The development of theories of citizens’ political communication has been hindered by a debate over whether such communication is best characterized as deliberative or non-deliberative. This article aims to overcome that impasse with a new account of citizens’ political communication informed by theories of message production and sense-making: the goals–sense-making–justification (GSJ) model. This model holds that citizens’ political-communicative behavior is influenced by multiple goals and cognitive plans, which generally vary in different contexts. This variation helps to explain why citizens’ informal political discussions during non-election periods rarely feature reason-giving—and so can be understood as non-deliberative—whereas such discussions during major-election campaigns often feature the reason-giving that is characteristic of deliberation. Empirical results—from an original study and previous research—are consistent with several features of the model, but findings concerning persuasive and advice-giving goals and the use of information-seeking behaviors are mixed, and more evidence is needed of the role of cognitive plans in citizens’ political communication.
Political-communication theorists highlight citizens’ agency (
Political-communication
First, in most deliberative theories, reason-giving is the defining (
Among accounts characterizing citizens’ political talk as deliberative are theories explaining deliberative practices’ reproduction. For Burkhalter et al. (
Complementing those accounts, other theorists argue citizens contribute to the larger deliberative system. Citing evidence that citizens engage in reason-giving about politics, informally in discussions with family and coworkers, especially during elections, and in formal deliberations, Neblo (
Nonetheless, several theorists criticize deliberative characterizations of citizens’ political talk. Thompson (
Amid these disagreements, three patterns in empirical evidence about citizens’ political communication seem noteworthy. First, citizens’ informal political discussion generally occurs during everyday conversation (e.g.,
In response, we propose the goals–sense-making–justification (GSJ) model of citizens’ political communication. This model explains the deliberative or non-deliberative nature of such communication as arising from associations among contexts, goals, and plans.
Before presenting the GSJ model, we note that the model’s theoretical sources were designed to account for face-to-face, online, and hybrid in-person and online settings.
In presenting the GSJ model, we first explain the sense-making (
In addition to sense-making theory, the GSJ model draws from the GPA model, holding that message production begins with the context,
Those goals activate plans: sets of cognitive representations of communicative behaviors intended to advance the goals (
Once activated, a plan spurs performance of behaviors depicted in it (
Thus different goals generally define (i.e., function as primary goals in) communicative interactions in different contexts, different plans are generally activated in different contexts, and communicative conduct usually varies between contexts. Yet in distinct but similar contexts, individuals perceive similar opportunities and obstacles, which cause similar goals to define interactions, which activate similar plans, which foster similar behaviors.
The GSJ model posits four contexts of citizens’ political communication: informal discussion in one’s close social network of family and friends (
In the Informal Ordinary Context, no major political event, such as a major election,
H1(a). Goals of maintaining relationships, reputation, and self-image; passing the time; self-development; and stimulating interesting discussion will define citizens’ interactions to a greater extent than goals of making a political decision, obtaining information, providing guidance/advice, or changing others’ opinions.
Principles of the Goals–Sense-making–Justification (GSJ) Model: Informal Ordinary and Informal Major-Political-Event Contexts.
Setting | Timing | Phase | Primary Goals | Secondary Goals | Cognitive Plans | Communicative Behaviors |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Infrequent Regularity unknown |
N/A | Maintain relationships Pass the time Stimulate interesting discussion Maintain reputation Maintain self-image Self-development |
Make political decision Obtain information Provide guidance/advice Change opinion |
Political messages exchanged like tokens during small talk, without reasons |
||
In major elections: Frequent and regular In other major-political events: Frequent and irregular |
Make political decision Obtain information |
Maintain relationships Maintain reputation Maintain self-image Pass the time Stimulate interesting discussion Provide guidance/advice Change opinion Self-development |
Information-seeking behaviors concerning (a) political choice and (b) close-social-network members’ political views and values |
|||
Make political decision Provide guidance/advice Change opinion |
Maintain relationships Maintain reputation Maintain self-image Pass the time Stimulate interesting discussion Obtain information Self-development |
Behaviors justifying political decision and persuasive claims, with reasons acceptable to members of close social network |
Those primary goals should activate plans, because—in this and other contexts—plan use facilitates goal attainment and interpersonal coordination
H1(b). Citizens will plan to use (i) information-seeking and (ii) reason-giving behaviors infrequently.
Because citizens are unlikely to devote cognitive effort to casual conversations, plans for such conversations will probably lack complexity, and so in that context, personality traits are unlikely to influence plan complexity (cf.
The activated plan should prompt performance of behaviors depicted in it—in this and other contexts—through instructions, encoded in the plan, to the sensorimotor system
H1(c). Citizens will infrequently use (i) information-seeking and (ii) reason-giving behaviors.
Informal political talk among family and friends
In the Informal Major-Political-Event Context, the GSJ model predicts two phases of goal activation. The first concerns information-seeking (Table
Activating that goal should raise citizens’ awareness that they lack information. First, many citizens lack sufficient information to make the political choice, including information about political parties’ basic positions (
Many citizens also need information concerning justification. Because the citizen lives in a close social network whose members monitor his/her public political decisions (
Those information needs should generate emotions of uncertainty, disorientation, and anxiety (
Activating the information-seeking goal should stimulate planning (
Personality traits will probably influence citizens’ information-seeking plans. Neuroticism, linked to quick searching of few resources (
Once activated, the information-seeking plan should spur the performance of behaviors represented in it (
Further, because more complex plans describe greater numbers of behaviors (
On obtaining the needed information, a second message-production phase begins (Table
The citizen should then feel more capable of helping others make political choices and of persuading others to choose in particular ways. Further, the citizen should perceive undecided family or friends or those who made a different political choice as opportunities to exert influence (
H2(a). Goals of making a political decision, obtaining information, providing guidance/advice, and changing others’ opinions will define citizens’ interactions to a greater extent than goals of maintaining relationships, reputation, or self-image, passing the time, self-development, or stimulating interesting discussion.
The advice-giving and opinion-changing goals should activate a justification plan (
H2(b). Citizens will plan to use (i) information-seeking and (ii) reason-giving behaviors more often than in the Informal Ordinary Context.
Further, in the Informal Major-Political-Event Context, self-monitoring and cognitive complexity—related in earlier research to plan complexity (
Plan activation should trigger performance of reason-giving behaviors represented in the plan (
H2(c). Citizens will use (i) information-seeking and (ii) reason-giving behaviors more often than in the Informal Ordinary Context.
Because plan complexity should be positively associated with frequency of performing communicative behaviors, in this context, self-monitoring and cognitive complexity (
Because most major political events impose decisional deadlines, citizens’ informal discussions with family and friends during such events should occur more frequently than during the Informal Ordinary Context, and during major elections should occur regularly because those elections generally recur at consistent intervals. Therefore information-seeking and justification plans activated in informal political discussions during major political events should be stored in memory, repeatedly re-used, and elaborated over lifetimes (
The GSJ model specifies two contexts involving organized deliberation with strangers: outside of major political events (Formal Ordinary Context) and during such events (Formal Major-Political-Event Context) (collectively, Formal Contexts).
The GSJ model predicts the Informal Major-Political-Event Context and Formal Contexts are sufficiently congruent that similar goals will be activated in both contexts, which should trigger the same plans, which should produce similar political-communicative behaviors, as follows. Both contexts apply pressure to make a political or policy decision on citizens who lack sufficient information to make the decision and to justify the decision to group members. In both contexts, citizens consequently experience needs for information required for making and justifying the decision. In both contexts, citizens are likely to perceive the decision-making task and information needs as opportunities and obstacles, which should activate decision-making and information-seeking goals. In both contexts, acquiring that information and making the decision should boost citizens’ sense-making and self-efficacy and enable citizens to formulate justifications for their decision. In both contexts, citizens should perceive group members as affording opportunities to exert influence, which should activate goals concerning advising and persuading. We now explain in detail the GSJ model in Formal Contexts.
In the Formal Ordinary Context, deliberative processes involve making decisions, whether group choices (
Information-seeking in the Formal Ordinary Context begins with the formal process’s decision-making task, which makes decision-making salient for citizens. Decision-making presents opportunities to influence policy and to satisfy the formal process’s administrators’ and other participants’ desires for a decision (
Principles of the Goals–Sense-making–Justification (GSJ) Model: Formal Ordinary Context.
Setting | Timing | Phase | Primary Goals | Secondary Goals | Cognitive Plans | Communicative Behaviors |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N/A | Make political/policy decision Obtain information Self-development* |
Maintain relationships Maintain reputation Maintain self-image Pass the time Stimulate interesting discussion Provide guidance/advice Change opinion |
Information-seeking behaviors concerning (a) political/policy matters, (b) political/policy views and values of members of formal discussion group, and (c) standards specified by formal discussion process |
|||
Make political/policy decision Provide guidance/advice Change opinion |
Maintain relationships Maintain reputation Maintain self-image Pass the time Stimulate interesting discussion Obtain information Self-development |
Behaviors justifying political/policy decision, with reasons (a) acceptable to members of formal discussion group and (b) satisfying standards specified by formal discussion process |
Activating that goal should raise citizens’ awareness of needs for information about the process’s issue and evaluative criteria and other participants’ issue-relevant views and values. Those needs should trigger emotions of confusion, anxiety, and disorientation (
Moreover, in no-vote/no-consensus processes, the absence of social pressure to make a public political decision should reduce the extent to which decision-making defines participants’ interactions. The citizen should perceive that attenuated decision-making imperative as an opportunity to pursue personal objectives (
H3. The self-development goal will define citizens’ interactions to a greater extent than goals of maintaining relationships, reputation, or self-image; passing the time; or stimulating interesting discussions.
Because during past major political events the citizen likely elaborated and stored in memory such an information-seeking plan, in this context the information-seeking goal should trigger the retrieval from memory of that plan, which should then be adapted for use in the formal process (
Adaptations citizens will likely make to that plan (
The retrieved and modified plan should trigger the performance of information-seeking behaviors represented in the plan (
As in the Informal Major-Political-Event Context, in the Formal Ordinary Context, citizens’ extraversion, openness, conscientiousness, self-monitoring, and cognitive complexity (
Acquiring the desired information should trigger the second, justification, phase (Table
As in the Informal Major-Political-Event Context, the citizen, in the Formal Ordinary Context, is likely to perceive other participants who remain undecided or whose decision differs from the citizen’s as opportunities for exerting influence (
Then advice-giving and opinion-changing goals should activate the pre-existing justification plan. Developed over repeated major political events, that plan should be retrieved from memory and adapted for use in the Formal Ordinary Context, even if that plan only approximately suits that setting (
Because the GSJ model predicts citizens’ political communication in the Formal Major-Political-Event Context will track that in the Formal Ordinary Context, with a few exceptions described below, we hypothesize, in political-communicative interactions in Formal Contexts
H4(a). Goals of making a political/policy decision, obtaining information, providing guidance/advice, and changing others’ opinions will define citizens’ interactions to a greater extent than goals of maintaining relationships, reputation, or self-image; passing the time; stimulating interesting discussion; or—except in the Formal Ordinary Context in processes that do not require participants to vote or reach consensus—self-development.
H4(b). Citizens will plan to use (i) information-seeking and (ii) reason-giving behaviors more often than in informal political-communicative interactions with close-social-network members in the Informal Ordinary Context, and as often as in such interactions with those members in the Informal Major-Political-Event Context.
H4(c). Citizens will use (i) information-seeking and (ii) reason-giving behaviors more often than in informal political-communicative interactions with close-social-network members in the Informal Ordinary Context, and as often as in such interactions with those members in the Informal Major-Political-Event Context.
Moreover, because priming is conventionally used to investigate plans (
H4(d). Citizens—primed to recall informal political-communicative interactions with close-social-network members that occurred in the Informal Major-Political-Event Context—will use more (i) information-seeking and (ii) reason-giving behaviors in communicative interactions than citizens not so primed.
As in the Informal Major-Political-Event Context, in Formal Contexts, citizens’ self-monitoring and cognitive complexity (
H5. Citizens’ extraversion, openness, conscientiousness, self-monitoring, and cognitive complexity will be positively associated, and citizens’ neuroticism will be negatively associated, with (i) the complexity of information-seeking plans and (ii) the frequency of performing information-seeking behaviors. (iii) The complexity of information-seeking plans will partially mediate associations between traits and behaviors.
H6. Citizens’ self-monitoring and cognitive complexity will be positively associated with (i) the complexity of reason-giving plans and (ii) the frequency of performing reason-giving behaviors. (iii) The complexity of reason-giving plans will partially mediate associations between traits and behaviors.
Citizens’ political-communicative interactions in the Formal Major-Political-Event Context are expected to differ somewhat from the Formal Ordinary Context. During a major political event, in no-vote/no-consensus processes whose focal issue concerns the event, citizens are likely to perceive decision-making concerning that issue as salient and as an opportunity to influence policy and to placate those exerting pressure to decide. That perception should lead cognitive rules to activate the decision-making goal to a greater degree than in such processes during the Formal Ordinary Context. Further, in the Formal Major-Political-Event Context, decision-making’s heightened salience should cause citizens to perceive fewer opportunities to pursue personal objectives, leading cognitive rules to attenuate activation of the self-development goal. Moreover, the major political decision’s salience should increase citizens’ perceptions of opportunities to affect that decision by influencing others’ choices on the focal issue. Accordingly (Table
H7. Goals of making a political/policy decision, providing guidance, and changing others’ opinions will define citizens’ interactions to a greater extent than in such processes in the Formal Ordinary Context.
Principles of the Goals–Sense-making–Justification (GSJ) Model: Formal Major-Political-Event Context.
Setting | Timing | Phase | Primary Goals | Secondary Goals | Cognitive Plans | Communicative Behaviors |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N/A | Make political/policy decision* Obtain information |
Maintain relationships Maintain reputation Maintain self-image Pass the time Stimulate interesting discussion Provide guidance/advice Change opinion Self-development |
Information-seeking behaviors concerning (a) political/policy matters, (b) political/policy views and values of members of formal discussion group, and (c) standards specified by formal discussion process |
|||
Make political/policy decision* Provide guidance/advice* Change opinion* |
Maintain relationships Maintain reputation Maintain self-image Pass the time Stimulate interesting discussion Obtain information Self-development |
Behaviors justifying political/policy decision, with reasons (a) acceptable to members of formal discussion group and (b) satisfying standards specified by formal discussion process |
We now assess the GSJ model’s congruence with results from previous and new research.
Regarding goals, studies showed social objectives, such as passing time with others, and personal objectives, such as self-development, defined citizens’ informal political talk outside of major political events (
With respect to behaviors, Walsh (
Regarding goals, research indicated decision-making and information-seeking defined citizens’ informal political talk during major elections (
In addition, studies indicate many citizens, as noted above, do not know their family members’ political affiliations, political talk with family and friends is more frequent during major elections—especially among citizens less likely to be politically knowledgeable—and political-discussion frequency is positively associated with political-decision salience, willingness to vote, and voter turnout (
Regarding behaviors, studies show friends’ furnishing reasons to justify major-election votes (
Jacobs et al. (
Regarding information-seeking and sense-making, previous research showed citizens gained issue-knowledge and political efficacy during formal deliberations (
With respect to behaviors, studies report substantial reason-giving in citizens’ formal deliberations (
Regarding relationships between informal and formal political discussion, research showed jurors reused deliberative norms and practices developed outside the courts (
Finally, no evidence was found relevant to Hypotheses 3 or 5 through 9.
Considered together, the foregoing evidence indicates the plausibility of the GSJ model’s core principles.
The goals–sense-making–justification (GSJ) model of citizens’ political communication draws on message-production (
In decision-making contexts, the model predicts goals defining citizens’ interactions and plans serving those goals lead citizens to engage in information-seeking and in reason-giving characteristic of deliberation. Yet in non-decisional settings, such as informal political talk outside of major political events, the model holds that citizens’ goals and related plans encourage the exchange of messages like tokens during small talk and make less likely the kind of reason-giving that distinguishes deliberation. Thus the GSJ model reconciles claims of theorists arguing citizens’ political talk is non-deliberative (e.g.,
Evidence supports many of the model’s principles, including phases of information-seeking and justification in informal political discussion with family and friends during major political events, and that information-seeking fosters sense-making and empowerment during such events and formal deliberations. Findings support hypotheses concerning social and personal goals as primary goals and infrequent reason-giving in informal political talk in close social networks in the Informal Ordinary Context, and regarding the primacy of decision-making and information-seeking goals in such talk during major political events. Evidence also supports predictions about the frequency of reason-giving in such talk during such events and formal deliberations. Further, research broadly accords with the model’s characterization of informal political talk as training citizens for formal deliberations.
Yet evidence regarding some aspects of the model is mixed or absent. Results are inconsistent concerning the roles of persuasive and advice-giving goals in informal political discussion during and beyond major political events. No evidence has been located concerning the self-development goal’s role during formal deliberations, or about whether participants prioritize decision-making and persuasive goals during formal processes to a greater extent during major political events than beyond such events. Nor has evidence been identified concerning plans in citizens’ political communication, and evidence of the frequency of information-seeking behaviors is mixed or absent. Moreover, no evidence has been found concerning personality traits’ influence on citizens’ political-communicative plans or behaviors.
Features of the GSJ model about which there is no or inconsistent evidence should be foci of future research. Consistent goals (
Theoretical limitations also characterize this account. First, whereas this account defines deliberation as reason-giving, future theorizing should extend the model to incorporate other indicia of deliberation (e.g.,
Theorizing about citizens’ political communication has been stymied by disagreement over whether deliberative or non-deliberative theory best characterizes such communication. The goals–sense-making–justification model presented in this article helps to overcome that impasse. This article demonstrates how accounting for cognitive phenomena that generate political communication can help advance theorizing concerning citizens’ deliberations.
‘Political communication’ means symbolic exchanges about public policy or public affairs.
‘Citizens’ denotes members of a political community regardless of naturalization.
‘Public policy’ means collective action to address matters of community interest.
‘Politics’ denotes the use of power in relation to institutions.
‘Message production’ means the goal-oriented process of creating symbols and behaviors aimed at expressing intentions and emotions to others (e.g.,
The goals-plans-action (GPA) model arose through research analyzing face-to-face and online interactions (see
We return to this topic in the Discussion section.
We consider sense-making at the individual (
‘Context’ is a synonym for ‘setting’ (
For empirical evidence of the causal influence of contexts on goals, see Wilson (
We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting the inclusion of the self-development goal (
For empirical evidence of the causal relationship between goals and plans, see Berger (
For empirical evidence of the causal relationship between plans and communicative behaviors, see Berger (
For the theoretical explanation for reuse of plans, see note 27 below.
In this article, major elections are always discussed as examples of the broader category of major political events defined below.
In this article, ‘should’ is ‘used in an auxiliary function to express what is probable or expected’ (
Because theory suggests that this explanation is not limited to any particular context (see
Because theory does not indicate that this explanation is limited to any particular context (
To be sure, the GSJ model does not preclude the possibility that well-structured conversations among individuals may occur at any time. Nonetheless, as stated earlier in this article, the GSJ model is designed to explain commonly observed phenomena in most citizens’ everyday political communication, which, according to the published empirical literature, is generally woven into small talk and generally does not feature the reason-giving that is characteristic of deliberation (e.g.,
The GSJ model centers on informal political talk among family and friends because empirical political-communication research consistently finds that ordinary people in democracies talk most often about politics with members of their close social networks (e.g.,
Major elections—elections in which most citizens experience social pressure to vote—include, in presidential systems, presidential elections, and, in parliamentary systems, general elections, though they sometimes include other elections, such as the 1866 U.S. midterm election (
In democracies with compulsory voting, laws also exert such pressure (
The GSJ model is consistent with theory and evidence concerning how political polarization influences citizens’ political communication and decision making. Accounts of many citizens’ lack of basic political information (e.g.,
The GSJ model does not predict that citizens generally will seek diverse information, although the model acknowledges previous research showing personality traits of extraversion and openness have been positively associated with broad searching of diverse sources (
To be sure, citizens’ cognitive or perception-consistency biases are likely to influence citizens’ information-seeking behavior and citizens’ cognitive processing of collected information (
For empirical evidence of positive associations between sense-making and efficacy, see Kuhlthau (
As explained above, such reuse is likely because the mind, to conserve limited cognitive resources, after goals are activated initially searches memory for an existing plan depicting behaviors serving activated goals and then modifies that plan for the current context (
We acknowledge an anonymous reviewer who strongly urged this bifurcation of the formal context.
We acknowledge an anonymous reviewer who made these points.
This prediction concerning reuse of communication structures and practices, originally developed in one context, in a different context accords with prior research. According to Warner and Colaner (
Berger (
Gil de Zúñiga et al. (
Bennett (
The Assembly (
Here are detailed survey results concerning sense-making and political efficacy. The degree to which participants could make sense of the issue of COVID-19 recovery was measured with a five-point Likert-type scale (0 = Not at all, 4 = Completely): results after the Week 1 Assembly Session:
Conover et al. (
Neblo (
We thank an anonymous reviewer for this point.
We thank an anonymous reviewer for this point as well.
The authors thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for comments that improved the manuscript, as well as Professor John Gastil and Professor James Dillard for helpful comments on earlier versions of this article. Nonetheless, any errors in the paper are solely the responsibility of the authors.
The authors have no competing interests to declare.