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
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (2)

  1. Written Communication
  2. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication

References (66) · 8 in this index

  1. 10.1093/ijpor/2.3.249
  2. 10.1002/acp.2350070503
  3. 10.1007/BF01498825
  4. Decision research: A field guide
  5. Social influence: The Ontario symposium
Show all 66 →
  1. Unintended thought
  2. 10.2307/358602
  3. 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1992.tb00435.x
  4. 10.1177/107769909707400405
  5. 10.1177/107769909507200105
  6. Advances in experimental social psychology
  7. The psychology of attitudes
  8. New directions in attribution research
  9. 10.1037/0022-3514.36.4.424
  10. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
  11. 10.1080/10584609.1993.9962973
  12. Social cognition
  13. Investigating communication: An introduction to research methods
  14. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01303.x
  15. 10.1006/jesp.1994.1008
  16. 10.1207/s15327663jcp0401_01
  17. 10.1086/209393
  18. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1983.tb00872.x
  19. 10.1037/0022-3514.40.5.843
  20. Taken by storm
  21. 10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.290
  22. 10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341
  23. Written Communication
  24. Written Communication
  25. A theory of discourse
  26. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01265.x
  27. 10.2307/3791301
  28. An analysis of 1996 ballot proposals
  29. 10.1016/0749-5978(86)90025-7
  30. 10.1037/0022-3514.61.1.13
  31. 10.1177/0093650297024006004
  32. Technical Communication Quarterly
  33. Improving risk communication
  34. Social Science Quarterly
  35. Persuasion: Theory and research
  36. 10.1080/10584609.1993.9962963
  37. Cardozo Law Review
  38. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation
  39. 10.1177/009365089016002004
  40. 10.1177/014616727900500209
  41. 10.1037/0022-3514.35.9.645
  42. Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change
  43. Advances in experimental social psychology
  44. Professional communication: The social perspective
  45. Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading
  46. 10.1177/009365097024005002
  47. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1981.tb00826.x
  48. Written Communication
  49. Communicating risks to the public
  50. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  51. Visible Language
  52. College Composition and Communication
  53. 10.1177/009365096023005001
  54. International Social Movement Research
  55. 10.2307/3350088
  56. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  57. 10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.577
  58. 10.1006/obhd.1996.0095
  59. 10.1177/009365099026002003
  60. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1985.tb02272.x
  61. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication