance, the original account. Another is efficiency, since congenial sources are easier to process and likelier to be trusted. A third is social, as media choice signals group membership.
- In its favour
- Meta-analysis finds a real preference of roughly two to one for congenial material, which is a reliable and repeatedly measured effect.
- Against it
- The strong version, that people avoid opposing views, is not supported: most people encounter disagreeable material regularly, and researchers who study media diets argue that echo chamber claims overstate it.
- Standing
- Meta-analysis finds a real but moderate preference, and the strong version, that people avoid opposing views altogether, is not supported. Researchers who study media diets argue that echo chamber claims overstate it.
- Further reading
- Wikipedia
- Subject
- Communication & Media
- Essay
- What happens to a message after it is sent