Deliberation and attitude polarization

Journal of Communication

Volumn 61, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 596-617

  Wojcieszak, Magdalena ^a  

^a IE UNIVERSITY   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MINORITY GROUP; PSYCHOLOGY; TESTING METHOD; THEORETICAL STUDY; VIEW;

EID: 79961079162     PISSN: 00219916     EISSN: 14602466     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01568.x     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Asch, S. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership, and men (pp. 177-190). Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press.
2. Barabas, J. (2004). How deliberation affects policy opinions. American Political Science Review, 98, 687-701.
3. Barker, D., & Hansen, S. (2005). All things considered: Systematic cognitive processing and electoral decision-making. Journal of Politics, 67, 319-344.
4. 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, 398-422.
5. Ditto, P., & Lopez, D. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 568-584.
6. Dryzek, J. (2005). Deliberative democracy in divided societies: Alternatives to agonism and analgesia. Political Theory, 3, 218-242.
7. Evans, J. (2003). Have Americans' attitudes become more polarized?-An update. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 71-90.
8. Fazio, R., & Williams, C. (1986). Attitude accessibility as a moderator of the attitude-perception and attitude-behavior relations: An investigation of the 1984 presidential election. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 505-514.
9. Gamson, W. (1992). Talking politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
10. Gastil, J., & Dillard, J. (1999). Increasing political sophistication through public deliberation. Political Communication, 16, 3-23.
11. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard, Belknap Press.
12. Graff, A. (2006). We are (not all) homophobes-A report from Poland. Retrieved from.
13. Human Rights Watch (2007, March). Poland: School censorship proposal threatens basic rights. Retrieved from.
14. Larsen, K., Reed, M., & Hoffman, S. (1980). Attitudes of heterosexuals toward homosexuality: A Likert-type scale and construct validity. Journal of Sex Research, 16, 245-257.
15. Levine, J., & Russo, E. (1995). Impact of anticipated interaction on information acquisition. Social Cognition, 13, 293-317.
16. Linville, P. (1982). The complexity-extremity effect and age-based stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 193-211.
17. Lord, C., Ross, M., & Lepper, M. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 2098-2109.
18. McHoskey, J. (1995). Case closed? On the John F. Kennedy assassination: Biased assimilation of evidence and attitude polarization. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 395-409.
19. McLeod, J., Scheufele, D., Moy, P., Horowitz, E., Holbert, R., Zhang, W., et al. (1999). Understanding deliberation: The effects of discussion networks on participation in a public forum. Communication Research, 26, 743-774.
20. Meffert, M., Chung, S. Joiner, A., Waks, L., & Garst, J. (2006). The effects of negativity and motivated information processing during a political campaign. Journal of Communication, 56, 27-51.
21. Meffert, M., Guge, M., & Lodge, M. (2004). Good, bad, and ambivalent: The consequences of multidimensional political attitudes. In W. Saris & P. Sniderman (Eds.), Studies in public opinion: Attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error and change (pp. 63-92). Princeton, NJ: University of Princeton Press.
22. Mendelberg, T. (2002). The deliberative citizen: Theory and evidence. In M. Delli Carpini, L. Huddy & R. Shapiro (Eds.), Research in micropolitics: Political decisionmaking, delibera- tion and participation (pp. 151-93). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
23. Mendelberg, T., & Oleske, J. (2000). Race and public deliberation. Political Communication, 17, 169-191.
24. Merelman, R., Streich, G., & Martin, P. (1998). Unity and diversity in American political culture: An exploratory study of the National Conversation on American Pluralism and Identity. Political Psychology, 19, 781-808.
25. Miller, A., McHoskey, J., Bane, C., & Dowd, T. (1993). The attitude polarization phenomenon-Role of response measure, attitude extremity, and behavioral consequences of reported attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 561-574.
26. Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 125-135.
27. Munro, G., & Ditto, P. (1997). Biased assimilation, attitude polarization, and affect in reactions to stereotype-relevant scientific information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 636-653.
28. Munro, G., Ditto, P., Lockhart, L., Fagerlin, A., Gready, M., & Peterson, E. (2002). Biased assimilation of sociopolitical arguments: Evaluating the 1996 U.S. Presidential Debate. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24, 15-26.
29. Mutz, D. (2002). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review, 96, 111-126.
30. Mutz, D., & Mondak, J. (2006). The workplace as a context for cross-cutting political discourse. The Journal of Politics, 68, 140-155.
31. Myers, D., & Bishop, G. (1970). Discussion effects on racial attitudes. Science, 169, 778-789.
32. Myers, D., & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 602-627.
33. Nickerson, R. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175-220.
34. Pettigrew, T. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65-85.
35. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1990). Involvement and persuasion: Tradition versus integration. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 367-374.
36. Pious, S. (1991). Biases in the assimilation of technological breakdowns: Do accidents make us safer? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1058-1082.
37. Price, V., Cappella, J., & Nir, L. (2002). Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion? Political Communication, 19, 97-114.
38. Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. (1961). Social judgment: assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
39. Sinclair L., & Kunda, Z. (2000). Motivated stereotyping of women: She's fine if she praised me, but incompetent if she criticized me. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 329-342.
40. Sunstein, C. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
41. Sunstein, C. (2002). The law of group polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy, 10, 175-195.
42. Taber, C., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755-769.
43. Thompson, D. (2008). Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 497-520.
44. Vinokur, A., & Burnstein, E. (1978). Depolarization of attitudes in groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 872-885.
45. Walzer, M. (2005). Politics and passion: Toward a more egalitarian liberalism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
46. Wojcieszak, M., & Price, V. (2010). Bridging the divide or intensifying the conflict? How disagreement affects strong predilections about sexual minorities. Political Psychology, 31, 315-339.
47. Zablocki, K. (2007). Surviving under pressure: Working for 'Days of Tolerance' in Poland. Retrieved from.
48. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
49. Zdaniuk, B., & Levine, J. (1996). Anticipated interaction and thought generation: The role of faction size. British Journal of Social Psychology. Special Issue: Minority Influences, 35, 201-218.