[Please note: The full text of the paper associated with this presentation is available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2447343 ] A weakness of coding schemes used in analyzing citizens’ legal communication about proposed laws is the lack of evidence that such codes correspond to concepts in citizens’ minds, viz., evidence of representational validity (Poole & Folger, 1981). This study aims to address that weakness by using a sorting exercise to assess the representational validity of codes from a coding scheme of citizens’ legal communication about proposed laws (Richards, 2012; Richards & Gastil, 2013). The results furnish evidence that topical concepts referred to by the codes are recognized by ordinary persons, but the extent of recognition varies. Multidimensional scaling and cluster analyses indicated that the codes were organized along two dimensions and seven clusters, six of which could be readily interpreted. Findings support suggestions in previous research that strategic and realistic cognitive schemata influenced citizens’ decision making and communication about proposed laws (Richards, 2012; Richards & Gastil, 2013).

1. FROM THE PEOPLE’S PERSPECTIVE:
ASSESSING THE REPRESENTATIONAL
VALIDITY OF A CODING SCHEME OF
CITIZENS’ LEGAL COMMUNICATION ABOUT
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
Direct Democracy
• Citizens making their own laws in ballot-initiative
elections
• 24 U.S. states have statewide ballot
initiative processes

4. The Issue
Citizens often misunderstand legal aspects of
ballot initiatives
Official explanatory statements are citizens’ chief
source of legal information about initiatives
Citizens’ knowledge gap is likely due to
communication flaws in explanatory statements

5. Theoretical Frameworks
Plain Legal Language Theory
• Effective communication matches citizens’
communicative practices
Social Cognitive Theory
• Effective communication matches cognitive
structures and processes in citizens’ minds

6. Approach: Descriptive Model
Develop a coding scheme that describes
attributes of citizens’ legal communication
about ballot initiatives
Based on transcripts of Oregon Citizens’
Initiative Review (CIR)

7. 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

8. Approach: Normative Model
Use the coding scheme of citizens’ legal
communication about initiatives, to evaluate
explanatory statements

9. Coding Scheme of Citizens’ Legal
Communication about Initiatives
Attributes: Topics, Functions, and Discursive
Modes
439 Codes
42 Categories

10. Cognitive Structures & Processes
Strategic Schema
• Citizens identify goal of initiative, and determine
likelihood of effectiveness in achieving it
Realistic Schema
• Citizens identify unintended consequences of
initiative, and determine likelihood of occurrence

11. Literature Review
Earlier coding schemes of citizens’ legal
communication about proposed laws are
generally consistent with coding scheme
used in this study
In previous studies, representational validity
of earlier coding schemes was not evaluated

12. Goals of This Study
1. Assess the representational validity of
major topical codes in the coding scheme
“Representational validity” = Codes match meanings
understood by citizens (i.e., the emic perspective)
“Major” = Most frequently observed in CIR transcripts

13. Goals of This Study (continued)
2. Identify higher-level dimensions of the
topical codes
3. Identify associations / distinctions among
topical codes

14. Methodology
Sorting exercise, on online
OptimalWorkshop platform
N = 109 undergraduates

15. Methodology (continued)
54 cards containing statements by 2010
Oregon CIR panelists, coded as designating
topics in content analysis
Three cards per topic, total of 18 topics
The full text of cards is available at:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16652392/
SortingExercise1ItemswithConcepts10-6-14.pdf

16. Methodology (continued)
Instructions:
1. Read ballot initiative on increasing criminal
sentences, plus ballot title, explanatory statement,
and financial impact statement
2. Place cards in piles; in each pile, place cards
“whose statements belong together,” in subject’s
view
3. Then label each pile “with a name that,” in the
subject’s view, “best describes items in the pile”

17. Analytical Methods
Similarity Statistics
Multidimensional Scaling
Cluster Analysis

18. Main Results
1. Most of the codes were recognized, but
the extent of recognition varied.
2. Two dimensions of codes were identified,
but their meaning is uncertain.
3. Codes were grouped in seven clusters,
six of which are readily interpretable.

19. 1. Most codes were recognized,
but extent of recognition varied.
Note: Codes measured with three items, except
that ** = code measured with two items.

20. -
Code
% of Subjects
Recognizing
Code
Experts’ Opinions, Fiscal Effects,
Other Jurisdictions’ Laws
≥ 50%
Bases for Legal Challenges,
Delegation of Regulatory Authority,
History of Initiative, Policy Objectives**
30-49%
Alternative Means**, Effects on Other Laws,
Language Choices, Means**,
Need for Initiative
20-29%
Unintended Consequences, Effectiveness,
Policy Reasons for Choosing Lawmaking,
Public Administration Effects,
Regulations in Force, Statutes in Force**
10-19%

21. 2. Two dimensions of codes were
identified, but their meaning is
uncertain.
Note: Code names indicate two items loading
exclusively on the indicated dimension with value of
≥|0.400|, except that * = only one item loaded on the
indicated dimension, *** = three items loaded on the
indicated dimension; and † = two items loaded on the
indicated dimension with values of ≥|0.100| & <|0.400|.

22. Dimension I Dimension II
Bases for Legal
Challenges,
Experts’ Opinions***,
Language Choices†
Effectiveness*,
Effects on Other Laws,
Alternative Means*,
Means,
Need for Initiative,
Policy Objectives,
Policy Reasons for
Choosing Lawmaking*

23. Unintended Consequences: all
three items loaded weakly [≥|0.100|
& <|0.400|] on Dimension I, and
one item loaded weakly on
Dimension II.

24. Possible Interpretations of Dimensions
Dimension I Dimension II
Realistic Schema, etc. Strategic Schema
System I Thinking System II Thinking
? ?

25. 3. Codes were grouped in seven
clusters, six of which are readily
interpretable.
Note: Code name indicates three items were placed
in the cluster, except that * = one item was placed in
the cluster, and ** = two items were placed in the
cluster.

26. Cluster 1: Bases for Legal Challenges
Cluster 4: Alternative Means**, Policy
Objectives**, Statutes in Force**
Cluster 2: Delegation of Regulatory
Authority, Effectiveness, Experts’
Opinions, Effects on Other Laws**,
History of Initiative, Means*, Need for
Initiative**, Other Jurisdictions’ Laws,
Policy Objectives*, Policy Reasons for
Choosing Lawmaking**
Cluster 5: Unintended Consequences
Cluster 3: Alternative Means*, Effects
on Other Laws*, Language Choices,
Policy Reasons for Choosing
Lawmaking*, Public Administration
Effects, Regulations in Force, Statutes
in Force*
Cluster 6: Fiscal Effects
Cluster 7: Experts’ Opinions*, Means**

27. Interpretations of Clusters
Cluster 1: Bases for
Legal Challenges
Cluster 4: Alternative
Means of Achieving
Policy Objectives
Cluster 2: Strategic
Schema
Cluster 5: Unintended
Consequences
Cluster 3: ? Cluster 6: Fiscal Effects
Cluster 7: Experts’
Opinions about Means

28. Conclusion
• Evidence of representational validity, but
extent varies
•Two dimensional structure, but meaning of
dimensions is uncertain
• Codes group in seven clusters, six of which
are readily interpretable
• Replicate this study
• Survey subjects on meaning of dimensions

29. Full text
The full text of the paper associated
with this presentation is available at:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2447343

30. Acknowledgements
•Grateful thanks to:
• Anonymous reviewers
• Professor James Dillard, Professor John
Gastil, and David Brinker of The
Pennsylvania State University Department of
Communication Arts & Sciences

31. 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/