The Role of Persuasion in Deliberative Opinion Change

References

• Allport, G. W. (1935). Attitudes. In C. Murchison (Ed.), A handbook of social psychology (pp. 798–844). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barabas, J. (2004). How deliberation affects policy opinions. American Political Science Review, 98(4), 687–701.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartels, L. M. (1996). Uninformed votes: Information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 40(1), 194–230.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bray, R. M., & Noble, A. M. (1978). Authoritarianism and decisions of mock juries: Evidence of jury bias and group polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(12), 1424–1430.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752–766.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. H. (1976). Communication modality as a determinant of message persuasiveness and message comprehensibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(4), 605.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6(1), 307–326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Denver, D., Hands, G., & Jones, B. (1995). Fishkin and the deliberative opinion poll: Lessons from a study of the Granada 500 television program. Political Communication, 12(2), 147–156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N. (2004). Political preference formation: Competition, deliberation, and the (ir)relevance of framing effects. American Political Science Review, 98(4), 671–686.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elster, J. (1998). Deliberative democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eveland, W. P. (2004). The effect of political discussion in producing informed citizens: The roles of information, motivation, and elaboration. Political Communication, 21(2), 177–193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Festinger, L. (1964). Behavioral support for opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 28(3), 404–417.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fishkin, J. S. (1997). The voice of the people: Public opinion and democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fishkin, J. S. (2009). When the People speak: Deliberative democracy and public Consultation. New York, NY: University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fishkin, J. S. (2011). Hard times, hard choices: Michigan citizens deliberate. Retrieved from http://cdd.stanford.edu/mm/2010/mi-hardtimes.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Fishkin, J. S., He, B., Luskin, R. C., & Siu, a. (2010). Deliberative democracy in an unlikely place: Deliberative polling in china. British Journal of Political Science, 40(2), 435–448.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forsyth, D. R. (2000). Social comparison and influence in groups. In J. M. Suls & L. Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research (pp. 81–103). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Gastil, J., Black, L., & Moscovitz, K. (2008). Ideology, attitude change, and deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Political Communication, 25(1), 123–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gastil, J., & Dillard, J. P. (1999). Increasing political sophistication through public deliberation. Political Communication, 16(1), 13–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilens, M. (2001). Political ignorance and collective policy preferences. American Political Science Review, 95(2), 379–396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. F. (2004). Why deliberative democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action (vol. 1). Boston, MA: Beacon.
   Google Scholar
• Haugtvedt, C. P., & Wegener, D. T. (1994). Message order effects in persuasion: An attitude strength perspective. The Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 205–218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hinsz, V. B., & Davis, J. H. (1984). Persuasive arguments theory, group polarization, and choice shifts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10(2), 260–268.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howard, D. J., Gengler, C., & Jain, A. (1995). What’s in a name? A complimentary means of persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 200–211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howland, C. I., Kelley, H. H., & Janis, I. L. (1954). Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jerit, J. & Barabas, J. (2006). Bankrupt rhetoric: How misleading information affects knowledge about social security. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(3), 278–303.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karpowitz, C. F., Mendelberg, T., & Shaker, L. (2012). Gender inequality in deliberative participation. American Political Science Review, 106(3), 533–547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25(1), 57–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, J., Wyatt, R. O., & Katz, E. (1999). News, talk, opinion, participation: The part played by conversation in deliberative democracy. Political Communication, 16(4), 361–385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luc, T. (2013). Evidence of peer influence in the citizens’ parliament. In L. Carson, J. Gastil, J. Hartz-Karp, & R. Lubensky (Eds.), The Australian citizens parliament and the future of deliberative democracy (p. 256). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Luskin, R. C., & Fishkin, J. S. (2002). Considered opinions: Deliberative polling in Britain. British Journal of Political Science, 32(3), 455–487.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGuire, W. J. (1968). Personality and susceptibility to social influence. Handbook of Personality Theory and Research, 2, 1130–1187.
   Google Scholar
• Mendelberg, T. (2002). The deliberative citizen: Theory and evidence. In M. X. Delli Carpini, L. Huddy, & R. Y. Shapiro (Eds.), Political decision-making, deliberation and particivation (vol. 6, pp. 151–193). Stanford, CT: JAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mendelberg, T., Karpowitz, C. F., & Goedert, N. (2013). Does descriptive representation facilitate women’s distinctive voice? How gender composition and decision rules affect deliberation. American Journal of Political Science, 58(2), 291–306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, R. L. (1976). Mere exposure, psychological reactance and attitude change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40(2), 229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12(2), 125–135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mutz, D. C. (2008). Is deliberative democracy a falsifiable theory? Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 521–538.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neblo, M. (2005). Thinking through democracy: Between the theory and practice of deliberative politics. Acta Politica, 40(2), 169–181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pellizzoni, L. (2001). The myth of the best argument: Power, deliberation and reason. The British Journal of Sociology, 52(1), 59–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petersen, M. B., Skov, M., Serritzlew, S., & Ramsøy, T. (2013). Motivated reasoning and political parties: Evidence for increased processing in the face of party cues. Political Behavior, 35(4), 831–854.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson, S. A. (1990). Political behavior: Patterns in everyday life. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). Source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research, 11(1), 668–672.
   Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205.
   Google Scholar
• Poole, M. S., McPhee, R. D., & Seibold, D. R. (1982). A comparison of normative and interactional explanations of group decision-making: Social decision schemes versus valence distributions. Communications Managraphs, 49(1), 1–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Price, V. (2009). Citizens deliberating online: Theory and some evidence. In T. Davies (Ed.), Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice, 37–58. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Price, V., Cappella, J. N., & Nir, L. (2002). Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion? Political Communication, 19(1), 95–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Price, V., Nir, L., & Cappella, J. N. (2005). Framing public discussion of gay civil unions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69(2), 179–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reis, H. T. (2010). How we got here from there: A brief history of social psychology. In R. F. Baumesiter & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Advanced social psychology: The state of the science (pp. 25–60). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, L. M. (1997). Against deliberation. Political Theory, 25(3), 347.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schkade, D., Sunstein, C. R., & Hastie, R. (2007). What happened on deliberation day. California Law Review, 95, 915.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shavitt, S., & Brock, T. C. (1986). Self-relevant responses in commercial persuasion: Field and experimental tests. In J. Olson & K. Sentis (Eds.), Advertising and consumer psychology (pp. 149–171). New York, NY: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Steenbergen, M., Bachtiger, A., Sporndli, M., & Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring political deliberation: A discourse quality index. Comparative European Politics, 1(1), 21–48.
   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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Going to extremes: How like minds unite and divide. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Turner, J. C, Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Verba, S., & Nie, J. (1987). Participation in America, political democracy and social equality. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wells, C., Reedy, J., Gastil, J., & Lee, C. (2009). Information distortion and voting choices: The origins and effects of factual beliefs in initiative elections. Political Psychology, 30(6), 953–969.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar