Readers' Perception of Bias in Public Education Documents

Written Communication Oct 2000

Readers' Perception of Bias in Public Education Documents

JAMES F. STRATMAN

Abstract

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.

Journal: Written Communication
Published: 2000-10-01
DOI: 10.1177/0741088300017004004
Open Access: Closed
Topics: qualitative research

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (2)

Cramer et al. (2014)

Examining Readers’ Evaluations of Objectivity and Bias in News Discourse

Written Communication
Killoran (2005)

ePluribus UNUM? Dialogism and Monologism in Organizational Web Discourse

Journal of Technical Writing and Communication

Cites in this index (7)

Schriver (1998)

Dynamics in Document Design

College Composition and Communication
Zerbe et al. (1998)

The Rhetoric of Fraud in Breast Cancer Trials: Manifestations in Medical Journa…

Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
STRATMAN et al. (1995)

Risk Communication, Metacommunication, and Rhetorical Stases in the Aspen-EPA S…

Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Mirel (1994)

Debating nuclear energy: Theories of risk and purposes of communication

Technical Communication Quarterly
KILLINGSWORTH et al. (1992)

How to Save the Earth

Written Communication

Show all 7 →

REEVES (1990)

Establishing a Phenomenon

Written Communication
KILLINGSWORTH et al. (1989)

Effectiveness in the Environmental Impact Statement

Written Communication

Also cites 37 works outside this index ↓

10.1093/ijpor/2.3.249

↗
10.1002/acp.2350070503

↗
10.1007/BF01498825

↗
10.2307/358602

↗
10.1111/j.1540-5915.1992.tb00435.x

↗
10.1177/107769909707400405

↗
10.1177/107769909507200105

↗
10.1037/0022-3514.36.4.424

↗
10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x

↗
10.1080/10584609.1993.9962973

↗
10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01303.x

↗
10.1006/jesp.1994.1008

↗
10.1207/s15327663jcp0401_01

↗
10.1086/209393

↗
10.1111/j.1467-6494.1983.tb00872.x

↗
10.1037/0022-3514.40.5.843

↗
10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.290

↗
10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341

↗
10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01265.x

↗
10.2307/3791301

↗
10.1016/0749-5978(86)90025-7

↗
10.1037/0022-3514.61.1.13

↗
10.1177/0093650297024006004

↗
10.1080/10584609.1993.9962963

↗
10.1177/009365089016002004

↗
10.1177/014616727900500209

↗
10.1037/0022-3514.35.9.645

↗
Pressley, M.

Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading

↗
10.1177/009365097024005002

↗
10.1111/j.1559-1816.1981.tb00826.x

↗
10.1109/47.108672

↗
10.1177/009365096023005001

↗
10.2307/3350088

↗
10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.577

↗
10.1006/obhd.1996.0095

↗
10.1177/009365099026002003

↗
10.1111/j.1559-1816.1985.tb02272.x

↗

CrossRef global citation count: 2 View in citation network →