[Full text of the paper associated with this presentation is available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2447325 ] In earlier research concerning conflictual communication and negotiation, group members’ methods for determining the goals of an out-group have been examined, and goal-detection has been associated with “entativity,” or the development of members’ beliefs about the nature of both the out-group and their own group. No previous study appears to have explored the techniques used by members of groups engaged in policy deliberation to detect the goals of out-groups consisting of policy proponents, however. In this paper, methods used by deliberating panelists in the 2010 Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Reviews (CIRs) to discover initiative-proponents’ policy objectives were examined. Results indicated that CIR panelists employ some goal-detection methods—including inferences from the panelists’ own discussions, as well as the use of proponents’ testimony—not identified in other contexts, and likely associated with deliberative procedures promoting cooperation, information-sharing, and metacognition. The sequences in which panelists employed goal-detection techniques suggested a process of informal hypothesis testing motivated by uncertainty reduction. Further, in light of evidence of panelists’ goal-detection and entativity processes, a new model linking deliberative group members’ processes of goal-determination and of understanding the nature of their own group and of the policy-proponents’ group is proposed. In this model, deliberative group members come to understand their own and the proponents’ group as having multiple dimensions, including common participation in a superordinate collectivity, the public.

1. 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

2. Overview
Previous Research and Goals for This Study
Methodology
Results
Conclusion

3. Setting
Small-Group Policy Deliberation
• Citizens’ Initiative Review, Citizens’ Jury,
Citizens’ Assembly / Parliament
• Example: Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. Goal-Detection Methods from Previous
Research
• Direct request
• Inference from conduct
• Inference from group membership (e.g.,
stereotypes)
• Consulting third parties
• Perspective-taking

9. Context influences detection method
Previous studies concern conflict
communication and negotiation contexts:
•Direct requests are often impossible
• Indirect goal-detection methods are
common

10. 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

11. Goal Detection Influences Entativity
Process of
Detecting
Out-group
Goals
Beliefs about
Nature of
Out-group
Awareness of out-group goals influences
perception of nature of out-group

12. Goal Detection Influences Entativity (2)
Process of
Learning
In-group
Goals
Beliefs about
Nature of In-group
Awareness of in-group goals influences perception
of nature of in-group

13. Out-group and In-group Entativity
Beliefs about
Nature of
Out-group
Beliefs about
Nature of
In-group
Beliefs about nature of out-group influence beliefs about
nature of in-group

14. Entativity Influences Goal-Detection
Beliefs about
Nature of
In-group
Beliefs about nature of In-group [indirectly] influence goal-detection
process
Process of
Detecting
Out-group
Goals

15. 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

16. 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 associations
between deliberative groups’ entativity
beliefs about out-group & in-group

17. 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

18. Main Results

19. 1. CIR panelists used some
goal-detection methods not
used by other groups

20. 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

21. New goal-detection methods are
consistent with deliberative context,
which emphasizes:
•Information sharing
•Meta-cognition

22. 2. Indirect methods were used
first to develop tentative beliefs;
direct methods were used later

23. 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

24. 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

25. Proposed Model: Informal Hypothesis
Testing
Dependent Variable:
• Certainty about beliefs regarding out-group goals
Independent Variables:
• Duration of deliberation
• Goal-detection methods used
Moderating Variable:
• Group consensus

26. 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)

28. 3. Some panelists associated in-group
and out-group goal-detection
processes

29. “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

30. “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

31. 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.”

32. 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.”

33. 4. Some panelists characterized
out-group goals as “our” goals

34. • “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”

35. • “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”

36. • “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”

37. • “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”

38. 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’

39. Hypothesis: Parallel Goal-Detection
Processes Influence Adoption of
Superordinate Collective Identity

40. 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

41. 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

42. 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

43. 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

44. 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

45. 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

46. 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

47. Full text
The full text of the paper associated
with this presentation is available at:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2447325

48. 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

49. 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/