Search

Political communication research has long sought to understand the effects of cross-cutting exposure on political participation. Here, we argue for a paradigm shift that acknowledges the agency of citizens as producers of cross-cutting expression on social media. We define cross-cutting expression as political communication through speech or behavior within a counter-attitudinal space. After explicating our conceptualization of cross-cutting expression, we empirically explore: its extent, its relationship to political arguments, and its implications for digital campaigning during the 2016 Brexit Referendum. Our dataset, comprising 2,198,741 comments from 344,884 users, is built from Facebook comments to three public campaign pages active during the Brexit referendum: StrongerIn, VoteLeave, and LeaveEU. We utilize reactions data to sort partisans into "Remain" and "Brexit" camps and, thereafter, chart users' commenting flows across the three pages. We estimate 29% of comments to be cross-cutting, and we find strong correlations between cross-cutting expression and reasoned political arguments. Then, to better understand how cross-cutting expression may influence political participation on social media, we topic model the dataset to identify the political themes discussed during the Brexit debate on Facebook. Our findings suggest that political Facebook pages are not echo chambers, that cross-cutting expression correlates with reasoned political arguments, and that cross-cutting expression may influence the online voter mobilization potential of political Facebook pages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As misperceptions undermine the factual basis for public debate, they pose a serious challenge to expert knowledge and the democratic legitimacy of public policy informed by expert evidence. In this paper, we theorize that in times of politicization and polarization of expertise, endorsement of expert information by a minipublic can serve to legitimize expert correction and render it more persuasive in the eyes of individuals. In developing our theoretical argument, we focus on the effect of a minipublic on individuals in the wider public – those who did not participate in such institutions. To test our theoretical predictions, we designed, pre-registered and fielded two experiments in the US (N = 2168) and one experiment in Ireland (N = 1125), during two different waves of COVID-19. The results show that minipublic endorsement significantly increases the uptake of expert information among (nonparticipating) citizens. Furthermore, when an expert correction explicitly asserts a scientific consensus, it is as effective as the minipublic endorsement. The findings have implications for the research on misperceptions, expertise and deliberative institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

High degrees of incivility and hostility in comment sections potentially threaten a deliberative and inclusive discussion atmosphere. News outlets are struggling with effectively moderating such discussions. This study investigates the novel approach of collective civic moderation (CCM) – a strategic and concerted moderation effort by groups of citizens that aims at improving the quality of online discussions. Using the example of the German action group #ichbinhier (#iamhere), whose members collectively engage in Facebook comment sections of news outlets, we analyze whether CCM comments live up to norms of deliberation and whether these comments stimulate deliberative discussions. Findings from a quantitative content analysis show that comments written by #ichbinhier members are more rational, reciprocal, and constructive, and less uncivil and impolite than comments written by nonmembers. Rational, constructive, and polite comments are associated with more deliberative comments in the subsequent discussions. Normative and practical implications of these findings are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent political theory in the areas of dialogic and deliberative democracy has placed particular emphasis on the importance of listening in contexts in which people disagree strongly, have competing (and potentially incompatible) interests, or are otherwise profoundly different. Despite this theoretical attention, there is very little empirical research directly examining the concept of listening – especially across lines of difference – in the political context. In this article we present two studies on race and political listening. Study 1 employs a large, diverse national U.S. adult sample and demonstrates that there are some differences – including race-related differences – in the general tendency toward political listening. Study 2, using a large, diverse national sample of U.S. adults, shifts emphasis from overall tendencies in listening during political talk to specific, situational listening with a particular discussion partner. Across three different (randomly assigned) race-related topics, using a method of imagined interactions to simulate such discussions, we find that Blacks (compared to Whites), individuals with fewer opposite-race relatives, and those who do not identify with the opposite race were significantly more likely to report it being "hard" to truly listen during discussion with a cross-race partner. Together, these findings highlight the importance of race itself, racial identity, experience with cross-race interactions, and race-related topics, to the study of political listening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The exchange of diverse points of view in elite deliberation is considered a cornerstone of democracy. This study presents evidence that variations in political motivation for media use predict the tendency of politicians to present deliberative rhetoric that considers multiple points of view regarding issues and sees those views as related to one another. We surveyed 111 incumbent Members of Parliament in Belgium, Canada, and Israel and analyzed a large sample of their parliamentary speeches. The findings demonstrate that motivation to attain media coverage and act upon information from the news media leads politicians to strategically display simple and unidimensional rhetoric due to newsworthiness considerations, but only in countries where the media constitute important resources for reelection. The results contribute to extant literature by demonstrating a media effect on elite deliberation and by emphasizing the moderating role of political systems on the nature of elite rhetoric. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Across three separate experiments, I find that exposure to negative political information continues to shape attitudes even after the information has been effectively discredited. I call these effects “belief echoes.” Results suggest that belief echoes can be created through an automatic or deliberative process. Belief echoes occur even when the misinformation is corrected immediately, the “gold standard” of journalistic fact-checking. The existence of belief echoes raises ethical concerns about journalists’ and fact-checking organizations’ efforts to publicly correct false claims. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Do formal deliberative events influence larger patterns of political discussion and public opinion? Critics argue that only a tiny number of people can participate in any given gathering and that deliberation may not remedy—and may in fact exacerbate—inequalities. We assess these criticisms with an experimental design merging a formal deliberative session with data on participants’ social networks. We conducted a field experiment in which randomly selected constituents attended an online deliberative session with their U.S. Senator. We find that attending the deliberative session dramatically increased interpersonal political discussion on topics relating to the event. Importantly, after an extensive series of moderation checks, we find that no participant/nodal characteristics, or dyadic/network characteristics, conditioned these effects; this provides reassurance that observed, positive spillovers are not limited to certain portions of the citizenry. The results of our study suggest that even relatively small-scale deliberative encounters can have a broader effect in the mass public, and that these events are equal-opportunity multipliers. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The ideal of deliberation requires that citizens engage in reasonable discussion despite disagreements. In practice, if their experience is to match this normative ideal, participants in an actual deliberation should prefer moderate disagreement to conflict-free discussion within homogeneous groups, and to conflict-driven discussion where differences are intractable. This article proposes a research design and methods for assessing the quality of a deliberative event based on the perceptions of the participants themselves. In a structured deliberative event, over 2,000 individuals were assigned to small groups composed of about 10 persons of varying levels of ideological difference to discuss health care reform in California. We find that participants experience higher satisfaction with deliberation under moderate ideological difference than when they are in homogeneous or in highly disparate groups. That moderate disagreement induces optimal deliberation is consistent with normative expectations and empirically demonstrates the deliberative quality of this event. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

How does discussion lead to opinion change during deliberation? I formulate and test hypotheses based on theories of persuasion, and examine them against other possible sources of deliberative opinion change. Through detailed analysis of a nationally representative deliberative event I create a full discussion network for each small group that deliberated by recording who said what, the argument quality for what was said, and to whom it was directed. I find that well-justified arguments made in the context of direct engagement between peers are a consistent predictor of opinion change. Individual-level persuasion, not knowledge-driven refinement or extremity, drives most opinion change. These results show that further deliberative research needs to account for persuasion when explaining deliberative opinion change. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The present study focuses on how different features of discussion networks and the contexts in which they reside are related to political ambivalence, participation, and knowledge. Using full sociometric network data derived from 25 different student activity organizations, we reveal complex implications of various facets of discussion networks and their contextual settings. Ambivalence is amplified by being highly central within a discussion network and a political minority within the group. Diversity of one’s egocentric discussion network increases participation, whereas closeness centrality was negatively correlated with participation. High levels of betweenness centrality were most positively associated with knowledge in groups that were relatively political in their orientation compared to those that were apolitical. The results support the argument that communication networks and the contextual settings in which they are situated should be more fully considered in the study of political communication effects. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Although deliberative democratic theory values the principle of publicity, few empirical studies systematically assess the public communication of civic groups that deliberate over policy. The proliferation of such groups in contemporary politics, and of uncertainty about their legitimacy, suggests the need for such study. Drawing on contemporary deliberative theory, we derive a set of legitimate publicity indicators for assessing how well groups report their deliberative processes and policy conclusions. We demonstrate the reliability and utility of these measures in a comparative content analysis of the final reports of three common kinds of deliberative bodies: a government-stakeholder task force, an activist strategy group, and a citizen consensus conference. We conclude by suggesting an agenda for further research on the perceived legitimacy of publicity about deliberative processes, outcomes, and impacts on the policy process. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Although deliberative scholarship is often concerned with disagreement, two issues remain unaddressed. Little is known about individual characteristics that make people perceive disagreement during deliberation. Even less is known about perceptual accuracy. Do people accurately report the disagreement they encounter in deliberative settings? This study addresses these gaps. We draw on a sample of participants in structured and moderated online groups to (a) analyze the factors that lead people to report disagreement and (b) test the correspondence between perceived and objective measures. In general, we find that the two sets of measures corresponded only weakly, but that objective disagreement had somewhat greater impact on perceived disagreement on three value-laden and contentious issues. Holding extreme positions on the issues discussed did not affect perceived disagreement, and political knowledge exerted only limited effects. Still, both opinion extremity and knowledge did—on some issues—increase sensitivity to opposing views when they were actually expressed in discussion. Practical and theoretical implications are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While research on democratic deliberation has burgeoned, little systematic work has been done on the effects of the communication content of deliberations. We examine how expressions of agreement and disagreement during online deliberation affect participants' evaluations of their experience, including satisfaction, reevaluation of opinions, and expected future participation. The effects of these evaluations on perceived legitimacy and opinion ambivalence also are considered. Several alternative hypotheses are entertained, including avoidance, in which high disagreement reduces evaluations; reevaluation, in which high disagreement enhances evaluations; sociability, in which high agreement enhances evaluations; balance, which suggests that a balance of agreement and disagreement would enhance evaluations; and disequilibrium, which indicates that high agreement and low disagreement and the reverse yield good evaluations. The hypotheses are tested with survey data and a discussion content analysis of a representative sample of 179 individuals who participated in a deliberation experiment. Findings indicate that deliberation evaluations are important for decision legitimacy and ambivalence. Also, the sociability hypothesis is strongly confirmed for satisfaction. The disequilibrium hypothesis is confirmed for future engagement. The avoidance hypothesis is not supported, contesting the prevalent view that people seek to avoid political disagreements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conflict seeking is celebrated in advocacy of civil disobedience as a commitment of youth to transcendent principles that compel activism. Conflict avoidance, however, is far more prevalent as an explanatory theme in political socialization research. Nevertheless, it is possible to imagine undercurrents of defiance in the seemingly controlled and disciplinary environments of the home and the classroom. We propose that high schools and families—as overlapping spheres of interpersonal political communication—can engender ideological conflict seeking during election campaigns as activity conducive to moral-political identity development. Ideological conflict seeking was modeled as inclination to openly disagree, which fosters support for confrontational activism. Evidence was obtained from multiple interviews of student-parent dyads across two election cycles in Arizona, Colorado, and Florida. In validating a theoretical model confined to the ordinary political communication that occurs in classrooms and households, we highlight ideological conflict seeking as a focal concept deserving a more explicit role in the theory of civic identity development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article develops a normative model of public deliberation and proposes ways to apply it in the comparative empirical analysis of political media content. In the first part of the article, a set of normative claims connected to deliberativeness is explicated that revises some of the familiar claims found in the literature. Deliberative media content, it is argued, can provide a repository of diverging justifications for political positions as well as model deliberative behavior in audiences. In conjunction with an attentive, deliberating public, deliberative media content can also serve to procure and withdraw legitimation with respect to political decisions and the polity as a whole. In the second part of the article, a new research design is proposed that operationalizes deliberativeness in print media by taking into account apparent differences in the cultures of journalism. The proposal involves measuring deliberativeness on four different levels of analysis - the idea, the utterance, the article, and the page/edition - as well as in three different political/cultural contexts - the liberal, democratic corporatist, and polarized pluralist models of media and politics as distinguished by Hallin and Mancini. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research has found that face-to-face deliberation can result in aggregate shifts in participants' political views. What is less well known is how such attitude changes vary depending on individual attributes and the nature of a group's deliberation. The present study extends prior research by exploring the relationship between participant ideology and attitude change in small, face-to-face groups. To test a set of hypotheses and research questions, 57 zero-history groups discussed three different public problems for 30-60 minutes, and each participant completed pre- and postdiscussion questionnaires. Participant ideology had a clear association with changes on specific discussion-related issues, but participants from every ideological group experienced increased differentiation between ideologically distinct attitudes. Within-group variance in attitude change was positively correlated with average group scores on self-reported measures of deliberation, extraversion, and conscientiousness. The conclusion discusses these and other findings in relation to future research and public deliberation programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study explores the meaning and origins of deliberative political conversation, characterized by an openness to political conflict, the absence of conversational dominance, clear and reasonable argument, and mutual comprehension. Adapting McLeod, Scheufele, and Moy's (1999) model of democratic engagement, we posit a series of relationships among discussion networks, media use, political cognition, and public participation. Using two divergent samples - one consisting of 149 adult literacy students and another comprising 130 public forum participants - we test the model's utility as a predictor of deliberative conversation. Structural equation modeling indicates that network characteristics had mixed effects. Print media use and interpersonal discussion tended to enhance deliberative conversation, and television news viewing hindered both the reasonableness of one's arguments and the comprehension of others' views. Taken together, these results suggest that the deliberative quality of public talk has a complex relationship with common predictors of other political communication behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to examine more closely the assumptions of causality in research on communication and political knowledge. Although most communication theory suggests that communication causes learning, some have argued for the reverse causal direction or reciprocal causality. Others have confounded these concepts—in conjunction with political interest—in measures of political “sophistication” or “expertise.” We collected panel data (N = 1,109) on a national sample in June and November 2000. We employed a model comparison approach to identify the best fitting model among alternatives that included models of unidirectional and reciprocal causality in both lagged and synchronous models, controlling for prior political interest and various demographic factors. The data are most consistent with a model of causality that is unidirectional running from Time 2 measures of news use and political discussion to Time 2 political knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The theme of the Internet and the public sphere now has a permanent place on research agendas and in intellectual inquiry; it is entering the mainstream of political communication studies. The first part of this presentation briefly pulls together key elements in the public sphere perspective, underscoring three main analytic dimensions: the structural, the representational, and the interactional. Then the discussion addresses some central themes in the current difficulties facing democracy, refracted through the lens of the public sphere perspective. In particular, the destabilization of political communication systems is seen as a context for understanding the role of the Internet: It enters into, as well as contributes to, this destabilization. At the same time, the notion of destabilization can also embody a positive sense, pointing to dispersions of older patterns that may have outlived their utility. Further, the discussion takes up obvious positive consequences that follow from the Internet, for example that it extends and pluralizes the public sphere in a number of ways. Thereafter the focus moves on to the interactional dimension of the public sphere, specifically in regard to recent research on how deliberation proceeds in the online public sphere in the contemporary environment of political communication. Finally, the analytic category of deliberative democracy is critically examined; while useful, some of its rationalist biases, particularly in the context of extra-parliamentarian politics, limit its utility. It is suggested that the concept of civic cultures offers an alternative way to understand the significance of online political discussion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article investigates 16 organizations that attempt to foster better public deliberation in local and national communities. It develops a typology of these organizations and discusses them in the context of the scholarly literature on deliberative democracy. It particularly focuses upon the contributions these organizations may make to debates within the literature between advocates of relational and rational modes of deliberation. It finds that, much like the literature, practitioners of deliberative democracy wrestle with the competing demands of inclusiveness and group cohesion. Organizations attempt to solve this dilemma by stressing group action. However, this emphasis on action raises another dilemma associated with the relation between deliberative and representative models of politics. The essay concludes by suggesting that these organizations have accepted the challenge of improving public life through discourse that has been laid down by deliberative democratic theory. As such, they represent a natural experiment in deliberative democracy that deserves the serious attention of the scholarly community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A new measure of opinion quality that we name "argument repertoire" (AR) is introduced and evaluated. AR refers to the relevant reasons that one has for one's own opinions and the relevant reasons that others with opposite opinions might have. The measure is shown to be reliable and to have construct validity. Those with elevated AR also were more likely to attend on-line deliberative groups during the presidential election and to contribute to those conversations. Those who participated in online deliberations tended to have higher AR scores on particular issues that were discussed. The role of AR in deliberative political groups is explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focuses on the increase of economic concentration in the media industry in the United States. Influence of tabloid media on the content of mainstream media; Exposure of the public to breaking news events in the medium of news and entertainment channels; Impact of sensational news on the enhancement of public engagement.

Argues on the necessity of face-to-face setting of citizen deliberation in the United States. Deliberation by the democratic theorists as a central feature of democratic process; Need of the advocates of face-to-face citizen deliberation to make convincing argument for deliberation; Significance of the Internet citizen discussion.

In modern democracies, public deliberation is often mediated; it largely involves not face-to-face debate among citizens, but discussion among public officials, experts, and professional communicators through the mass media. Close examination of a particular instance of public deliberation — the quick rejection of the Bush White House charge that the 1992 Los Angeles riots were caused by failed social programs of the 1960s and 1970s — reveals several features of mediated deliberation that may be rather general: the great speed with which communication can occur; the differing editorial stands of particular print and electronic media; the ways in which editorial positions are reflected in news stories; and the leading roles of such elite newspapers as the Wall Street journal, New York Times, and Washington Post. This case also suggests conditions under which the communications power of the presidency are limited, and it illustrates some of the political currents that brought the Bush presidency to an end. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]