Skip to main content Accessibility help

How Does Treatment Self-Selection Affect Inferences About Political Communication?

  • Thomas J. Leeper (a1)


Ecological validity is vital to experimental research because designs that are too artificial may not speak to any real-world political phenomenon. One such concern is treatment of self-selection: if individuals in the real-world self-select treatments, such as political communications, how well does the sample average treatment effect estimate the effects of message exposure for those individuals who would—if given the choice—opt-in to and out of receiving treatment? This study shows that randomization masks effect heterogeneity between individuals who would select different messages if given the choice. Yet, such selections are themselves complex, revealing additional challenges for realistically studying treatments prone to self-selection. The evidence of effect heterogeneity raises questions about the appropriateness of random assignment experiments for studying political communication and the results more broadly advance our understanding of citizens’ selection into and responses to communications when, as they often do, have choice over what messages to receive.



Hide All
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Iyengar, Shanto, Simon, Adam F., and Valentino, Nicholas A.. 1994. “Does Attack Advertising Demobilize the Electorate?American Political Science Review 88 (4): 829–38.
Arceneaux, Kevin and Johnson, Martin. 2012. Changing Minds or Changing Channels? Media Effects in the Era of Viewer Choice. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Baum, Matthew A. 2002. “Sex, Lies, and War: How Soft News Brings Foreign Policy to the Inattentive Public.” American Political Science Review 96 (1): 91109.
Bennett, W. Lance and Iyengar, Shanto. 2008. “A New Era of Minimal Effects? The Changing Foundations of Political Communication.” Journal of Communication 58 (4): 707–31.
Berinsky, Adam J. and Kinder, Donald R.. 2006. “Making Sense of Issues Through Media Frames: Understanding the Kosovo Crisis.” The Journal of Politics 68 (3): 640–56.
Bolsen, Toby and Leeper, Thomas J.. 2013. “Self-Interest and Attention to News among Issue Publics.” Political Communication 30 (3): 329–48.
Brewer, Paul R. and Gross, Kimberly. 2005. “Values, Framing, and Citizens’ Thoughts about Policy Issues: Effects on Content and Quantity.” Political Psychology 26 (6): 929–48.
Chong, Dennis and Druckman, James N.. 2007. “Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies.” American Political Science Review 101 (4): 637–55.
Disch, Lisa. 2011. “Toward a Mobilization Conception of Democratic Representation.” American Political Science Review 105 (01): 100–14.
Ditto, Peter H., Scepansky, James A., Munro, Geoffrey D., Apanovitch, Anne Marie, and Lockhart, Lisa K.. 1998. “Motivated Sensitivity to Preference Inconsistent Information.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75 (1): 5369.
Druckman, James N., Fein, Jordan, and Leeper, Thomas J.. 2012. “A Source of Bias in Public Opinion Stability.” American Political Science Review 106 (2): 430–54.
Feldman, Lauren, Maibach, Edward W., Roser-Renouf, Connie, and Leiserowitz, Anthony A.. 2011. “Climate on Cable: The Nature and Impact of Global Warming Coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 17 (1): 331.
Gaines, Brian J. and Kuklinski, James H.. 2011a. “Experimental Estimation of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects Related to Self-Selection.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (3): 724–36.
Gaines, Brian J. and Kuklinski, James H.. 2011b. “Treatment Effects.” In Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, eds. Druckman, James N., Green, Donald P., Kuklinski, James H., and Lupia, Arthur. New York: Cambridge University Press, 445–58.
Garrett, R. Kelly. 2009a. “Echo Chambers Online? Politically Motivated Selective Exposure Among Internet News Users.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (2): 265–85.
Garrett, R. Kelly. 2009b. “Politically Motivated Reinforcement Seeking: Reframing the Selective Exposure Debate.” Journal of Communication 59 (4): 676–99.
Garrett, R. Kelly, Carnahan, Dustin, and Lynch, Emily K.. 2013. “A Turn Toward Avoidance? Selective Exposure to Online Political Information, 2004–2008.” Political Behavior 35 (1): 113–34.
Hart, William, Albarracín, Dolores, Eagly, Alice H., Brechan, Inge, Lindberg, Matthew J., and Merrill, Lisa. 2009. “Feeling Validated Versus Being Correct: A Meta-Analysis of Selective Exposure to Information.” Psychological Bulletin 135 (4): 555–88.
Holbrook, Allyson L., Berent, Matthew K., Krosnick, Jon A., Visser, Penny S., and Boninger, David S.. 2005. “Attitude Importance and the Accumulation of Attitude-Relevant Knowledge in Memory.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88 (5): 749–69.
Hovland, Carl I. 1959. “Reconciling Conflicting Results Derived from Experimental and Survey Studies of Attitude Change.” American Psychologist 14 (1): 817.
Iyengar, Shanto, and Kinder, Donald R.. 1987. News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago, IL: The University Of Chicago Press.
Iyengar, Shanto and Hahn, Kyu S.. 2009. “Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use.” Journal of Communication 59 (1): 1939.
Iyengar, Shanto, Hahn, Kyu S., Krosnick, Jon A., and Walker, John. 2008. “Selective Exposure to Campaign Communication: The Role of Anticipated Agreement and Issue Public Membership.” The Journal of Politics 70 (01): 186200.
Kim, Young Mie. 2007. “How Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations Interact in Selectivity: Investigating the Moderating Effects of Situational Information Processing Goals in Issue Publics’ Web Behavior.” Communication Research 34 (2): 185211.
Kunda, Ziva. 1990. “The Case for Motivated Reasoning.” Psychological Bulletin 108 (3): 480–98.
Lau, Richard R. and Redlawsk, David P.. 2006. How Voters Decide: Information Processing in Election Campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Leeper, Thomas J. 2014. “The Informational Basis for Mass Polarization.” Public Opinion Quarterly 78 (1): 2746.
Miller, Joanne M. and Krosnick, Jon A.. 2000. “News Media Impact on the Ingredients of Presidential Evaluations: Politically Knowledgeable Citizens are Guided by a Trusted Source.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (2): 301–15.
Nelson, Thomas E., Clawson, Rosalee A., and Oxley, Zoe M.. 1997. “Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance.” American Political Science Review 91 (3): 567–83.
Petty, Richard E. and Cacioppo, John T.. 1986. “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 19: 123205.
Prior, Markus. 2007. Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, Steven M., Fabrigar, Leandre R., and Norris, Meghan E.. 2008. “Reflecting on Six Decades of Selective Exposure Research: Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2 (1): 464493.
Stroud, Natalie Jomini. 2011. Niche News: The Politics of News Choice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Taber, Charles S., and Lodge, Milton. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 755–69.
Visser, Penny S., Holbrook, Allyson L., and Krosnick, Jon A.. 2007. “Knowledge and Attitudes.” In The SAGE Handbook of Public Opinion Research, eds. Donsbach, Wolfgang and Traugott, Michael W.. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 123–40.


Related content

Powered by UNSILO
Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Leeper supplementary material
Appendices A and B

 PDF (349 KB)
349 KB

How Does Treatment Self-Selection Affect Inferences About Political Communication?

  • Thomas J. Leeper (a1)


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.