R. Kelly Garrett Headshot

R. Kelly Garrett

Professor and Interim Director, OSU School of Communication, Ohio State University-Main Campus
Chapter Member: Central Ohio SSN
Areas of Expertise:

Connect with R. Kelly

About R. Kelly

Garrett's research concerns online political communication, online news, and the ways in which citizens and activists use new technologies to shape their engagement with contentious political topics. He has secured over $1 million in research funding from organizations including the National Science Foundation and Facebook. His work has been published in a number of outlets, including Science Advances, JAMA Network Open, the Journal of Communication, Political Behavior, the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, and Daedalus.

In the News

Opinion: "Facebook's Problem is More Complicated than Fake News," R. Kelly Garrett, The Conversation, November 16, 2016.
Opinion: "Making Sense of the Scalia Conspiracy Theory," R. Kelly Garrett, The Conversation, February 22, 2016.
Opinion: "Facebook May Be Biased Against Conservative Stories. But Conservatives May Also Be Biased Against Facebook.," R. Kelly Garrett, London School of Economics, May 17, 2015.
Opinion: "Our Partisan Brains: Exploring the Psychology Behind Denying Science," R. Kelly Garrett (with Erik C. Nisbet), The Conversation, March 12, 2015.
Opinion: "Americans Don't Live in Partisan News Echo Chambers," R. Kelly Garrett (with Dustin Carnahan and Emily K. Lynch), London School of Economics, October 14, 2013.


"A Turn Toward Avoidance? Selective Exposure to Online Political Information, 2004-2008" (with Dustin Carnahan and Emily K. Lynch). Political Behavior 35, no. 1 (2013): 113-134.

Disproves the conventional wisdom that Americans' online news consumption grows steadily more insular. Reveals that individuals who use pro-attitudinal news sites, the more likely they are to use counterattitudinal sites than those who don't.

"The Promise and Peril of Real-Time Corrections to Political Misperceptions" (with Brian E. Weeks). Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (2013): 1047-1058.

Shows that embedding factual corrections within an inaccurate news story is less effective than presenting them after a short delay among individuals predisposed to believe the falsehood.

"Driving a Wedge Between Evidence and Beliefs: How Online Ideological News Exposure Promotes Political Misperceptions" (with Brian E.Weeks and Rachel L. Neo). Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 21, no. 5 (2016): 331-348.

Discusses how using partisan online news makes individuals more likely to believe political falsehoods, even when they know about evidence contradicting those untruths.

"Echo Chambers Online?: Politically Motivated Selective Exposure among Internet News Users" Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14, no. 2 (2009): 265-285.

Discusses that, when choosing among online news stories, people are more attracted to information that affirms their viewpoint than they are repelled by information that challenges that viewpoint.

"Partisan Paths to Exposure Diversity: Differences in Pro- and Counterattitudinal News Consumption" (with Natalie Jomini Stroud). Journal of Communication 64, no. 4 (2014): 680-701.

Shows that Democrats and Republicans exhibit different news preferences: Democrats are uniquely attracted to news stories that include pro-attitudinal content, while Republicans have a distinct aversion to one-sided counterattitudinal news.  Examines that neither group exhibits a systematic one-sided pro-attitudinal news.

"Implications of Pro- and Counterattitudinal Information Exposure for Affective Polarization" (with Shira Dvir Gvirsman, Benjamin K. Johnson, Yariv Tsfati, Rachel Neo, and Aysenur Dal). Human Communication Research 40, no. 3 (2014): 309-332.

Illustrates that, using partisan news sites that affirm one's political affiliations promotes more polarized attitudes toward other citizens. Demonstrates that those sharing the individual's political orientation are seen more favorably, while those holding a different view are seen more negatively.