Biased political reasoning and relational inferences in a small-group deliberative context. Issue 2 (15th March 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Brinker, David L.
• Is Part Of: Communication quarterly. Volume 67:Issue 2(2019)
• Page Start: 221
• Page End: 241
• Publication Date: 2019-03-15
• Subjects: Democratic Deliberation -- Interpersonal Communication -- Multilevel Modeling -- Political Communication -- Relational Framing Theory; Communication -- Periodicals; 302.205
• DOI: 10.1080/01463373.2019.1573202
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0146-3373

Abstract

Abstract : Theorists of deliberative democracy envision a citizenry engaged in collective reasoning about public issues on the merits of rival arguments. Partisanship undermines this ideal when it causes people to discount counter-attitudinal arguments, independent of their quality. Empirical deliberative theory lacks an account for what mechanism mitigates this bias in small-group settings. To close that theoretical gap, this study draws on Relational Framing Theory and identifies a relational component of the reasoning process. Participants rated the relevance of dominance/submission and affiliation/disaffiliation relational frames after a small-group deliberation. This perception influenced participants' decisions to endorse arguments as legitimate public reasons. Implications for deliberative theory, research, and practice are discussed.