Gastil & Dillard. (1999). Increasing Political Sophistication Through Public...

Does information make individuals move left or right? Framing effects?

Face-to-face deliberation will result in (1) more coherent and certain political judgments and (2) more integrated and differentiated political judgments, and reduced attitudinal uncertainly.

Deliberative Democratic Theory: deliberation aids in the development of political sophistication. (discussion and reflection) (Barber 1984, Fishkin 1991,1995; Gastil & Adam 1995).

Test this claim: authors studied associations between face-to-face political deliberation and subsequent changes in the coherence, integration, differentiation, and detail of participants’ political beliefs (dep. var). authors administered questionnaire pre and post deliberative discussions of political issues.

Clarification
Schema: a cognitive structure that represents one’s general knowledge about a given concept (Fiske & Taylor 1984, 12; also Eagly and Chaiken 1993). I.e. liberal and conservative schemas; liberalism: individual freedom, egalitarianism, tolerance, social change, secular rationality, and constitutional participatory democracy that protects minority interests. Conservatism: religion, morality, status quo, natural inequality, competition, personal liberty, initiative, and property emphasis.

(1) Schematic coherence: an issue is clearly and CONSISTENTLY defined.
(2) Integrated and differentiated beliefs: ideologically (liberalism/conservatism) consistent
Schematic cohernce and certainty will come from modeling and experiential learning.
Schematic integration a nd differentiation will develop through other educational processes—instruction and inference. Persuasion.

First set of hypotheses test the effects of deliberation on political sophistical:

H1: part. With more formal education will express perform attitudes that reflect:
a. greater internal coherence (inter-item correlations with attitude scale)
b. greater schematic integration (positive correlation of ideologically similar scales)
c. greater schematic differentiation (negative correlation of dissimilar scales) and
d. lower attitudinal uncertainty (fewer DK responses).

Second set of hypotheses test the effect of deliberation on participants pre-forum opinions, regardless of initial sophistication level.

H2 In comparison with pre-forums opinions, participants post-forum political views will show:
a. greater schematic coherence
b. more schematic integration
c. more schematic differentiation
d. reduced attitudinal uncertainty

Data:
7 issue books—pre and postforum data;
participants completed NIF ballots between 1991 and 1993; 88% white; 58% female

To test the 2 sets of hypotheses an educ attainment ballot was trichotomized: (1) some high school or diploma, (2) some college or 4 year degree and (3) some grad schoool/grd degree.
Set 1:
Schematic integration: 2 liberal scales or 2 conservative scales
Schematic differentiation: negative correlation between ideologically dissimilar scales.
Attitudinal uncertainty = DKs.

Set 2:
Analysis of change scores (subtracting pre attitude score and post).

Findings:
H1a: few stat sig diffs among schem coherence for all three educ groups.
H2a: same

H1b: supported
H2b: supported

H1c: supported
H2c: supported

H1d: supported
H2d: supported

Conclusion: NIF deliberation had a short-term effect on the sophistication of participants’ schematic networks. After forums, they had more diff and integrated views and exhibited less attit uncertainty. Well, if DK is also associated with people who don’t vote, we can assume its not ambivalence but low information-levels.

Class notes:
How do we recognize when someone is “open” instead of “uncertain?”
Questions posed and criticisms made:
Also, why is consistency associated with informed?
Are we talking about “change” of opinion or “reinforcement” of opinion? Which is bad, if the original opinion was inconsistent with the persons interests?
Plus, NIF forces one to have an opinion—what if this opinion is merely held for the duration of the discussion.

Druckman (2004)

Framing effects: your preferences are changed by the “frame.” This is why we are concerned about the media’s role; how much power do they have?

After deliberation, people are less affected by the frames. W00t.

Hetero discussion—most change.

Homo discussion—still change from condition form when there was no discussion.

No discussion-least amount of change.

Counter-frame: CNN and Fox
What happens when you are exposed to both frames? i.e. CNN and Fox. Decrease framing effects. And you end up with “authentic” opinion, which is consistent with your values (liberalism/conservatism).

Neutrality = no counter-frame. What happens here?

Barabas (2004)

How does deliberation work? Why do we always assume deliberative effects are good?

Where is deliberation working?

Barabas measures enlightenment, normal conversation (as opposed to just be exposed to arguments).
Moderated.
Key var: need to be open-minded. People had to be reminded to be open-minded.

Must have a diversity of opinion and open-mindedness to have deliberation.

Hypotheses (690)
Ideal, achieve consensus?
Expects deliberation will have a positive effect on enlightenment.
Effects on softening ones view?

What is about the information environment that fosters authentic opinions?
Framing leads to increased polarization?
To decrease polarization we need more moderated frames?


Issue 1: Free Speech: How Free is Too Free
Choice 1: The case for legal sanctions (Conservative 1a)
Choice 2: The private-sector solutions (Conservative 1b)
Choice 3: More speech, not enforced silence (Liberal 3)

Issue 2: America’s Role in the World: New Risks, New Realities
Choice 1: support for a superpower strategy (Conservative 1)
Choice 2:support for a multilateral approach (Liberal 3)

Issue 3: Energy Options: Finding a Solution to the Power Predicament
Choice 1: support for alternatives such as wind and solar (Liberal 2)
Choice 2: support for nucmear power (Conservative 3)
Choice 3: reduce use of energy and oil (Liberal 4a)
Choice 4: we are in an energy crisis (Liberal 4b)

Issue 4: Prescription for Prosperity: Four Paths to Economic Renewel
Choice 1: support free market (Conservative 1)
Choice 2: support for public investment (Liberal 2)
Choice 3: interventionist industrial policy (Liberal 4)

Issue 5: Criminal Violence: What Direction Now for the War on Crime
Choice 1: support for tough laws (Conservative 1)
Choice 2: social reform approach (Liberal 3)
Choice 3: Strict sentences (Conservative 3)

Issue 6: The Health Care Crisis: Containing Costs, Expanding Coverage
Choice 1: support of status quo (Conservative 1)
Choice 2: support of universal health care (Liberal 2)
Choice 3: cost-cutting approach (Liberal 4)

Issue 7: People and Politics: Who Should Govern?
Choice 1: All liberal

Results:
Schematic Integration H1b and H2b (positively associated with formal education)
Educ scale (1 hs, 2 college, 3 grad)
Conservative s.i. preforum statistically significant for free speech
1 .57
2 .61
3 .71
also statistic sig. preforum: (study numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) Environment on all liberal scales, economy for liberal scales, crime for conservative scales, healthcare for liberal scales, and all of item 7 (liberal scales).

Schmematic Differentiation H1c H2c (differentiation of liberals from conservatives)
Significant in 5 of the 7 studies) im not sure how they measured this

Attitude Certainty H1d H2d (comparison of “not sure/DK” answers
H2d was supported in all 7 studies—thus fewer DKs after deliberation

Conclusions (15)