This article presents a mixed methods procedure for evaluating information processing and the role of social influences in deliberative public involvement groups. Specifically, it describes an interpretive, qualitative coding scheme for analyzing group discussions to quantitatively assess how group differences in information processing and social influences affect decision judgments. To substantiate the need for this new approach, the contributions of social psychology for better understanding persuasive influences in groups and individual information processing are described in relation to participatory public involvement contexts. The approach is then described using examples from a deliberative public involvement process. The article concludes with a discussion of the challenges associated with the proposed technique and suggestions for research to advance the technique and assess its contribution to mixed methods research.
Ahuvia, A. ( 2001). Traditional, interpretive, and reception based content analysis: Improving the ability of content analysis to address issues of pragmatic and theoretical concern. Social Indicators Research, 54, 139-172.
2.
Allison, S.T., Worth, L.T., & Campbell King, M.W. (1990). Group decisions as social inference heuristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 801-811.
3.
Armstrong, D., Gosling, A., Weinman, J., & Martaeu, T. ( 1997). The place of inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: An empirical study. Sociology, 31, 597-606.
4.
Arvai, J.L., & Gregory, R. ( 2003). Testing alternative decision approaches for identifying cleanup priorities at contaminated sites. Environmental Science & Technology, 37, 1469-1476.
5.
Arvai, J.L., Gregory, R., & McDaniels, T.L. (2001). Testing a structured decision approach: Value-focused thinking for deliberative risk communication. Risk Analysis, 21, 1065-1076.
6.
Bales, R.F. ( 1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
7.
Becker, D.R., Harris, C.C., McLaughlin, W.J., & Nielsen, E.A. ( 2003). A participatory approach to social impact assessment: The interactive community forum. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23, 367-382.
8.
Becker, D.R., Harris, C.C., Nielsen, E.A., & McLaughlin, W.J. (2004). A comparison of a technical and a participatory application of social impact assessment. Impact Assessment & Project Appraisal, 22, 177-189.
9.
Blatner, K.A., Carroll, M.S., Daniels, S.E., & Walker, G.B. ( 2001). Evaluating the application of collaborative learning to the Wenatchee fire recovery planning effort. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21, 241-270.
10.
Burkhalter, S., Gastil, J., & Kelshaw, T. ( 2002). A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Communication Theory , 12, 398-422.
11.
Carroll, M.S., & Hendrix, W.G. ( 1992). Federally protected rivers: The need for effective local involvement. Journal of the American Planning Association , 58, 346-352.
12.
Chaiken, S. ( 1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.
13.
Chaiken, S., Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chen, J. ( 1996). Beyond accuracy: Defense and impression motives in heuristic and systematic information processing. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 553-578). New York, NY: Guilford.
14.
Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A.H. ( 1989). Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Veleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York, NY: Guilford.
15.
Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. ( 1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context . In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73-96). New York, NY: Guilford.
16.
Chen, S., Shechter, D., & Chaiken, S. ( 1996). Getting at the truth or getting along: Accuracy- versus impression-motivated heuristic and systematic processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 262-275.
17.
Creswell, J.W., & Tashakkori, A. (2007). Editorial: Differing perspectives on mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research , 1(4), 303-308.
Darke, P.R., Chaiken, S., Bohner, G., Einwiller, S., Erb, H.P., & Hazelwood, J.D. (1998). Accuracy motivation, consensus information, and the law of large numbers: Effects on attitude judgment in the absence of argumentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1205-1215.
20.
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H.G. ( 1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 51, 629-636.
21.
Eagly, A.H., & Chaiken, S. ( 1993). The psychology of attitudes. New York, NY: Wadsworth.
22.
Friedmann, J. ( 1973). Retracking America: A theory of transactive planning . Garden City, NY: Anchor Books .
23.
Gee, J.P. ( 1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and methods . New York, NY: Routledge.
24.
Gigerenzer, G. ( 1996). Rationality: Why social context matters. In P. Baltes & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), Interactive minds: Life-span perspectives on the social foundation of cognition (pp. 319-346). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chaiken, S. ( 1997). Selective use of heuristic and systematic processing under defense motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 84-97.
26.
Gregory, R., & Keeney, R.L. ( 1994). Creating policy alternatives using stakeholder values . Management Science, 40, 1035-1048.
27.
Gulley, H.E., & Leathers, D.G. (1977).). Communication and Group Process: Techniques for Improving the Quality of Small-Group Communication (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart. & Winston.
28.
Hall, T.E. ( 2001). Use limits in wilderness: Assumptions and gaps in knowledge . In W. A. Freimund & D. N. Cole (Eds.), Visitor use density and wilderness experience: Proceedings of a workshop; June 1-3, 2000, Missoula, MT (Proc. RMRS-P-20, pp. 39-48). Ogden, UT: USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
29.
Hammond, J., Keeney, R.L., & Raiffa, H. ( 1999). Smart choices: A practical guide to making better decisions . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
30.
Hinsz, V.B., Tindale, R.S., & Vollrath, D.A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin , 121, 43-64.
31.
Holzhausen, K.G., & McGlynn, R.P. ( 2001). Beyond compliance and acceptance: Influence outcomes as a function of norm plausibility and processing mode. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5, 136-149.
32.
Isenberg, D.J. ( 1986). Group polarization: A critical meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1141-1151.
33.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. ( 1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
34.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. ( 1996). On the reality of cognitive illusions. Psychological Review, 103, 582-591.
35.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. ( 2000). Choices, values, and frames. New York, NY: Cambridge University.
36.
Kaplan, M.F., & Miller, C.E. ( 1987). Group decision making and normative versus informational influence: Effects of type of issue and assigned decision rule. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 306-313.
37.
Keeney, R.L. ( 1992). Value-focused thinking: A path to creative decision making . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38.
Keeney, R.L., von Winterfelt, D., & Eppel, T. ( 1990). Eliciting public values for complex policy decisions . Management Science, 39, 1011-1030.
39.
Kerr, N.L., MacCoun, R., & Kramer, G.P. ( 1996). Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 687-719.
40.
Konisky, D.M., & Beierle, T.C. ( 2001). Innovations in public participation and decision making: Examples from the Great Lakes Region. Society and Natural Resources, 14, 815-826.
41.
Krippendorff, K. ( 2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA : SAGE.
42.
Krumpe, E., & McCool, S.F. (1997, May). Role of public involvement in the Limits of Acceptable Change wilderness planning system. Paper presented at the Proceedings-Limits of Acceptable Change and related planning processes, Missoula, MT.
43.
Larson, J.R., Jr., & Christensen, C. (1993). Groups as problem-solving units: Toward a new meaning of social cognition. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 5-30.
44.
Lamm, H., & Myers, D.G. ( 1978). Group-induced polarization of attitudes and behavior . In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 145-195). New York, NY: Academic Press.
45.
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. ( 1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
46.
Maheswaran, D., & Chaiken, S. ( 1991). Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: Effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 13-25.
Markovsky, B., & Thye, S.R. ( 2001). Social influence on paranormal beliefs. Sociological Perspectives, 44, 21-44.
49.
Mathews, D. ( 1994). Politics for people: Finding a responsible public voice . Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
50.
Meyers, R.A., & Brashers, D.E. (1999). Influence processes in group interaction. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 288-312). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
51.
Myers, D.G., & Lamm, H. ( 1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 602-627.
52.
Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 19, 123-205.
53.
Petty, R.E., & Wegener, D.T. ( 1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 41-72). New York, NY: Guilford.
54.
Propp, K.M. ( 1999). Collective information processing in groups. In L. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.). Handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 225-250). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
55.
Selin, S., & Chevez, D. ( 1995). Developing a collaborative model for environmental planning and management. Environmental Management, 19, 189-195.
56.
Steenberger, M.R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., & Steiner, J. ( 2003). Measuring political deliberation: A discourse quality index. Comparative European Politics, 1, 21-48.
57.
Van Swol, L.M. ( 2007). Perceived importance of information: The effects of mentioning of information, shared information bias, ownership bias, reiteration, and confirmation bias. Group Processes and Inter-group Relations , 10, 241-258.
58.
Tetlock, P.E., & Mellers, B.A. ( 2002). The great rationality debate. Psychological Science, 13, 94-99.
59.
Wood, W. ( 1999). Motives and modes of processing in the social influence of groups. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 547-570). New York, NY: Guilford.
60.
Wooten, D.B., & Reed A., II. (2000). A conceptual overview of the self-presentational concerns and response tendencies of focus group participants. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9, 141-153.
61.
Yankelovich, D. ( 1991). Coming to public judgment: Making democracy work in a complex world. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
