Promoting online deliberation quality: cognitive cues matter

References

• Bicchieri, C. (2006). The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of social norms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bicchieri, C., & Lev-On, A. (2007). Computer-mediated communication and cooperation in social dilemmas: An experimental analysis. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 6(2), 139–168.
   Google Scholar
• Black, L. W., Burkhalter, S., Gastil, J., & Stromer-Galley, J. (2011). Methods for analyzing and measuring group deliberation. In Erik P. Bucy & R. Lance Holbert (Eds.), Sourcebook of political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques (pp. 323–345). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Brabham, D. C. (2009). Crowdsourcing the public participation process for planning projects. Planning Theory, 8(3), 242–262. doi: 10.1177/1473095209104824
   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(4), 398–422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cappella, J. N., Price, V., & Nir, L. (2002). Argument repertoire as a reliable and valid measure of opinion quality: Electronic dialogue during campaign 2000. Political Communication, 19(1), 73–93. doi: 10.1080/105846002317246498
   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. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christopherson, K. M. (2007). The positive and negative implications of anonymity in Internet social interactions: ‘On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog’. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(6), 3038–3056. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2006.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cialdini, R., Reno, R., & Kallgren, C. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015–1026. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coleman, S., & Gotze, J. (2001). Bowling together: Online public engagement in policy deliberation. London: Hansard Society.
   Google Scholar
• Coleman, S., & Moss, G. (2012). Under construction: The field of online deliberation research. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9(1), 1–15. doi: 10.1080/19331681.2011.635957
   Google Scholar
• Converse, P. E. (1975). Public opinion and voting behavior. Handbook of Political Science, 4, 75–169.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlberg, L. (2007). The internet, deliberative democracy, and power: Radicalizing the public sphere. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 3(1), 47–64. doi: 10.1386/macp.3.1.47_1
   Google Scholar
• Davies, T., & Chandler, R. (2012). Online deliberation design: Choices, criteria, and evidence. In T. Nabatchi, M. Weiksner, J. Gastil, & M. Leighninger (Eds.), Democracy in motion: Evaluating the practice and impact of deliberative civic engagement (pp. 103–134). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? Journal of Politics, 63(4), 1041–1066. doi: 10.1111/0022-3816.00100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N. (2004). Priming the vote: Campaign effects in a US Senate election. Political Psychology, 25(4), 577–594. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00388.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N., & Nelson, K. R. (2003). Framing and deliberation: How citizens’ conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 729–745. doi: 10.1111/1540-5907.00051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fishkin, J. (2009). When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Freelon, D. G. (2010). Analyzing online political discussion using three models of democratic communication. New Media & Society, 12(7), 1172–1190. doi: 10.1177/1461444809357927
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gastil, J. (2008). Political communication and deliberation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Goodin, R. E. (2003). Reflective democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodin, R. E., & Niemeyer, S. J. (2003). When does deliberation begin? Internal reflection versus public discussion in deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 51(4), 627–649. doi: 10.1111/j.0032-3217.2003.00450.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon, E., & Manosevitch, E. (2011). Augmented deliberation: Merging physical and virtual interaction to engage communities in urban planning. New Media & Society, 13(1), 75–95.
   Google Scholar
• Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. F. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge: Belknap Press.
   Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jaeger, P. T. (2005). Deliberative democracy and the conceptual foundations of electronic government. Government Information Quarterly, 22(4), 702–719. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2006.01.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karlsson, M. (2012). Understanding divergent patterns of political discussion in online forums – Evidence from the European citizens’ consultation. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 9(1), 64–81. doi: 10.1080/19331681.2012.635965
   Google Scholar
• Kies, R. (2010). Promises and limits of web-deliberation. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis. Human Communication Research, 30(3), 411–433.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leighninger, M. (2011). Using online tools to engage-and be engaged by-the public. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
   Google Scholar
• Lev-On, A., & Manin, B. (2009). Happy accidents: Deliberation and on-line exposure to opposing views. In Todd Davis and Seeta Gangdharn (Eds.), Online deliberation: Design, research and practice (pp. 105–122). Chicago: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
   Google Scholar
• Macintosh, A., & Whyte, A. (2008). Towards an evaluation framework for eParticipation. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 2(1), 16–30. doi: 10.1108/17506160810862928
   Google Scholar
• Mann, R., & Lev-On, A. (2012). Annual report: The media in Israel 2011: Agendas, uses and trends. Ariel: Institute for the Study of New Media, Politics and Society, in collaboration with IFAT and Kantar Media. [in Hebrew].
   Google Scholar
• Manosevitch, E. (2009). The reflective cue: Prompting citizens for greater consideration of reasons. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 21(2), 187–203.
   Google Scholar
• Manosevitch, E., & Walker, D. (2009, April). Reader comments to online opinion journalism: a space of public deliberation. International Symposium on Online Journalism, 10: 1–30.
   Google Scholar
• McGuire, W. J. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. The Handbook of Social Psychology, 3, 136–314.
   Google Scholar
• Mondak, J. J. (1993). Source cues and policy approval: The cognitive dynamics of public support for the Reagan agenda. American Journal of Political Science, 37(1), 186–212. doi: 10.2307/2111529
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Neuman, W. R. (1992). Common knowledge: News and the construction of political meaning. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, L. M. (1997). Against deliberation. Political Theory, 25(3), 347–376. doi: 10.1177/0090591797025003002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9–20. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00326.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, W. A. (1955). Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding. Public Opinion Quarterly, 19, 321–325. doi: 10.1086/266577
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). Measuring deliberation's content: A coding scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3(1), 82–96.
   Google Scholar
• Stromer-Galley, J., Webb, N., & Muhlberger, P. (2012). Deliberative e-rulemaking project: Challenges to enacting real world deliberation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9(1), 82–96. doi: 10.1080/19331681.2012.635971
   Google Scholar
• Towne, W. B., & Herbsleb, J. D. (2012). Design considerations for online deliberation systems. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9(1), 97–115. doi: 10.1080/19331681.2011.637711
   Google Scholar
• Velasquez, A. (2012). Social media and online political discussion: The effect of cues and informational cascades on participation in online political communities. New Media & Society, 14(8), 1286–1303. doi: 10.1177/1461444812445877
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vigoda, E. (2002). From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens, and the next generation of public administration. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 527–540. doi: 10.1111/1540-6210.00235
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilhelm, A. G. (1998). Virtual sounding boards: How deliberative is on-line political discussion? Information Communication & Society, 1(3), 313–338. doi: 10.1080/13691189809358972
   Google Scholar
• Wright, S., & Street, J. (2007). Democracy, deliberation and design: The case of online discussion forums. New Media & Society, 9(5), 849–869. doi: 10.1177/1461444807081230
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaller, J., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 579–616. doi: 10.2307/2111583
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar