DEBATING LEGISLATIVE INTENT: HOW LAY

CITIZENS DISCERN POLICY OBJECTIVES IN

BALLOT INITIATIVES

Robert C. Richards, Jr.

The Pennsylvania State University

Department of Communication Arts & Sciences

Presentation at National Communication Association, November, 2014

Overview

Previous Research and Goals for This Study

Methodology

Results

Conclusion

Setting

Small-Group Policy Deliberation

• Citizens’ Initiative Review, Citizens’ Jury,

Citizens’ Assembly / Parliament

• Example: Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review

The Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review

• Public deliberation by a random sample of 24 citizens on a ballot initiative; analysis is published in official voter guide

• In 2010 two measures: (1) Mandatory Minimums, and (2) Medical Marijuana Dispensaries

The Issue

Small groups seek to detect the goals of key out-

groups

For a small group deliberating about policy, the key

out-group is the group of proponents of the policy

No previous research examines how deliberative

groups detect the goals of policy proponents

Theoretical Concepts

Goal Detection

• Groups use particular techniques to detect out-

group goals; & in particular sequences

Entativity

• Group members gradually come to understand

the nature of the outgroup, and their own group

Literature Review

• Previous research identifies particular goal-

detection methods used in conflict

communication and negotiation

• Previous research suggests mutual

influence of in-group & out-group goal-

detection and entativity

• No previous studies examine goal-

detection in deliberative groups

Goal-Detection Methods from Previous

Research

• Direct request

• Inference from conduct

• Inference from group membership (e.g.,

stereotypes)

• Consulting third parties

• Perspective-taking

Context influences detection method

Previous studies concern conflict

communication and negotiation contexts:

• Direct requests are often impossible

• Indirect goal-detection methods are

common

Context influences expectations and

conduct

Earlier research concerns conflict

communication and negotiation contexts:

•Participants expect out-groups to act in

Self-Interest and seek Zero-sum

outcomes

• Information is hoarded, not shared

•Little incentive for meta-cognition

Goal Detection Influences Entativity

Awareness of out-group goals influences

perception of nature of out-group

Process of

Detecting

Out-group

Goals

Beliefs about

Nature of

Out-group

Goal Detection Influences Entativity (2)

Awareness of in-group goals influences perception

of nature of in-group

Process of

Learning

In-group

Goals

Beliefs about

Nature of In-

group

Out-group and In-group Entativity

Beliefs about nature of out-group influence beliefs about

nature of in-group

Beliefs about

Nature of

Out-group

Beliefs about

Nature of

In-group

Entativity Influences Goal-Detection

Beliefs about nature of In-group [indirectly] influence goal-

detection process

Beliefs about

Nature of

In-group

Process of

Detecting

Out-group

Goals

Goals of This Study

1. Determine deliberative groups’ goal-

detection methods and sequence in

which they are used.

2. Compare goal-detection methods of

deliberative groups & other groups

Goals of This Study (continued)

3. Determine associations between deliberative group’s detection of in-group and out-group goals

4. Determine how (3) affects associationsbetween deliberative groups’ entativitybeliefs about out-group & in-group

Methodology

Seek statements about out-group goal detection, in transcripts of 2010 Oregon CIRs

Search limited to statements previously coded as concerning “Policy Objectives”

N = 497 thought units

Main Results

1. CIR panelists used some

goal-detection methods not

used by other groups

Goal-detection

methods also used

in conflict /

negotiation

Goal-detection

methods particular

to deliberative

groups

• Direct requests

• Consulting third

parties

• Inference from

conduct

• Out-group’s

testimony

• Inference from

In-group’s discussion

New goal-detection methods are

consistent with deliberative context,

which emphasizes:

•Information sharing

•Meta-cognition

2. Indirect methods were used

first to develop tentative beliefs;

direct methods were used later

Observed Sequence

Day 1:

• Indirect methods: read secondary

materials, have group discussions, develop

tentative beliefs about out-group goals

Days 2-5:

• Direct & indirect methods: Pose direct

questions to proponents or others, have

group discussions, to confirm beliefs

Variation: When Confirmation Occurs

Rapid Confirmation

• Confirmation occurs very soon after

tentative beliefs formed

Delayed Confirmation

• Confirmation is delayed by two or more

days after tentative beliefs formed

Proposed Model: Informal Hypothesis

TestingDependent Variable:

• Certainty about beliefs regarding out-group goals

Independent Variables:

• Duration of deliberation

• Goal-detection methods used

Moderating Variable:

• Group consensus

Consensus as Moderator

Hypotheses:

• As time spent in deliberation increases, certainty

about out-group goals increases

• When group consensus is low, more time is

needed to increase certainty about out-group

goals (Delayed Confirmation Scenario)

• When group consensus is high, less time is

needed to increase certainty about out-group

goals (Rapid Confirmation Scenario)

3. Some panelists associated in-

group and out-group goal-

detection processes

“But if we’re writing this for the voters

to see and to read and to

understand—if they don’t even

understand there’s anybody out there

that needs it, they’re automatically just

going to vote against it no matter what

else you say—because that’s what the

idea of it is.” – Male panelist from

urban area

“But if we’re writing this for the voters

to see and to read and to understand

This is the goal of the deliberative

group itself – the In-Group Goal

The proponents’ goal – the Out-Group

Goal writing this for the voters to see

and to read don’t even understand

there’s anybody out there

that needs it [i.e., patients who need

medical marijuana], […]

—because that’s what the

idea of it is.”

Reason for association of In-Group and Out-Group goals: Knowledge of Out-Group goal determines voter behavior if we’re writing this for the voters to see and to read and to understand—if they don’t even understand there’s anybody out there that they’re automatically just going to vote against it no matter what else you say—because that’s what the idea of it is.”

4. Some panelists characterized

out-group goals as “our” goals

• “I don’t know that pouring money into punishing the third conviction is going to get us the results that we want”

• “The whole point is supposed to be that we are addressing people’s medical needs”

• “The purpose of this Measure is to help people. If we’re trying to tell people why do we need to help them? We’re trying to help them with something that isn’t available through other sources”

• “I don’t know that pouring money into punishing the third conviction is going to get us the results that we want”

• “The whole point is supposed to be that we are addressing people’s medical needs”

• “The purpose of this measure is to help people. If we’re trying to tell people why do we need to help them? We’re trying to help them with something that isn’t available through other sources”

• “I don’t know that pouring money into punishing the third conviction is going to get us the results that we want”

• “The whole point is supposed to be that we are addressing people’s medical needs”

• “The purpose of this measure is to help people. If we’re trying to tell people why do we need to help them? We’re trying to help them with something that isn’t available through other sources”

• “I don’t know that pouring money into punishing the third conviction is going to get us the results that we want”

• “The whole point is supposed to be that we are addressing people’s medical needs”

• “The purpose of this measure is to help people. If we’re trying to tell people why do we need to help them? We’re trying to help them with something that isn’t available through other sources”

How to interpret “We”?

•Knobloch and Gastil found

participation in CIR led to increase in

panelists’ identification as Oregonians

•This suggests that “We” in CIR

transcripts means, ‘A superordinate

collectivity: The public’

Hypothesis: Parallel Goal-Detection

Processes Influence Adoption of

Superordinate Collective Identity

Process of Determining

Own-Group’s Goals

Recharacterization

of Proponents’

Goals as Own

Goals

(Goals of

The Public,

Superordinate

Identity)

Time

Process of Determining

Proponent’s Goals

Explanation: Vicarious Deliberation:

Deliberating Panelists’ Dual Role

In Vicarious Deliberative Designs, such

as the CIR, panelists have a dual role:

•1. Trustees for the public

•2. Members of the public

Explanation: Vicarious Deliberation:

Deliberating Panelists’ Dual Role

In Vicarious Deliberative Designs, such

as the CIR, panelists have a dual role:

•1. Trustees for the public

•2. Members of the public

Mechanism: Category Salience

Acting in the role of Trustee for the Public,

while simultaneously performing the role of

Member of the Public, causes superordinate

category of The Public to become:

•Intimately Familiar

•Positively Valenced

•Highly Salient

Proposed Model:

Deliberative panelists’ parallel

entativity processes:

Simultaneous development of

panelists’ conception of their own

group identity and of the nature of

the proponents’ group

Self-

Conception:

Individuals

Conception

of

Proponents:

Individuals

Group

Identity:

Task Group

Conception

of

Proponents

as Group:

Task Group

Time

Group Identity (Level

1): Trustees for

Public

Deliberative Group Identity &

Conception of Proponents’

Group

(Level 2, Superordinate):

The Public

Conception of

Proponents’ Group

(Level 1): Interest Group

Conclusion

• Deliberative goal-detection involves

methods consistent with deliberative values

• Deliberative goal-detection process takes

form of informal hypothesis testing

• In-group and out-group goal-detection

processes are linked & influence entativity

• Parallel entativity processes lead to

adoption of superordinate collective

identity: The public

Full text

The full text of the paper associated

with this presentation is available at:

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2447325

Acknowledgements

•Grateful thanks to:

• Dr. John Gastil and Dr. Mark Major of Penn

State University

• Dr. Katherine Knobloch of Colorado State

University

• Dr. Robin Stryker of the University of Arizona

Contact

Robert C. Richards, Jr., JD, MSLIS, MA, BA

• PhD Candidate

• The Pennsylvania State University Department of Communication

Arts and Sciences

• Email: rcr5122@psu.edu

• Web: http://legalinformatics.wordpress.com/about/about-the-author/