From group member to democratic citizen: How deliberating with fellow jurors reshapes civic attitudes

Human Communication Research

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 137-169

  Gastil, John ^a   Black, Laura W ^b   Deess, E Pierre ^c   Leighter, Jay ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b OHIO UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^d CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 37849038935     PISSN: 03603989     EISSN: 14682958     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00316.x     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Ackerman, B. Fishkin, J 2004). Deliberation day. New Haven, CT : Yale University Press.
2. Adler, S. J. (1994). The jury: Trial and error in the American courtroom. New York : New York Times Books.
3. Ajzen, I 1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179 211.
4. Allen, T. H. Plax, T 1999). Group communication in the formal educational context. In L. R. Frey (Ed The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 493 515). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
5. Allen, T. H. Plax, T. G. (2002). Exploring consequences of group communication in classroom. In L. R. Frey (Ed New directions in group communication (pp. 219 234). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
6. Almond, G. Verba, S 1963). The civic culture. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press.
7. Anderson, C. M., Riddle, B. L. Martin, M. W. (1999). Socialization processes in groups. In L. R. Frey (Ed The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 139 163). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
8. Asen, R 1996). Toward a normative conception of difference in public deliberation. Argumentation and Advocacy, 35, 115 129.
9. Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
10. Bandura, A 1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. New York : Prentice-Hall.
11. Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A. Tipton, S. M. (1996). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life (rev. ed Berkley : University of California Press.
12. Benhabib, S 1992). Situating the self: Gender, community, and postmodernism in contemporary ethics. New York : Routledge.
13. Bentler, P. M. Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588 606.
14. Bohman, J 1995). Public reason and cultural pluralism: Political liberalism and the problem of moral conflict. Political Theory, 23, 253 279.
15. Bormann, E. G. (1996). Symbolic convergence theory and communication in group decision making. In R. Y. Hirokawa M. S. Poole (Eds Communication and group decision-making (3rd ed Beverly Hills, CA : Sage.
16. Boster, F. J., Hunter, J. E. Hale, J. L. (1991). An information- processing model of jury decision making. Communication Research, 18, 524 547.
17. Browne, M. W. Cudeck, R 1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen J. S. Long (Eds Testing structural equation models (pp. 136 162). Newbury Park, CA : Sage.
18. Burkhalter, S., Gastil, J. Kelshaw, T 2002). The self-reinforcing model of public deliberation. Communication Theory, 12, 398 422.
19. Burnett, A. Badzinski, D. M. (2000). An exploratory study of argument in the jury decision-making process. Communication Quarterly, 48, 380 396.
20. Burnett, A. Badzinski, D. M. (2005). Judge nonverbal communication on trial: Do mock trial jurors notice? Journal of Communication, 55, 209 224.
21. Button, M. Ryfe, D 2005). What can we learn from the practice of deliberative democracy? In J. Gastil P. Levine (Eds The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the 21st century (pp. 20 33). San Francisco : Jossey Bass.
22. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
23. Cappella, J. N. Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press.
24. 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, 73 93.
25. Chambers, S 2003). Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6, 307 326.
26. Cohen, J 1997). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In J. F. Bohman W. Rehg (Eds Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics (pp. 67 91). Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
27. Craig, S. C., Niemi, R. G. Silver, G. E. (1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior, 12, 289 314.
28. Delli Carpini, M. X., Cook, F. L. Jacobs, L. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315 344.
29. Dillman, D. A. (1999). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York : Wiley.
30. Eveland, W. P. (2001). The cognitive mediation model of learning from the news: Evidence from nonelection, off-year election, and presidential election contexts. Communication Research, 28, 571 601.
31. Finkel, S. E. (1985). Reciprocal effects of participation and political efficacy: A panel analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 29, 891 913.
32. Finkel, S. E. (1995). Causal analysis with panel data. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
33. Fishkin, J. S. (1991). Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform. New Haven, CT : Yale University Press.
34. Fishkin, J. S. Luskin, R. C. (1999). Bringing deliberation to the democratic dialogue. In M. McCombs A. Reynolds (Eds The poll with a human face: The National Issues Convention experiment in political communication (pp. 3 38). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
35. Freie, J. F. (1997). The effects of campaign participation on political attitudes. Political Behavior, 19, 133 156.
36. Gastil, J 2000). By popular demand: Revitalizing representative democracy through deliberative elections. Berkeley : University of California Press.
37. Gastil, J 2004). Adult civic education through the National Issues Forums: Developing democratic habits and dispositions through public deliberation. Adult Education Quarterly, 54, 308 328.
38. Gastil, J., Deess, E. P. Weiser, P 2002). Civic awakening in the jury room: A test of the connection between jury deliberation and political participation. Journal of Politics, 64, 585 595.
39. Gastil, J., Deess, E. P., Weiser, P. Larner, J 2005). Jury service and electoral participation: A strong test of the participation hypothesis. Paper presented at the 2006 International Communication Association conference in Dresden, Germany.
40. Gastil, J. Dillard, J. P. (1999). The aims, methods, and effects of deliberative civic education through the National Issues Forums. Communication Education, 48, 1 14.
41. Gastil, J. Keith, W. M. (2005). A nation that (sometimes) likes to talk: A brief history of public deliberation in the United States. In J. Gastil P. Levine (Eds The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the 21st century (pp. 3 19). San Francisco : Jossey Bass.
42. Gastil, J. Levine, P Eds 2005). The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the 21st century. San Francisco : Jossey Bass.
43. Gergen, K. J. Gergen, M. M. (1983). Narratives of the self. In T. R. Sarbin K. E. Scheibe (Eds Studies in social identity (pp. 254 273). New York : Praeger.
44. Giddens, A 1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley : University of California Press.
45. Glaberson, W 2001). Juries, their powers under siege, find their role is being eroded. New York Times, March 2, p. A1.
46. Gutmann, A. Thompson, D 1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.
47. Habermas, J 1979). Communication and the evolution of society. Boston : Beacon Press.
48. Haltom, W. McCann, M 2004). Distorting the law: Politics, media, and the litigation crisis. Chicago, IL : University of Chicago Press.
49. Hans, V. P. (2000). Business on trial: The civil jury and corporate responsibility. New Haven, CT : Yale University Press.
50. Hans, V. P. (2002). U.S. jury reform: The active jury and the adversarial jury. St. Louis University Public Law Review, 21, 85 97.
51. Henningsen, D. D. Henningsen, M. L. (2004). The effect of individual difference variables on information sharing in decision-making groups. Human Communication Research, 30, 540 555.
52. Keith, W. M. (2007). Democracy as discussion: Civic education and the American forum movement. Lanham, MD : Rowan and Littlefield.
53. Mansbridge, J. J. (1983). Beyond adversary democracy. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
54. McLeod, J. M., Daily, K., Guo, Z., Eveland, W. P., Bayer, J., Yang, S., et al 1996). Community integration, local media use, and democratic processes. Communication Research, 23, 179 209.
55. Mendelberg, T 2002). The deliberative citizen: Theory and evidence. Political Decision Making, Deliberation and Participation, 6, 151 193.
56. Morrell, M. E. (2005). Deliberation, democratic decision making and internal political efficacy. Political Behavior, 27, 49 69.
57. Moy, P. Pfau, M 2000). With malice toward all?: The media and public confidence in democratic institutions. New York : Praeger.
58. Moynihan, L. M. Peterson, R. S. (2001). A contingent configuration approach to understanding the role of personality in organizational groups. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 327 378.
59. Mutz, D. C. (2002). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review, 96, 111 126.
60. Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C. Mattei, F 1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. American Political Science Review, 85, 1407 1413.
61. O'Connor, A 2006). Merchant of mercy, merchant of death: How values advocacy messages influence jury deliberations. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34, 263 284.
62. Pearce, W. B. Littlejohn, S. W. (1997). Moral conflict: When social worlds collide. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
63. Pettus, A. B. (1990). The verdict is in: A study of jury decision making factors, moment of personal decision, and jury deliberations - from the jurors' point of view. Communication Quarterly, 38, 83 97.
64. Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 407 (1991).
65. Price, V. Cappella, J. N. (2002). Online deliberation and its influence: The Electronic Dialogue Project in campaign 2000. IT & Society, 1, 303 329.
66. Pryor, B. Buchanan, R. W. (1984). The effects of a defendant's demeanor on juror perceptions of credibility and guilt. Journal of Communication, 34, 92 99.
67. Putnam, L. L. Stohl, C 1990). Bona fide groups: A reconceptualization of groups in context. Communication Studies, 41, 248 265.
68. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York : Simon & Schuster.
69. Ryfe, D. M. (2002). The practice of deliberative democracy: A study of 16 deliberative organizations. Political Communication, 19, 359 377.
70. Schwartzman, H. G. (1989). The meeting: Gatherings in organizations and communities. New York : Plenum Press.
71. Sennett, R 1976). The fall of public man. New York : W.W. Norton.
72. Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Eveland, W. P. Kwak, N 2005). Information and expression in the digital age: Modeling internet effects on civic participation. Communication Research, 32, 531 565.
73. Sunwolf Siebold, D. R. (1998). Jurors' intuitive rules for deliberation: A structurational approach to communication in jury decision making. Communication Monographs, 65, 282 308.
74. Tocqueville, A 1966). Democracy in America (G. Lawrence, Trans., and J. P. Mayer M. Lerner, Eds New York : Harper & Row Original work published 1840 Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.
75. Vidmar, N Ed 2001). World jury systems. Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press.
76. Warren, M. E. (1992). Democratic theory and self-transformation. American Political Science Review, 86, 8 23.
77. Wolfsfeld, G 1985). Political efficacy and political action: A change in focus using data from Israel. Social Science Quarterly, 66, 617 628.