Biased political reasoning and relational inferences in a small-group deliberative context

References

• Bartels, L. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24(2), 117–150. doi:10.1023/A:1021226224601
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black, L. W. (2009). Listening to the city: Difference, identity, and storytelling in online deliberative groups. Journal of Public Deliberation, 5(1), 4.
   Google Scholar
• Bohman, J. (1997). Deliberative democracy and effective social freedom: Capabilities, resources, and opportunities. In J. Bohman & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics (pp. 321–348). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brinker, D. (2017).The Relational Basis of Democratic Legitimacy (Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University).
   Google Scholar
• Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1984). The fundamental topoi of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 193–214. doi:10.1080/03637758409390195
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgoon, J. K., Johnson, M. L., & Koch, P. T. (1998). The nature and measurement of interpersonal dominance. Communications Monographs, 65(4), 308–335.
   Google Scholar
• Burgoon, J. K, Le Poire, B. A, & Rosenthal, R. (1995). Effects of preinteraction expectancies and target communication on perceiver reciprocity and compensation in dyadic interaction. Journal Of Experimental Social Psychology,31(4), , 287-321.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burkhalter, S, Gastil, J, & Kelshaw, T. (2002). A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Communication Theory, 12, 298-422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Converse, P. (2006). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. Critical Review, 18(1-3), 1–74. doi: 10.1080/08913810608443650
   Google Scholar
• Cramer Walsh, K. (2004). Talking about politics: Informal groups and social identity in American life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Curato, N., Niemeyer, S., & Dryzek, J. S. (2013). Appreciative and contestatory inquiry in deliberative forums: Can group hugs be dangerous? Critical Policy Studies, 7(1), 1–17. doi:10.1080/19460171.2012.758595
   Google Scholar
• Dillard, J. P., Solomon, D. H., & Samp, J. A. (1996). Framing social reality: The relevance of relational judgments. Communication Research, 23, 703–723. doi:10.1177/009365096023006004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillard, J.P, Palmer, M.T, & Kinney, T.A. (1995). Relational judgments in an influence context. Human Communication Research, 21(3), 331-353. doi:10.1111/hcre.1995.21.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillard, K. (2013). Envisioning the role of facilitation in public deliberation. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41(3), 217–235.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N, Fein, J, & Leeper, T. J. (2012). A source of bias in public opinion stability. American Political Science Review, 106(2), 430-454. doi: 10.1017/S0003055412000123
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S. (2012). Foundations and frontiers of deliberative governance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ensari, N., & Miller, N. (2002). The out-group must not be so bad after all: The effects of disclosure, typicality, and salience on intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(2), 313–329.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiske, S, & Taylor, S.E. (1984). Social cognition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Gastil, J. (1993). Democracy in small groups: participation, decision making, and communication. Philadelphia, PA: New Society Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Gastil, J. (2008). Political communication and deliberation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Gastil, J., & Black, L. (2007). Public deliberation as the organizing principle of political communication research. Journal of Public Deliberation, 4(1), 1–43.
   Google Scholar
• Gastil, J., Reedy, J., & Wells, C. (2017). Knowledge distortion in direct democracy: A longitudinal study of biased empirical beliefs on statewide ballot measures. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 30(4), 540–560. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edx012
   Google Scholar
• Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., & Washington, E. (2010). Party affiliation, partisanship, and political beliefs: A field experiment. American Political Science Review, 104(4), 720–744. doi:10.1017/S0003055410000407
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, S. A, Operario, D, & Fiske, S. T. (1998). Situational power and interpersonal dominance facilitate bias and inequality. Journal of Social Issues,54(4), 677–698.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goren, P. (2005). Party identification and core political values. American Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 881–896. doi:10.1111/ajps.2005.49.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1977). Hannah arendt’s communications concept of power. Social, 44(1), 3–24.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action (Vol. 1). (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1990). Discourse ethics: notes on a program of philosophical justification. In Moral consciousness and communicative action (C. Lenhart, & S. Weber Nicholson, Trans., pp. 43-115). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haidt, J., Graham, J., & Joseph, C. (2009). Above and below left–Right: Ideological narratives and moral foundations. Psychological Inquiry, 20(2–3), 110–119. doi:10.1080/10478400903028573
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahan, D. (2012). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(4), 407–424. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2182588
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697–720. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: The Guildford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Knobloch, K. R., Gastil, J., Reedy, J., & Cramer Walsh, K. (2013). Did they deliberate? Applying an evaluative model of democratic deliberation to the oregon citizens’ initiative review. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41(2), 105–125. doi:10.1080/00909882.2012.760746
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuyper, J. W. (2018). The instrumental value of deliberative democracy – Or, do we have good reasons to be deliberative democrats?. Journal of Public Deliberation, 14(1), 1–33.
   Google Scholar
• Landemore, H. (2012). Democratic reason: Politics, collective intelligence, and the rule of the many. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Landemore, H., & Mercier, H. (2012). Talking it out with others vs. Deliberation within and the law of group polarization: Some implications of the argumentative theory of reasoning for deliberative democracy. Análise Social, 205(4), 910–934.
   Google Scholar
• Levine, P. (2016). Saving relational politics. Perspectives on Politics, 14(2), 468–473. doi: 10.1017/S1537592716000165
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacKuen, M., Wolak, J., Keele, L., & Marcus, G. E. (2010). Civic engagements: Resolute partisanship or reflective deliberation. American Journal of Political Science, 54(2), 440–458. doi:10.1111/ajps.2010.54.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matsunaga, M. (2007). Familywise error in multiple comparisons: Disentangling a knot through a critique of O’Keefe’s arguments against alpha adjustment. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(4), 243–265. doi:10.1080/19312450701641409
   Google Scholar
• McNeish, D., & Wentzel, K. R. (2017). Accommodating small sample sizes in three-level models when the third level is incidental. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 52(2), 200–215. doi:10.1080/00273171.2016.1262236
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 57–111. doi:10.1017/S0140525X10000968
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2010). Mplus User’s Guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
   Google Scholar
• Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mutz, D. C. (2008). Is deliberative democracy a falsifiable theory?. Annual Review Of Political Science, 11, 521–538. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.081306.070308
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parkins, J. R., & Mitchell, R. E. (2005). Public participation as public debate: A deliberative turn in natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources, 18(6), 529–540. doi:10.1080/08941920590947977
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parkinson, J. (2003). Legitimacy problems in deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 51, 180–196. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.00419
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reedy, J., Wells, C., & Gastil, J. (2014). How voters become misinformed: An investigation of the emergence and consequences of false factual beliefs. Social Science Quarterly, 95(5), 1399–1418. doi:10.1111/ssqu.12102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruesch, J., & Bateson, G. (1951). Communication: The social matrix of psychiatry. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.
   Google Scholar
• Sagarin, B. J., Cialdini, R. B., Rice, W. E., & Serna, S. B. (2002). Dispelling the illusion of invulnerability: The motivations and mechanisms of resistance to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 526. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.3.526
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro, R. Y., & Bloch‐Elkon, Y. (2008). Do the facts speak for themselves? Partisan disagreement as a challenge to democratic competence. Critical Review, 20(1–2), 115–139. doi:10.1080/08913810802316373
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solomon, D. H. (2006). A Relational Framing Perspective on Perceptions of Social-Sexual Communication at Work. In R. M. Dailey, & B. A. Le Poire, Applied research in interpersonal communication: Family communication, health communication, and communicating across social boundaries (pp. 271-298). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Solomon, D. H., Dillard, J. P., & Anderson, J. W. (2002). Episode type, attachment orientation, and frame salience: evidence for a theory of relational framing. Human Communication Research, 28(1), 136–152. doi:10.1111/hcre.2002.28.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stromer-Galley, J, & Muhlberger, P. (2009). Agreement and disagreement in group deliberation: effects on deliberation satisfaction, future engagement, and decision legitimacy. Political Communication, 26(2), 173–192. doi: 10.1080/10584600902850775
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769. doi:10.1111/ajps.2006.50.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, G. M. (1980). Conceptual universals in interpersonal language. American Anthropologist, 82(4), 759-781. doi:10.1525/aa.1980.82.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zyphur, M. J., & Oswald, F. L. (2015). Bayesian estimation and inference: a user’s guide. Journal of Management, 41(2), 390–420. doi:10.1177/0149206313501200
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar