🔎 The Puzzle

Many Americans consume ideologically aligned news, prompting proposals to encourage exposure to opposing outlets as a way to reduce polarization. Motivated reasoning theory, however, warns that confronting people with uncongenial information can backfire and deepen division. Drawing on the idea that sustained exposure to novel information can overcome motivated reasoning—and that partisan outlets on opposite sides often report different facts—this study tests whether regular consumers of one partisan source will learn and moderate when repeatedly exposed to the opposing outlet.

📺 How the test was run

• Recruitment relied on actual TV viewership data to identify regular Fox News viewers.
• A randomized treatment assigned a group of these viewers to watch CNN instead for one month, with incentives provided to encourage compliance.
• Outcomes measured included factual learning and changes in attitudes on issues covered by the outlets.

🧾 Key Findings

• Watching CNN for a sustained period produced substantial learning about topics covered by the outlet.
• Exposure to cross-cutting coverage also moderated participants' attitudes in those same domains.
• These results run contrary to straightforward predictions from motivated reasoning: sustained contact with uncongenial news did not exacerbate polarization but led to measurable change.

💡 Why This Matters

• Evidence suggests that sustained consumption of cross-cutting media can alter both knowledge and attitudes among partisans, at least on issues actually covered by the opposing outlet.
• Findings have implications for media interventions aimed at reducing polarization and for understanding how partisan outlets shape public knowledge.

⚠️ Broader Implications

• The study closes by highlighting persistent challenges that partisan media pose for democratic deliberation, even as cross-exposure appears capable of producing learning and moderation in specific domains.