The Dynamics of Collective Deliberation in the 1996 Election: Campaign Effects on Accessibility, Certainty, and Accuracy

We examine the effectiveness of political communication and deliberation among citizens during a presidential election campaign. In order for communication to be effective, messages conveyed through social interaction must be unambiguous, and the recipient must readily, confidently, and accurately perceive the intent of the sender. We address a number of factors that may influence communication effectiveness: the accessibility and extremity of political preferences, the distribution of preferences in the surrounding environment, disagreement between the senders and receivers of political messages, and the dynamic of the election campaign. The analysis is based on a study of the 1996 campaign, which interviewed citizens and discussion partners between March 1996 and January 1997. The citizens are a random sample of registered voters in the Indianapolis and St. Louis areas, and these registered voters identified the discussion partners as people with whom they discuss either “government, elections, and politics” or “important matters.”

[1]  Ada W. Finifter The Friendship Group as a Protective Environment for Political Deviants , 1974 .

[2]  Richard A. Brody,et al.  Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology , 1991 .

[3]  J. N. Bassili,et al.  RESPONSE LATENCY VERSUS CERTAINTY AS INDEXES OF THE STRENGTH OF VOTING INTENTIONS IN A CATI SURVEY , 1993 .

[4]  W. Rogers Regression standard errors in clustered samples , 1994 .

[5]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty , 1982 .

[6]  B. Latané The psychology of social impact. , 1981 .

[7]  Jeffrey Levine,et al.  Election Campaigns, Social Communication, and the Accessibility of Perceived Discussant Preference , 1998 .

[8]  L. Festinger,et al.  A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance , 2017 .

[9]  Jon A. Krosnick,et al.  Attitude Importance and the False Consensus Effect , 1995 .

[10]  Michael Boss Economic theory of democracy , 1974 .

[11]  R. Huckfeldt,et al.  Ambiguity, Distorted Messages, and Nested Environmental Effects on Political Communication , 1998, The Journal of Politics.

[12]  Herbert F. Weisberg,et al.  A multidimensional conceptualization of party identification , 1980 .

[13]  Russell H. Fazio,et al.  A practical guide to the use of response latency in social psychological research. , 1990 .

[14]  J. N. Bassili Meta-judgmental versus operative indexes of psychological attributes: The case of measures of attitude strength. , 1996 .

[15]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[16]  Ronald S. Burt,et al.  A note on sociometric order in the general social survey network data , 1986 .

[17]  R. Petty,et al.  Attitude strength: An overview. , 1995 .

[18]  D. Granberg Candidate Preference, Membership Group, and Estimates of Voting Behavior , 1987 .

[19]  Russell H. Fazio,et al.  Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: Determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. , 1995 .

[20]  Susan Hoffman,et al.  The role of attribution processes in conformity and dissent: Revisiting the Asch situation. , 1976 .