Abstract
This chapter aims to understand how readers perceive sensational headlines about outgroup members/issues. It reports the results of a randomized controlled experiment to compare the effects of viewing (1) a positive headline, (2) a negative headline, (3) no headline, or (4) both positive and negative (conflicting) news headlines about socio-political issues. Participants in the study included 429 university students from the United States (N = 217) and Pakistan (N = 212). Outcomes were recorded as feelings toward the person, or social issue in the news story. The responses were aggregated to form four categories: pro-Trump, anti-immigration, pro-honor killing, and pro-killing for Islam. Using multiple analysis of variance and multiple regression analysis, the authors found that the valence of the news headline did not have a significant effect on people’s beliefs about the issue, whereas the individual’s pre-existing personality traits (RWA and SDO) strongly predicted how they responded. The results are consistent with the idea that sensational headlines in the media may not evoke a strong response from the audience, at least after a single exposure, and that people tend to interpret events in line with their pre-existing beliefs.