Perceived Procedural Fairness in Deliberation: Predictors and Effects

Communication Research

Volumn 42, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 345-364

  Zhang, Weiyu ^a  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

Author keywords

deliberation; disagreement; enjoyment; procedural fairness; satisfaction

Indexed keywords

EID: 84924958509     PISSN: 00936502     EISSN: 15523810     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0093650212469544     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Aiken L. S.,West S. G.Multiple regression analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1991:
2. Barabas J.How deliberation affects policy opinions.American Political Science Review. 2004;98:687-701
3. Behfar K. J.,Peterson R. S.,Mannix E. A.,Trochim W. M. K.The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes.Journal of Applied Psychology. 2008;93:170-188
4. Besley J. C.,McComas K. A.Framing justice: Using the concept of procedural fairness to advance political communication research.Communication Theory. 2005;15:414-436
5. Bohman J.Political communication and the epistemic value of diversity: Deliberation and legitimation in media societies.Communication Theory. 2007;17:348-355
6. Chang L.,Jacobson T.Measuring participation as communicative action: A case study of citizen involvement and assessment of a city’s smoking cessation policy-making process.Journal of Communication. 2010;60:660-679
7. Chatman J.,Flynn F.The influence of demographic composition on the emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in groups.Academy of Management Journal. 2001;44:956-974
8. D’AgostinoM. J.SchwesterR. W.HolzerM. (2006). Enhancing the prospect for deliberative democracy: The AmericaSpeaks model. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 11(1). Retrieved from http://www.innovation.cc/peer-reviewed/holzer_usa_l2gostino_schwester_holzer.pdf
9. DahlbergL. (2001). Extending the public sphere through cyberspace: The case of Minnesota e-Democracy. First Monday, 6(3). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/838/747
10. De Dreu C. K. W.,Weingart L. R.Task versus relationship conflict and team effectiveness: A meta-analysis.Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003;88:741-749
11. Delli Carpini M. X.Gen.com: Youth, civic engagement and the new information environment.Political Communication. 2000;17:341-349
12. Dryzek J. S.Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2000:
13. Eliasoph N.Avoiding politics: How Americans produce apathy in everyday life. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1998:
14. Feldman L.,Price V.Confusion or enlightenment? How exposure to disagreement moderates the effects of political discussion and media use on candidate knowledge.Communication Research. 2008;35:61-87
15. Fishkin J. S.Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1991:
16. Fishkin J.,Luskin R.A poll with a human face: The national issues convention experiment in political communication. McCombs M.Reynolds A., ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1999:3-38.
17. Gastil J.,Dillard J. P.Increasing political sophistication through public deliberation.Political Communication. 1999;16:3-23
18. Goffman E.The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday; 1959:
19. Gutmann A.,Thompson D.Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 1996:
20. Gutmann A.,Thompson D.Why deliberative democracy?. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2004:
21. Habermas J.Communication and the evolution of society. Boston, MA: Beacon; 1979:
22. Habermas J.The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1. Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press; 1984:
23. Habermas J.Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1990:
24. Habermas J.Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1996:
25. Hickerson A,Gastil J.Assessing the difference critique of deliberation: Gender, emotion, and the jury experience.Communication Theory. 2008;18:281-303
26. Huckfeldt R.,Johnson P. E.,Sprague J.Political disagreement: The survival of diverse opinions within communication networks. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2004:
27. Huckfeldt R.,Mendez J. M.,Osborn T.Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks.Political Psychology. 2004;25:65-95
28. Keinan G.,Koren M.Teaming up type As and Bs: The effects of group composition on performance and satisfaction.Applied Psychology: An International Review. 2002;51:425-445
29. Kim J.,Kim E. J.Theorizing dialogic deliberation: Everyday political talk as communicative action and dialogue.Communication Theory. 2008;18:51-70
30. Kwak N.,Williams A. E.,Wang X.,Lee H.Talking politics and engaging politics: An examination of the interactive relationships between structural features of political talk and discussion engagement.Communication Research. 2005;32:87-111
31. Lee F. L. F.The impact of political discussion in a democratizing society: The moderating role of disagreement and support for democracy.Communication Research. 2009;36:379-399
32. Luskin R C.Measuring political sophistication.American Political Science Review. 1987;31:856-899
33. Luskin R. C.,Fishkin J. S.,Jowell R.Considered opinions: Deliberative polling in Britain.British Journal of Political Science. 2002;32:455-488
34. Marques A. C. S.,Maia R. C. M.Everyday conversation in the deliberative process: An analysis of communicative exchanges in discussion groups and their contributions to civic and political socialization.Journal of Communication. 2010;60:611-635
35. Mansbridge J.Deliberative politics: Essays on democracy and disagreement. Macedo S., ed. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 1999:211-239.
36. Mendelberg T.,Oleske J.Race and public deliberation.Political Communication. 2000;17:169-191
37. McLeod J. M.,Scheufele D. A.,Moy P.,Horowitz E. M.,Holbert R. L.,Zhang W.,Zubric J.Understanding deliberation: The effects of discussion networks on participation in a public forum.Communication Research. 1999;26:743-774
38. Mutz D. C.The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation.American Journal of Political Science. 2002;46:838-855
39. Mutz D. C.Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 2006:
40. Price V.Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice. Davies T.Gangadharan S. P., ed. Stanford, CA: CSLI; 2009:37-58.
41. Price V.,Cappella J.,Nir L.Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion?.Political Communication. 2002;19:95-112
42. Price V.,Nir L.,Cappella J. N.Normative and informational influences in online political discussion.Communication Theory. 2006;16:47-74
43. Roberson Q. M.,Moye N. A.,Locke E. A.Identifying a missing link between participation and satisfaction: The mediating role of procedural fairness perceptions.Journal of Applied Psychology. 1999;84:585-593
44. Scheufele D. A.,Nisbet M. C.,Brossard D.,Nisbet E. C.Social structure and citizenship: Examining the impacts of social setting, network heterogeneity, and informational variables on political participation.Political Communication. 2004;21:315-338
45. Stromer-Galley J.,Muhlberger P.Agreement and disagreement in group deliberation: Effects on deliberation satisfaction, future engagement, and decision legitimacy.Political Communication. 2009;26:173-192
46. Stugris P.,Roberts C.,Allum N.A different take on the deliberative poll: Information, deliberation, and attitude constraint.Public Opinion Quarterly. 2005;69:30-65
47. Sunstein C. R.Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2006:
48. Tyler T. R.Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural fairness.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1994;67:850-863
49. Tyler T. R.,Rasinski K. A.,Spodick N.Influence of voice on satisfaction with leaders: Exploring the meaning of process control.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1985;48:72-81
50. Verba S.,Nie N.Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. New York, NY: Harper & Row; 1972:
51. Wall V. D.,Galanes G. J.,Love S. B.Small, task-oriented groups: Conflict, conflict management, satisfaction, and decision quality.Small Group Behavior. 1987;18:31-55
52. Wall V. D.,Nolan L. L.Small group conflict: A look at equity, satisfaction, and styles of conflict management.Small Group Behavior. 1987;18:188-211
53. Wheeless L. R.,Wheeless V. E.,Dickson-Markman E.A research note: The relations among social and task perceptions in small groups.Small Group Behavior. 1982;13:373-384
54. Wojcieszak M.Pulling toward or pulling away: Deliberation, disagreement, and opinion extremity in political participation.Social Science Quarterly. 2011;92:206-225
55. Wojcieszak M.,Price V.Facts versus perceptions: Who reports disagreement during deliberation and are the reports accurate?.Political Communication. 2012;29:299-318
56. Zhang W.Constructing and disseminating subaltern public discourses in China.Javnost–The Public. 2006;13 (2): 41-64
57. ZhangW. (2008). Deliberation and the disempowered: Attendance, experience and influence (Doctoral dissertation, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (AAI3328688)