The purpose of this article is to explore an empirical approach to investigating whether and why readers may perceive bias in public education documents (PEDs). Focusing on explanatory ballot booklets as a paradigmatic example of such documents, the study addresses three questions: (a) Can readers' bias judgments be predicted from rhetorical analyses? (b) What is the relation of readers' partisanship to their perception of bias? and (c) What is the nature of readers' bias judgment process? The study investigates readers' perceptions of bias in a Colorado ballot booklet intended to explain a tax cut proposal. Based on a synthesis of current theories and research investigating bias perceptions in cognitive and social psychology and a rhetorical analysis of the presentation frames and semantic cues in the ballot booklet itself, the study hypothesizes that readers, regardless of partisanship, would be more likely to perceive the ballot booklet to be biased in favor of the proposed tax measure than against it. Converging experimental data in the form of questionnaire ratings and think-aloud protocols are shown to support this hypothesis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ball-Rokeach, S.
, Power, G., Guthrie, K., & Waring, H. (1990). Value-framing abortion in the United States: An application of media system dependency theory. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2, 249-273.
2.
Berry, C.
, Scheffler, A., & Goldstein, C. (1993). Effects of text structure on the impact of heard news. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7, 381-395.
3.
Bowler, S.
, & Donovan, T. (1994). Information and opinion change on ballot propositions. Political Behavior, 16, 411-435.
4.
Carroll, J.
, & Johnson, E. (1990). Decision research: A field guide. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
5.
Chaiken, S.
(1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. Zanna, J. Olson, & C. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
Chaiken, S.
, Lieberman, A., & Eagly, A. (1989). Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. Uleman & J. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York: Guilford.
7.
Charney, D.
(1996). Empiricism is not a four-letter word. College Composition and Communication, 47, 567-593.
8.
Diamond, L.
, & Lerch, J. (1992). Fading frames: Data presentation and framing effects. Decision Science, 23, 1050-1071.
9.
Domke, D.
, Fan, D., Fibison, M., Shah, D., Smith, S., & Watts, M. (1997). News media, candidates and issues, and public opinion in the 1996 presidential campaign. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 718-737.
10.
Domke, D.
, & Shaw, D. (1995). Interpretation of issues and voter decision-making strategies: A new perspective on “issue-oriented” election coverage. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 72, 45-71.
11.
Eagly, A.
, & Chaiken, S. (1984). Cognitive theories of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 17, pp. 267-359). New York: Academic Press.
12.
Eagly, A.
, & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
13.
Eagly, A.
, Chaiken, S., & Wood, W. (1981). An attribution analysis of persuasion. In J. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 3, pp. 37-62). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
Eagly, A.
, Wood, W., & Chaiken, S. (1978). Causal inferences about communicators and their effect on opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 424-435.
15.
Entman, R.
(1993). Framing: Toward a clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51-58.
16.
Entman, R.
, & Rojecki, A. (1993). Freezing out the public: Elite and media framing of the U.S. anti-nuclear movement. Political Communication, 10, 151-167.
17.
Fiske, S.
, & Taylor, S. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
18.
Frey, L.
, Botan, C., & Kreps, G. (1999). Investigating communication: An introduction to research methods. New York: Allyn & Bacon.
19.
Geiger, S.
, & Newhagen, J. (1993). Revealing the black box: Information processing and media effects. Journal of Communication, 43, 42-50.
20.
Giner-Sorolla, R.
, & Chaiken, S. (1994). The causes of hostile media judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 165-180.
21.
Green, D.
, & Blair, I. (1995). Framing and the price elasticity of private and public goods. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4, 1-32.
22.
Haugtvedt, C.
, & Wegener, D. (1994). Message order effects in persuasion: An attitude strength perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 205-218.
23.
Heesacker, M.
, Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. (1983). Field dependence and attitude change: Source credibility can alter persuasion by affecting message-relevant thinking. Journal of Personality, 51, 653-666.
24.
Herstein, J.
(1981). Keeping the voter's limits in mind: A cognitive processing analysis of decision making in voting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 843-861.
25.
Iyengar, S.
, & Simon, A. (1994). News coverage of the Gulf crisis and public opinion: A study of agenda-setting, priming, and framing. In W. Bennett & D. Paletz (Eds.), Taken by storm (pp. 167-185). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
26.
Johnson, B.
, & Eagly, A. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290-314.
27.
Kahneman, D.
, & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350.
28.
Killingsworth, J.
, & Palmer, J. (1992). How to save the Earth: The greening of environmental discourse. Written Communication, 9, 385-403.
29.
Killingsworth, J.
, & Steffens, D. (1989). Effectiveness in the environmental impact statement: A study in public rhetoric. Written Communication, 6, 155-180.
30.
Kinneavy, J.
(1971). A theory of discourse. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
31.
Kosicki, G.
(1993). Problems and opportunities in agenda-setting research. Journal of Communication, 43, 100-127.
32.
Kressel, N.
(1987). Biased judgments of media bias: A case study of the Arab-Israeli dispute. Political Psychology, 8, 211-227.
33.
Legislative Council of the Colorado General Assembly
. (1996). An analysis of 1996 ballot proposals (Research Publication No. 415). Denver, CO: Author.
34.
Levin, I.
, Johnson, R., Deldin, P., Carstens, L., Cressey, L., & Davis, C. (1986). Framing effects in decisions with completely and incompletely described alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 48-64.
35.
Maheswaran, D.
, & Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: Effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 61, 13-25.
36.
Martin, C.
, & Oshagan, H. (1997). Disciplining the workforce: The news media frame of a General Motors plant closing. Communication Research, 24, 669-697.
37.
Mirel, B.
(1994). Debating nuclear energy: Theories of risk and purposes of communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 3, 41-65.
38.
National Research Council
. (1989). Improving risk communication. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
39.
Niven, D.
(1999). Partisan bias in the media?Social Science Quarterly, 80, 847-857.
40.
O'Keefe, D.
(1990). Persuasion: Theory and research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
41.
Pan, Z.
, & Kosicki, G. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication, 10, 55-76.
42.
Pennington, N.
, & Hastie, R. (1991). A cognitive theory of juror decision making: The story model. Cardozo Law Review, 13, 519-557.
43.
Perelman, C.
, & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
44.
Perloff, R.
(1989). Ego involvement and third person effect of televised news coverage. Communication Research, 16, 236-262.
45.
Petty, R.
, & Cacioppo, J. (1979a). Effects of forewarning of persuasive intent and involvement on cognitive responses and persuasion. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 173-176.
46.
Petty, R.
, & Cacioppo, J. (1979b). Forewarning, cognitive responding, and resistance to persuasion. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 35, 645-655.
47.
Petty, R.
, & Cacioppo, J. (1986a). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
48.
Petty, R.
, & Cacioppo, J. (1986b). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19). New York: Academic Press.
49.
Porter, J.
(1993). The role of law, policy and ethics in corporate composing: Toward a practical ethics for professional writing. In N. Blyler & C. Thralls (Eds.), Professional communication: The social perspective (pp. 128-143). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
50.
Pressley, M.
, & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
51.
Price, V.
, Tewksbury, D., & Powers, E. (1997). Switching trains of thought: The impact of news frames on readers' cognitive responses. Communication Research, 24, 481-501.
52.
Pyszczynski, T.
, & Wrightsman, L. (1981). The effects of opening statements on mock jurors' verdicts in a simulated criminal trial. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11, 301-313.
53.
Reeves, C.
(1990). Establishing a phenomenon: The rhetoric of early medical reports on AIDS. Written Communication, 7, 393-416.
54.
Renn, O.
, & Levine, D. (1991). Credibility and trust in risk communication. In R. Kasperson & P. Stallen (Eds.), Communicating risks to the public (pp. 175-218). Utrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
55.
Ross, S.
, & Karis, B. (1991). Communicating in public policy matters: Addressing the problem of non-congruent sites of discourse. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 34, 247-256.
56.
Roth, S.
(1994). The unconsidered ballot: How design effects voting behavior. Visible Language, 28, 48-68.
57.
Schriver, K.
(1997). Dynamics in document design. New York: John Wiley.
58.
Shah, D.
, Domke, D., & Wackman, D. (1996). “To thine own self be true”: Values, framing, and voter decision-making strategies. Communication Research, 23, 509-560.
59.
Snow, D.
, & Benford, R. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participation mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197-217.
60.
Soumerai, S.
, Ross-Degnan, D., & Kahn, J. (1992). Effects of professional and media warnings about the association between aspirin use in children and Reye's syndrome. Milbank Quarterly, 70, 155-182.
61.
Stratman, J.
, Boykin, C., Holmes, M., Laufer, M., & Breen, M. (1995). Risk communication, metacommunication, and rhetorical stases in the Aspen-EPA superfund controversy. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 9, 5-41.
62.
Vallone, R.
, Ross, L., & Lepper, M. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perceptions and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 577-585.
63.
Wang, X.
(1996). Framing effects: Dynamics and task domains. Organizational Processes and Human Decision Processes, 68, 145-157.
64.
Watts, M.
, Domke, D., Shah, D., & Fan, D. (1999). Elite cues and media bias in presidential campaigns: Explaining public perceptions of a liberal press. Communication Research, 26, 144-175.
65.
Wells, G.
, Wrightsman, L., & Miene, P. (1985). The timing of the defense opening statement: Don't wait until the evidence is in. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 758-772.
66.
Zerbe, M.
, Young, A., & Nagelhout, E. (1998). The rhetoric of fraud in breast cancer trials: Manifestations in medical journals and the mass media—And missed opportunities. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 28, 39-58.
