Skip to main content

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.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      How Does Treatment Self-Selection Affect Inferences About Political Communication?
      Available formats
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      How Does Treatment Self-Selection Affect Inferences About Political Communication?
      Available formats
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      How Does Treatment Self-Selection Affect Inferences About Political Communication?
      Available formats
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.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Experimental Political Science
  • ISSN: 2052-2630
  • EISSN: 2052-2649
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-experimental-political-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Type Description Title
Supplementary Materials

Leeper supplementary material
Appendices A and B

 PDF (349 KB)
349 KB


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 14
Total number of PDF views: 97 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 356 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 14th September 2017 - 12th December 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.