Broaden Your Palate¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 2 claims (2 for) · 7 studies (3 causal, 3 quant-synthesis, 1 associational), q2–q4 · 2 of 7 report an effect size

Description¶

Learners make a deliberate practice of checking news and information sources whose political orientation differs from their own. The goal is not to accept opposing claims uncritically but to know what other audiences are consuming, test the quality of those sources with the same evaluation criteria applied to favored ones, and remain open to the possibility that some falsehoods are sincerely held rather than cynically manufactured. The practice also includes supporting reliable journalism financially, since gathering accurate information is not free and payment aligns a source's incentives with the reader's.

Design Implications¶

The strategy targets biased assimilation and selective exposure: people evaluate identical evidence more favorably when it confirms their prior commitments [~S], and deliberately diversifying one's information diet is one of the few practical countermeasures available to an individual reader. Encountering opposing framings works best when learners actively compare and explain across sources rather than passively skimming Self-explanation improves conceptual understanding. [+M]. Contrasting how multiple outlets cover the same event supports abstraction of the underlying reporting patterns, much as contrasting cases support concept formation Multiple contrasting cases support abstraction. [+M].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Access to a range of news sources across the political spectrum, including paywalled or subscription outlets
• A shared set of evaluation criteria (sourcing, corrections policy, separation of news and opinion) applied uniformly to all sources
• Time and willingness to read material the learner expects to disagree with
• Financial means to subscribe to or donate to reliable outlets, where feasible

Constraints¶

• Mere exposure to opposing views can backfire: corrections of politically charged misbeliefs sometimes strengthen them rather than weaken them [~S], so breadth without structured reflection can entrench positions
• Selective exposure is motivated as well as cognitive; learners with strong identity-protective cognition may perform the practice superficially, skimming opposing sources only to dismiss them [-M]
• False equivalence is a risk: treating all sources as equally credible in the name of balance undermines the evaluative purpose; the strategy must be paired with source-quality judgment, not replace it [-M]
• Requires sustained effort and, for paywalled sources, financial resources that not all learners have

Implementation Variability¶

• Lateral reading protocol: learners check what other outlets — including opposing ones — say about a source itself before trusting its claims
• Paired-source comparison: read the same story in a favored and an opposing outlet, annotating differences in framing, sourcing, and omitted context
• Weekly audit: track one's own information diet and set a quota of sources outside one's usual orientation
• Discussion-based variant: pairs or classes with differing views exchange and evaluate each other's sources using shared criteria

Target Learners¶

• Adolescents through adults with established news habits and political priors, who are most susceptible to selective exposure [~S]
• Learners in media literacy, civics, or critical thinking courses who already possess basic source-evaluation skills
• Less effective for learners with no baseline evaluation criteria, who may lack the tools to distinguish credible from non-credible opposing sources

Target Learning Goals¶

• Media literacy: evaluating source credibility consistently across one's own and others' preferred outlets
• Perspective-taking: understanding what information environments other audiences inhabit; Building Empathy supports this goal [+W]
• Epistemic humility: recognizing that sincere error, not only bad faith, produces much misinformation
• Civic dispositions: sustaining reliable journalism through financial support

Instructions¶

1. Identify your current information diet: list the outlets you read regularly and characterize their political orientation.
2. Select two or three reputable outlets that lean differently from your own orientation, applying the same credibility tests (sourcing, corrections, news/opinion separation) you would apply anywhere.
3. Read a story on a shared topic from both a favored and an opposing source, annotating differences in framing, story selection, and omitted context.
4. When you encounter a claim that conflicts with your beliefs, treat it as a Cognitive Conflict to be examined rather than immediately dismissed or accepted; check the underlying evidence before responding.
5. Practice Argumentation in both directions: state the strongest version of the opposing source's case before critiquing it.
6. Compare notes with others in a Class Discussion, focusing on what each source covered that the other omitted.
7. If a source consistently passes your evaluation tests, support it with a subscription or donation.

Related Strategies¶

• Lateral reading and source-checking routines — the evaluation method that keeps breadth from collapsing into false equivalence
• Structured academic controversy — pairs opposing-source reading with argued position-taking, converting exposure into structured engagement
• Reflection journals — consolidate what contrasting coverage reveals about framing and omission

Examples¶

• A civics class assigns all students to read the same week's coverage of a policy debate from both a left-leaning and a right-leaning outlet (e.g., comparing coverage across outlets such as The Wall Street Journal and The Guardian), then maps differences in sourcing and emphasis.
• An adult media-literacy course uses a weekly "palate audit": learners log their reading, note the ideological mix, and set a target share of sources outside their usual orientation.
• Newsroom-style training (e.g., exercises modeled on the News Literacy Project's Checkology curriculum) asks learners to evaluate whether a source passes professional standards regardless of its political slant.

Key Sources¶

• Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098
• Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303–330. doi:10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2
• Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188, 39–50. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3165567
• Wood, T., & Porter, E. (2019). The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes' steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior, 41(1), 135–163. doi:10.1007/s11109-018-9443-y