WHEN IT COMES FROM THE PEOPLE: THE EFFECTS OF REFORMING OFFICIAL BALLOT INITIATIVE SUMMARIES TO ACCORD WITH CITIZENS’ LEGAL COMMUNICATION PRACTICES

Robert C. Richards, Jr.

The Pennsylvania State University

Department of Communication Arts & Sciences

Presentation at Law and Society Association, May, 2015

Purpose

Test whether revising summaries of ballot initiatives to match citizens’ communicative practices

increases citizens’

knowledge of legal content of initiatives

OverviewBackground

Design

Methodology

Results

Next Steps

SettingDirect Democracy

• Citizens making their own laws in

ballot-initiative elections

• 24 U.S. states have statewide ballot initiative processes

Issue

KNOWLEDGE

GAP

Issue

Citizens often misunderstand legal

aspects of ballot initiatives

Possible Cause

COMMUNICATION

GAP

Possible Cause

Official summaries of initiatives don’t match citizens’ communicative practices

Approach 1: Describe Citizens’ Communicative PracticesDevelop coding scheme describing attributes of citizens’ legal communication about initiatives

Based on content analysis of transcripts of Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR)

Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review

Public deliberation by random sample of 24 citizens on ballot initiative; analysis is published in official voter guide

In 2010 two measures: (1) Mandatory Minimums, and (2) Medical Marijuana Dispensaries

What Do Citizens Talk About?

WHAT’S THE

GOAL?

HOW EFFECTIVE?

Official summaries of initiatives

rarely mention

goals or

effectiveness of initiatives

What’s On Citizens’ Minds?

STRATEGIC SCHEMA

Cognitive structure enabling

Identification of

GoalsAssessment of Effectiveness

Approach 2: Normative Model

Use observed features of citizens’ legal communication about

initiatives, to reform summaries of initiatives

Theoretical Frameworks

Plain Legal Language Theory

Social-Cognitive Learning

Deliberative Democratic Theory

Theoretical Frameworks

Sense-making

Framing

Theory of Reasoned Action

Theoretical Frameworks

Political Campaign Mediation Model

Hypothesis: Cognition

Reading an official summary of an initiative that includes features of citizens’ communicative practices will

increase citizens’

knowledge of legal aspects of the initiative

Hypothesis: Affect

Reading an official summary of an initiative that includes features of citizens’ communicative practices will

increase citizens’

confidence in their knowledge and voting decision about initiative

Hypothesis: Mediation

Reflection will mediate associations between reading official summary of initiative that includes features of citizens’ communicative practices, and

knowledge,

confidence, and voting decision

Research Question: Behavior

How will reading an official summary of an initiative that includes features of citizens’ communicative practices

influence citizens’

voting decision about the initiative?

Experimental Design

Goals Effective

Goals & Effective Control

GOALS =

Description of policy objectives of term limit laws as described in political science scholarship

more competition

in elections

which leads to

officials’ acting in the

public interest more often

EFFECTIVE =

Summary of empirical political science research on effectiveness of term limit laws in achieving their goals

term limits achieve their purpose

during only part of officials’ time in

office

Goals

Effective

Goals & Effective

Control

Reflection

Reflection =

Time spent reading stimulus

Goals

Effective

Goals & Effective

Control

Reflection

•Vote

Voting Confidence

Knowledge Confidence

Knowledge

Knowledge =

15-item scale (α = .75): percentage of correct answers to questions about legal rules in initiative

Knowledge Confidence =

3-item scale (α = .93): self-assurance in understanding of legal rules in initiative

Vote =

One 5-point item: vote in favor of or against the initiative: “definitely”/“probably”; “not sure”

Voting Confidence =

One 7-point item: “How confident do you feel about your answer to the [Vote] question?”

Other Possible Variables

Goals

Effective

Goals & Effective

Policy Objectives

Belief

Policy Effectiveness

Belief

Policy Objectives Belief =

3-item scale (α = .76): accuracy of beliefs about goals of term-limit laws per stimulus

Policy Effectiveness Belief =

2-item scale (r = .35, sig.): accuracy of beliefs about effectivenesss of term-limit laws per stimulus

Belief Measure Effective

Attitude about

Measure Vote

Voting Confidence

Belief Measure Effective =

4-item scale (α = .79): belief about likely effectiveness of initiative if enacted

Attitude about Measure =

3-item scale (α = .89): judgment about initiative

ControlsDemographics

Prior Political Knowledge

Reading Speed

Political Interest

Ideology

Party Affiliation

Partisanship

Cultural-Cognitive Worldview

(Hierarchism, Individualism)

Methodology

SubjectsN = 194 undergraduates

49% women, 49.5% men, 1.5% other

75% white, 11% Asian or Asian-American, 14% other

On Qualtrics: pre-questionnaire (measuring prior political knowledge), stimulus, post-questionnaire

ProcedureSubjects randomly assigned to groups

On Qualtrics: pre-questionnaire (measuring prior political knowledge), stimulus, post-questionnaire

Data AnalysisANOVA

Path modeling in AMOS

Power suffices to detect medium-sized effects

Key Findings

Manipulation Check

Goal groups’ result: significant

Effectiveness-only group’s result: partially significant

No significant

increase in

Knowledge

Inconsistent with

PLAIN LEGAL LANGUAGEand

SOCIAL-COGNITIVE LEARNINGand

CAMPAIGN MEDIATION MODEL

Goals

Effective

Goals & Effective

Belief Measure Effective

+

+

+

Mediators (Goals):

Policy Objectives Belief

Knowledge Confidence

Mediator (Goals & Effective):

Policy Objectives Belief

Consistent with

STRATEGIC SCHEMAand

THEORY OF REASONED ACTION

Goals

Goals & Effective

Voting Confidence

+

+

Mediators:

Attitude about Measure

Policy Objectives Belief

Knowledge Confidence

No significant

difference in

Voting Decision

Consistent with

FRAMING and

SENSE-MAKINGand

DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY

Goals

Knowledge Confidence

+

Mediators:Reflection

Policy Objectives Belief

Legal Knowledge

Consistent with

FRAMING

and

SENSE-MAKING

But may indicate

OVERCONFIDENCE

Goals & Effective

Attitude about

Measure

+

Mediators:

Belief Measure Effective

and

Policy Objectives Belief

Consistent with

FRAMINGand

THEORY OF REASONED ACTION

Next Steps

Re-estimate Standard Errors for Indirect Associations for Vote & Voting Confidence

Replicate Study

Conclusion

No Knowledge Gains

Exposure to Goals

+ Voting Confidence

Exposure to Goals alone

+ Knowledge Confidence

Text of Paper

Full text of the paper accompanying this presentation is available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2612419

Acknowledgements

•Grateful thanks to:

• Anonymous reviewers• Professor James Dillard, Professor John Gastil, Professor John Graham, Professor Christopher Zorn, David Brinker, Brett Wachtendorf, and Sara Castronuova of The Pennsylvania State University

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/