Achizitie i meninerea o informatiei politicce are consecine importante pentru capacitatea individului de a exprima opinii i a lua decizii ntr-o

democraie representativa este rolul mass-media pentru a oferi informaii care permite publicului s fac relativ decizii informate despre candidai, politicieni, i probleme. cu toate acestea, cercetare sugereaz c ideal normativ o cunotin cetenilor nu o realitate empiric, cel puin n Statele nite. un corp considerabil de cercetare sugereaz c publicul American este prost informat despre baz civic, politic, i informaii de evenimente actuale S A rm!ne publice a stagnat la un nivel sczut dezamgitor. o parte din explicaia pentru thi situaia este c, chiar cu expunere, public nva relativ putin la mass-media. de exemplu, un studiu a demonstrat c p!r!tul medie amintesc doar aproximativ " din #$ povesti de la o ne%cast de televiziune n termen de trei ore dup aceasta Acest articol analizeaz rolul de comunicare interpersonal politice n promovarea cunoaterii politice. &ei semnificativ de cercetare a demonstrat rolul de surse de tiri tradiionale mediate de mas precum Stiri de televiziune i ziare n procesul de nvare politice, relativ puine studii au adresat rolul de discuie politic n c!tig politic cunotine. 'hiar mai dramatice este numrul mic de dezvoltare teoretic atunci c!nd se discut rolul comunicrii interpersonale in invatarea politice ( i cum acest lucru poate fi legat de utilizarea mass-media ( i astfel aceasta va fi o anumit zon de focalizare n prezentul articol. )n cele din urm, proaspete date empirice din dou studii separate va fi adus s poarte pe chestiunea de roluri de comunicare interpersonal n cunotine politice. &iscuii de politic i politic cunotine *enart +",,-, p. ./0 note c 12cercetare privind impactul politic de comunicare interpersonal a lipsit lrgimea i ad!ncimea de lucru pe mass-media.12 &ei n ultimii ani acest lucru a fost schimbarea, rm!ne valabil i pentru relaia dintre comunicarea interpersonal despre politic i cunotine politice. 3ste surprinzator puine dovezi despre aceast relaie, dar dovezile care exista sugereaz c cele dou sunt legate puternic. &e fapt, unele de cercetare indic faptul c discuia de tiri i politic s fie mai puternic referitoare la deine informaii politice dec!t expunerea la aceste informaii politice n mass-media. 4obinson i *ev5 +",6.0 au demonstrat n ambele regional i naional, mostre deine diverse demografice i mass-media variabile constante, discuii despre tiri a fost un predictor important de tiri nelegere. Au subliniat7 gradul de discuii de tiri pare s fie cel puin de dou ori la fel de puternic un predictor de nelegere ca gradul de expunere la mass-media, i n proba de naional mai generalizable, astfel de discuii a fost asociat cu aproape de dou ori mai mult rsp!ndit n nelegerea Stiri ca a fost expunere media. +4obinson 8 *ev5, ",6., p. "9" Studii recente au nceput pentru a confirma prezena de o astfel de relaie ntre discuie Stiri sau politica i cunotine politice +:ennett, ;lic<inger, 8 4in, #$$$= *enart, ",,-= Scheufele, #$$$, #$$#= pentru o excepie, consultai de :oer 8 >elthui?sen, #$$"0, cele mai multe chiar dup controale pentru utilizarea mass-media. 'u toate acestea, ceea ce a fost lips din acest domeniu de cercetare este o discuie amnunit din motive teoretice ce discutii ar putea influena politic cunotine. @!n n prezent, ceea ce exist este n primul r!nd o demonstraie de o regularitate empirice. 'eea ce este necesar

acum, pe l!ng acumularea de mai multe dovezi pentru a susine preteniile de aceast relaie, este dezvoltarea de teorie cu privire la de ce exist aceast relaie. 3u propun c exist cel puin trei explicaii posibile ce discuie Stiri coninut ar putea provoca politice cunotine7 +a0 explicarea expunere, +b0 explicarea anticipativ elaborarea i +c elaborarea generate de discuii explicaie. &escarcat de A >A niversiteitsbibliothee< SBC la $/7/D "/ februarie #$"# discuii i cunotine "9, aceste explicaii nu sunt mutual exclusive i, de fapt, sunt probabil toate motivele favorizant pentru relaiile gsite ntre discuii de tiri i politic i cunotine de aceeai. 3xpunerea explicaie prima explicaie, care voi apela explicaia expunere, este probabil cea mai comun explicaie presupune implicit n cercetarea prealabil, i se potrivete frumos cu noiunea clasic de difuzie de tiri, n general, +'haffee, ",9D= *arsen 8 Eill, ",D-= 4ogers, #$$$0 i n dou etape fluxul de comunicare specific +Fatz 8 *azarsfeld, ",DD= *azarsfeld, :erelson 8 Gaudet, ",-60. Aceast explicaie sugereaz c indivizii culege informaii de la lor partener de discuie n mare parte acelai fel c le-ar obine informaii din mass-media direct. 'are este, n timpul convorbirilor politice sau conversaii despre tiri, informaii c partenerul de discuie unul obinute de la un Stiri mass-media surs este povestit ca parte a conversaiei. Astfel, n contextul de aceast explicaie, discuii este doar o oportunitate suplimentar pentru expunerea la informaii de interes n plus fa, sau independente, expunerea la mass-media. &iscuie poate contribui apoi cunotine pentru cei care nu folosesc mass-media +prin furnizarea de acces la informaii individuale ar au fost niciodat expuse la0, precum i cei care o fac +prin furnizarea de o oportunitate suplimentar pentru expunere similare cu reciti h!rtie0. 'u toate acestea, exist anumite critici la adresa aceast explicaie standard. )n primul r!nd, nu toate informaiile obinute n timpul conversaiilor politice este probabil s fie exacte. &e exemplu, Euc<feldt i Sprague +",,D, p. """0 a constatat c mai mult de ?umtate din respondeni lor raportat parteneri de discuie s aib doar o sum medie de cunotine. Av!nd n vedere suma medie a cunoaterii politice este destul de sczut&elli 'arpini i Feeter +",,#0 susin c 12cunotine de fapte de baz despre probleme, aliniamente partizane i nume de politicieni sunt provincia doar o minoritate12 +p. /#0acest lucru sugereaz c cele mai multe discuii ar trebui o lipsa de informaii politice concrete, sau n cel mai ru considerabile dezinformare. )ntr-adevr, pentru persoana care are o medie +adic, n mod obiectiv ?oas0 nivel de informaii politice pentru a ncepe cu, o nt!lnire aleatoare ar putea la fel de uor s conduc la obinerea de informaii de la cineva la fel de neinformat, mai degrab dec!t mai informat, dec!t sine. Hodelul n care 4obinson i *ev5 +",6.0 operate n studiul lor s demonstreze importana interpersonale discuie Stiri 12presupune c informaii este adesea, dar nu ntotdeauna, caracterizat de un flux IorizontalI dintre rezonabil %ellinformed si persoanelor fizice interesate12 +p. "."0. &ar informaiile n discuiile interpersonale, n special informaii de la cei mai bine informai, este probabil s conin un numr de inexactiti sau doar lipsa de informaii politice semnificative. &e exemplu, *enart +",,-, p. 960 ncheiate de studiu i de rezultatele experimentale, c 12informaiile obinute de la mass-media poate fi denaturate de alte informaii s-au adunat interpersonal.12 &ac este cazul, unele discuii interpersonale de tiri i politic ar putea duce de fapt la un declin n

cunotin de unul dintre partenerii de discuie din cauza transmiterea de informaii inexacte sau induc n eroare, sau cel puin lipsa de sens de nvare. @rin urmare, este important s rm!n contieni de faptul c toate informaiile comunicate n cadrul discuiilor interpersonale nu va fi neaprat informaii exacte. @robabilitatea de orice cunoatere receptoare individuale la o discuie interpersonale prin expunerea explicaia ar trebui s creasc atunci c!nd partenerii de discuie sunt bine informat, ntruc!t este probabil s fi sczut cu partenerii de discuie prost informat. . Anticipativ elaborarea explicaie a doua explicaie pentru observate relaia dintre discuii i cunotine ar putea fi numit explicaia elaborarea anticipativ. Aceast explicaie sugereaz c sperana de o discuie iminent este o motivaie intern care crete apoi elaborarea cognitive pe coninutul de tiri. Acest elaborarea crescut ar avea loc n primul r!nd n timpul de expunere, dar potenial poate s apar oric!nd nainte de conversaie real are loc. 'are este, persoane ateapt s se anga?eze n discuii a unui subiect politic va investi mai mult n prelucrarea informaiilor la primul fiind expuse la ea pentru c vor s fie pregtit s se anga?eze n discuie ulterioar a acestei informaii +a se vedea Scheufele, #$$#, pentru un argument similar0. )nceputul carierei pe 12cognitive tuning12 de Ba?onc +",.$0, de asemenea, examineaz modul n care sperana de discuii ar putea influena procesarea informaiei. Abordarea utilizri i gratifications n comunicare n mas a identificat un numr de motive de ce indivizii se anga?eze n mass-media utilizai comportamente +Jenner, ",6D0. @rintre aceste motivaii este ceea ce a fost numit 12comunicare anticipate12 +Hc*eod 8 :ec<er, ",9-0, 12anticipat utilitate12 +Hc*eod 8 :ec<er, ",6"0, sau 12communicator5 utilitate12 +Hc&onald, ",,$0, care este termenul pentru a fi utilizate aici. Hc&onald +",,$0 definete utilitate communicator5 ca 12utilizarea mass-media pentru a obine informaii pentru a utiliza n discuiile cu altele12 +p. "D0. Aceste concepte se refer la utilizarea de mass-media n anticiparea a ceea ce a fost vzut sau invatat de la expunerea n conversaii mai t!rziu. n exemplu de protot5pical ar putea fi c un individ ar urmri dezbaterile televizate prezideniale n anticiparea de cooler de ap conversaii dimineaa urmtoare, care cu siguran ar centrul n ?urul evenimente care au loc n dezbateri. 'ercetrile recente a conectat motivaii pentru utilizarea tiri cum c tiri este procesat n timpul i dup expunere ca parte a unui 12model de mediere cognitive12 +3veland, #$$", #$$#0. K asteptam individuale pentru a discuta coninutul de la stirile de seara este probabil s se dedice mai mult efort de g!ndire despre coninutul ( decide modul n care este relevant pentru sine sau partenerii de conversaie, observ aspectele importante ridicate, i aa mai departe- i aa este probabil c cei cu communicator5 utilitate motivaiile va anga?a n coninutul de tiri mai mult elaborarea cognitive dec!t altele cu diferite motive, astfel nc!t s treac timpul sau pentru divertisment. )n plus, modelul de mediere cognitive sugereaz c elaborarea tiri informaii este un factor important care determin dac este sau nu tiri informaii fapt va fi nvat +3veland, #$$", #$$#0. )ntradevr, doar g!ndire despre Stiri dup expunerea poate duce la mai bine scoruri pe un test de cunotine la dou zile dup dec!t imediat dup expunerea +dezlipire, ",,#0. &up aceast linie de raionament, elaborarea crescut tiri coninutului din sperana de discuie viitoare de coninut care trebuie s conduc la mbuntirea cunotinelor politice.

3ste important de observat c explicaia anticipativ elaborarea pentru relaia dintre discuii i cunotine nu are nevoie de fapt discuia ateptat vreodat loc. 'rescut de nvare n aceast explicaie este datorat n ntregime la loc nainte de comunicare interpersonal viitoare de procesare a informaiilor . Generate de discuii elaborarea explicaie a treia explicaie pentru legtura dintre discuii politice i cunotine politice ar putea fi numit explicaia elaborarea generate de discuii. Aceast explicaie este similar cu explicaia anticipativ elaborare n cadrul procesului prevazut de legtur discuii i cunotine. Aceasta sugereaz c actul de anga?area n discuii fore procesarea informaiei semnificative ( elaborarea descris mai sus ( i astfel crete nvare av!nd o influen asupra informaiilor de prelucrare n timpul discuiei. 3xist unele dovezi preliminare care accept o relaie ntre discuie de aspecte politice i elaborarea pe coninutul de tiri +Hc*eod, Scheufele, marini, Eoro%itz, et al., ",,,0. 3xist dovezi suplimentare n context de discuie efecte pe schimbarea de atitudine, n care mai mare schimbare de atitudine a fost gsit s apar atunci c!nd trebuie s formulai un argument scris i d-verbal dec!t dac una doar 'itete cu voce tare argumentul sau 'itete-l pasiv la sine +Lanis 8 Fing, ",D-= 4egele 8 Lanis, ",D.= vedea, de asemenea, de lucru pe auto-convingere i mecanismul de rspuns cognitive n persuasiune, de exemplu, @ett5 8 carp, ",6"0. 3laborarea n contextul explicaia elaborarea generate de discuii pot fi ncura?ate n dou moduri7 auto-generat i partener de conversaie generate. Mpoteza de auto-generat elaborarea este c natura anga?area ntr-o discuie necesit un individ de a reproceseaz informaii ca acesta este rechemat din memorie. @entru a face sens din aceast informaie n timpul procesului de construcie sensul care are loc n discuii interpersonale, un individ ar putea avea s-i exprime informaii n memorie la un tiri difuzate ntr-o lumin nou n comparaie cu c!t ea a fost prelucrate n timpul expunerii. Aceast transformare suplimentare obligat de nevoia de a comunica creeaz conexiuni suplimentare ntre informaiile tiri i structura de cunotine mai mari ( adic, elaborarea. Acest elaborarea, aa cum de?a discutate, crete amintesc de nvare i mai t!rziu. 3ste important s reinei c, n auto-generat elaborarea, elaborarea este stimulat de necesitatea comunicatorului s formuleze i s livreze un mesa? la partenerul de discuie. 3ste acest lucru nseamn c o conversaie ntre o persoan foarte informat, cum ar fi un profesor, i o persoan relativ neinformat, cum ar fi un student, ar putea duce la creterea cunotinelor pentru persoana foarte informat. Al doilea mi?loc de discuie care n sine poate crete elaborarea ( conversationpartner generat elaborarea ( este atunci c!nd un partener de conversaie sc!ntei nou conexiunile dintre idei de?a a avut loc n memorie. 'a Gastil i &illard Not +",,,0, fata a feei deliberare poate duce la oamenii 12a face inferene roman despre legturile ideologice ntre convingeri politice bazate pe ceea ce aud in timpul deliberarii12 +p. D0. 3ste uor s ne imaginm o situaie n care persoana " face o declaraie i # persoan rspunde, 12tii, c m face s m g!ndesc la....12 Acest facilitarea elaborrii de ctre partenerul de discuie poate avea loc fie n timpul conversaiei n sine, sau ca un individuale crede despre conversaie dup ce a terminat. &ar este important s reinei c, n acest caz, este un partener de conversaie care st!rnete elaborarea prin comunicare. 'u toate acestea, este destul de diferit de explicaie de expunere, deoarece ceea ce este operaional aici nu

este expunerea suplimentare la informaiile originale, dar n schimb a?uta la a face conexiuni ntre tiri informaii i altceva. Av!nd n vedere aceast discuie de cercetare existente pe relaia dintre discuii i cunotine politice, i av!nd n vedere trei explicaii teoretice pentru aceast relaie de ateptat, pot fi oferite mai multe ipoteze. )n primul r!nd, toate trei explicaii sugereaz c noi ar trebui s gseasc o relaie ntre frecvena general discuii politice i cunotine politice. 3xpunerea explicaie sugereaz c relaia dintre discuii i cunotine ar trebui s fie puternic i pozitiv, atunci c!nd partenerii de discuie sunt bine informat. '!nd partenerii de discuie sunt prost informat, relaia dintre discuii frecvena i cunotine ar putea fi negativ ca urmare a comunicrii de dezinformare. Astfel, bazat pe explicaia expunerii, ne-ar atepta acolo pentru a fi o statistic descrcat de A >A niversiteitsbibliothee< SBC la $/7/D "/ februarie #$"# "6# Jilliam @. 3veland, Lr. interaciune ntre frecvena de discuii de politic i de nivelul de cunoatere a avut loc de partenerul de discuie, astfel nc!t relaia dintre frecvena de discuii cu un anumit partener i cunotine ar fi mai puternic atunci c!nd acel partener de discuie a fost informat dec!t c!nd partenerul care nu a fost informat, controlul pentru frecvena ansamblu de astfel de discuii, predicie urmtoarele a fost fcut7 E#7 controlul general frecvena interpersonale discuie politic, va fi o interaciune semnificativ ntre frecvena de discuii cu un anumit partener si nivelul de cunotine de acel partener. 3xplicaia anticipativ elaborarea sugereaz c o motivatie pentru a utiliza coninutul de tiri pentru a aduna informaii pentru discuii ulterioare-motivaia communicator5 utilitate ( va produce crescut elaborarea cognitive pe acel coninut de tiri at!t n timpul i dup expunerea s se pregteasc pentru discuii ateptat. Astfel, a fost avansate de predicie urmtoarele7 E/7 K motivatie communicator5 utilitate pentru utilizarea Stiri va fi pozitiv legate elaborarea pe coninutul de tiri. &iferena dintre anticipativ elaborarea i elaborarea generate de discuii explicaii este c motivaia communicator5 utilitate is ateptat la spre ofer elaborarea n explicaie elaborarea anticipativ, ntruc!t discuie real este de ateptat s unitate elaborarea n explicaie elaborarea generate de discuii. :azat pe explicaia generate de discuii elaborarea, predicie urmtoarele a fost fcut7 E-7 discuia de campaniei prezideniale va fi pozitiv legate elaborarea pe coninutul de tiri. At!t elaborarea anticipativ i elaborarea generate de discuii explicaii prezice c elaborarea pe coninutul de tiri va fi pozitiv legate politice cunotine. @rin urmare, n conformitate cu explicaii at!t elaborarea, ipoteza final a fost oferit. ED7 3laborarea pe coninutul de tiri va fi pozitiv legate politice cunotine. Study 1 Method Sample. &ata for Stud5 " %ere collected as part of the #$$$ American National 3lection Stud5 +AN3S0. Ohis stud5 emplo5ed a panel design, %ith ",6$9 intervie%s conducted in the preelection %ave, %hich began data collection on September D, #$$$. Ohe postelection %ave of data collection began the da5 after the election and continued until &ecember #", #$$$. Ohe preelection %ave achieved a response rate of ."P, and the postelection %ave obtained a reintervie% rate of 6.P, leaving a final sample size of ",DDD. Ohe sample size for particular anal5ses in the present article varies some%hat as a result of

item nonresponse. Measurement. Ohree main categories of variables %ere of importance in the present stud5. ;irst, various demographic control variables %ere emplo5ed. Second, various forms &o%nloaded b5 A >A niversiteitsbibliothee< SBC at $/7/D "/ ;ebruar5 #$"# Discussion and Knowledge 183 of communication %ere examined as independent variables. ;inall5, political <no%ledge %as tapped as the <e5 dependent variable. ;our demographic control variables %ere utilized in this stud5. Age +M Q -9.#", SD Q "..,.0 %as initiall5 measured b5 as<ing respondents their date of birth and then calculating age. Ohe measurement of gender indicated a slight bias in favor of females +D../P0 in the sample. Eousehold income %as measured %ith ## categories ranging from Rnone or less than S-,,,,T through RS#$$,$$$ and over,T %ith the median categor5 being . +AS/D,$$$ to S/,,,,,20 and a mean of ..9. +SD Q /.9D0. 3ducation +M Q -.#,, SD Q "..#0 %as classified into one of seven categories ranging from 6 or fe%er 5ears of formal education through advanced degree. Ohe median categor5 for education %as R-T +more than "# 5ears of education but no higher degree0. ;our political communication behaviors(t%o of %hich %ere mass mediated, and t%o interpersonal(%ere the focus of this stud5. Ne%s media use %as measured in the preelection %ave of the panel. National television ne%s vie%ing %as measured as the number of da5s in the past %ee< the respondent %atched national net%or< ne%s on television +M Q /.#,, SD Q #.6$0. Ne%spaper reading %as measured as the number of da5s in the past %ee< the respondent read a dail5 ne%spaper +M Q /.--, SD Q #.,#0. Normall5, it %ould be useful to include measures of attention in con?unction %ith measures of exposure to ne%s media. Eo%ever, the measures of attention included in the #$$$ AN3S refer specificall5 to election ne%s, %hereas the <no%ledge measures emplo5ed in this stud5 +as described belo%0 are not all election related. Ohus, the available attention measures are not appropriate for these anal5ses. Kverall freUuenc5 of political discussion %as assessed during the postelection %ave of the panel. Mt %as measured as the number of da5s in the past %ee< the respondent tal<ed about politics %ith famil5 or friends +M Q -."/, SD Q #.6/0. Mn order to tap the <no%ledge of specific discussion partners, %e emplo5ed several Uuestions posed in the postelection %ave. 4espondents %ere as<ed to name up to four individuals %ith %hom the5 discussed Rgovernment, elections, and politics.T ;or each person the5 named, the5 indicated the freUuenc5 %ith %hich the5 discussed politics on a scale from zero to three %ith labels Rnever,T Rrarel5,T Rsometimes,T and Roften.T Mn addition, for each of the up to four discussion partners described, respondents rated the individual on a scale from one to three as <no%ing Rnot much at all,T Ran average amount,T or Ra great dealT about politics." Since the first mentioned discussion partner %as not onl5 the most freUuent discussion partner, but also perceived to be the most <no%ledgeable, %e emplo5ed onl5 the data regarding the first discussion partner +freUuenc5 M Q ".D6, SD Q ".""= <no%ledge M Q #.//, SD Q $..-0. @olitical <no%ledge %as measured in the postelection %ave of the panel using various

techniUues common to the measurement of this concept. Ohese various forms of political <no%ledge %ere selected as bits of information that could have been gleaned from media information, including ne%s. Ohe focus of this stud5 %ill be on a measure of overall political <no%ledge created b5 combining the separate measures. ;our Uuestions tapped %hether or not respondents %ere familiar %ith prominent political figures in the ne%s. Ohe5 %ere as<ed to identif5 the ?ob or political office held b5 Orent *ott +Senate ma?orit5 leader0, Jilliam 4ehnUuist +Supreme 'ourt chief ?ustice0, Oon5 :lair +:ritish prime minister0, and Lanet 4eno + .S. attorne5 general0. 4espondents received a score of one if the5 %ere able to accuratel5 identif5 the office held b5 a given individual. Ohose %ho %ere unable to accuratel5 identif5 the figure, or %ho ans%ered RdonVt <no%,T %ere scored zero. &o%nloaded b5 A >A niversiteitsbibliothee< SBC at $/7/D "/ ;ebruar5 #$"# 184 William P. Eveland, r. O%o additional indicators tapped the respondentsV abilit5 to recall the names of candidates for the .S. Eouse of 4epresentatives in their district, %ith one given for correct responses and zero given for incorrect and donVt <no% responses. O%o additional items %ere used in combination to assess <no%ledge of the ideological placement of the t%o ma?or part5 candidates for president. 4espondents rated Albert Gore and George J. :ush on separate seven-point scales from Rextremel5 liberalT to Rextremel5 conservative.T Since assessing the accurac5 of categor5 placement is difficult if not impossible +e.g., Ms Albert Gore extremel5 liberal, liberal, slightl5 liberal, or moderateW0, a relative accurac5 criterion %as used, follo%ing common practice in this area of research +e.g., 3veland 8 Scheufele, #$$$0. Mf respondents rated Gore as more liberal than :ush(regardless of the specific placement of the individual candidates( the5 %ere given a score of one and considered to have accurate <no%ledge of the ideological placement of candidates. Mf the5 rated the candidates in the same categor5 or rated :ush as more liberal than Gore(or ans%ered RdonVt <no%T for either candidate( respondents %ere given a score of zero and considered to not have accurate <no%ledge of the ideological placement of candidates. Mn order to create the overall measure of political <no%ledge, these separate dichotomous +$ for incorrect, " for correct0 items %ere combined into a scale + Q .9"0 b5 averaging, and then the result %as multiplied b5 "$$ to produce a scale %ith a theoretical range from $ to "$$ +M Q /#./$, SD Q #D.6/0. Results E" predicted that there %ould be a relationship bet%een the overall freUuenc5 of political discussion and political <no%ledge. As sho%n in Oable ", there %as considerable support for this h5pothesis. 'ontrolling for four demographic variables plus both television ne%s vie%ing and ne%spaper readership, the overall freUuenc5 of political discussion %as a significant positive predictor of overall political <no%ledge + Q ."", p X .$"0. Ohus, as demonstrated in several prior studies, discussion of politics and issues in the ne%s appears to be positivel5 related to being informed about political matters of all sorts, both at the state and national level.# Kf course, it is not possible to dra% strong causal inferences regarding the direction of this relationship using cross-sectional surve5 data, but the existence of the relationship is consistent %ith the h5pothesis.

Ohe support for this h5pothesis maintains the viabilit5 of each of the three explanations for the relationship bet%een discussion and <no%ledge, but it is unable to distinguish among them. Ohis is consistent %ith the existing prior research that has not provided an5 evidence to help understand w!" discussion and <no%ledge are related. :ased on the exposure explanation, E# predicted that, controlling overall discussion freUuenc5, there %ould be an interaction bet%een the freUuenc5 of discussions %ith a given partner and the level of <no%ledge held b5 that partner. Ohis h5pothesis %as not supported +Oable "0./ Although both the freUuenc5 of discussion %ith the first mentioned partner + Q .$,, p X .$"0 and the level of perceived <no%ledge of that partner + Q .$9, p X .$D0 made uniUue significant contributions to the model, the interaction bet%een them %as not significant.Study 2 Stud5 " %as able to provide evidence of the relationship bet%een discussion and political <no%ledge, but %as unable to demonstrate direct support for a h5pothesis derived &o%nloaded b5 A >A niversiteitsbibliothee< SBC at $/7/D "/ ;ebruar5 #$"# Discussion and Knowledge 18# Table 1 K*S regression results predicting overall political <no%ledge +#$$$ AN3S0 Kverall political <no%ledge Hodel " Hodel # Hodel / $$$ +SE0 +SE0 +SE0 Age .#$6 ."/YY .#$D ."/YY .#$- ."#YY +.$-,0 +.$-,0 +.$-,0 3ducation ..$D9 ./.YY D.96$ ./-YY D.99/ ./-YY +.-,.0 +.-,.0 +.-,D0 Mncome ..," ."$YY ..6D ."$YY ..9, ."$YY +.#$$0 +.",,0 +.",,0 Gender +;0 Z9.,/$ Z."DYY Z6.$9. Z.".YY Z6.$9$ Z.".YY +".-$/0 +"./,.0 +"./,.0 O> ne%s vie%ing ..-- .$9Y .D99 .$.Y .D6- .$.Y +.#9D0 +.#9-0 +.#-90 Ne%spaper reading ".##9 ."-YY "."6$ ."/YY ".",. ."/YY +.#.D0 +.#./0 +.#./0 Kverall discussion ".",/ .""YY .6-" .$6YY .6D" .$6YY +.#,-0 +./$-0 +./$-0 ;reUuenc5 of disc. /.DD. .$,YY /.D., .$,YY %[partner +".##,0 +".##,0 Fno%ledge of disc. "..9D .$9Y "."69 .$D partner +.9/.0 +.6-$0 ;reUuenc5 \ ".#D, .$<no%ledge +".$-$0 Ad?usted %# ./"" ./#- ./#S3 of estimate #".-. #".#. #".#D &ote. $ Q unstandardized regression coefficient= Q standardized regression coefficient +beta0.

Yp X .$D= YYp X .$". &o%nloaded b5 A >A niversiteitsbibliothee< SBC at $/7/D "/ ;ebruar5 #$"# 18' William P. Eveland, r. from the exposure explanation that implied that discussion %ith %ell-informed partners %ould be more predictive of political <no%ledge than discussion %ith poorl5 informed partners. Eo%ever, the data from Stud5 " did not permit an5 conclusions regarding the validit5 of the other t%o explanations. Ohe measures available in Stud5 # are able to more directl5 address the anticipator5 elaboration and discussion-generated elaboration explanations, although the5 remain unable to distinguish bet%een them. Method Sample. &ata for Stud5 # %ere obtained for secondar5 anal5sis from an academic research center in the Hid%est. &ata %ere collected in the %ee<s preceding the ",,. presidential election as part of t%o separate surve5s emplo5ing the same population but different samples. Mn the first surve5, telephone intervie%s %ere used to obtain crosssectional data from #"$ respondents in a mid-size mid%estern cit5 and its contiguous areas +cooperation rate Q -,P0. Ohe second stud5 %as a panel stud5 consisting of t%o %aves of data collected via telephone. Jave " +n Q "-.0 of that surve5 %as conducted in September ",,. +cooperation rate Q D"P0, and Jave # +n Q ,90 %as conducted concurrentl5 %ith the cross-sectional surve5 in Kctober and November of ",,. +dropout rate Q //..P0. Ohe relevant Uuestions for the present stud5 %ere included in Jave # of the panel surve5 and the cross-sectional surve5. Ohere %ere no statisticall5 significant differences in <e5 demographic characteristics across the t%o samples, nor %ere there an5 demographic differences bet%een panel dropouts and those %ho completed the second %ave of the panel stud5. Ohis suggests that it is reasonable to anal5ze the cross-sectional stud5 and the second %ave of the panel together. Kverall, approximatel5 D#P of the combined sample %as female. Ohe average age of respondents to these t%o surve5s %as around -- 5ears of age. Kn average, respondents had completed around "D 5ears of formal education and had an annual household income of approximatel5 S/$,$$$ to S-$,$$$. Ohese demographic characteristics are similar to those from the #$$$ AN3S national sample in the first stud5. Measurement. ]uestions used to tap several concepts %ere emplo5ed in the present stud5. ;our demographic variables %ere measured and used strictl5 as control variables7 age +in 5ears0, education +number of 5ears of formal schooling0, household income +measured in S"$,$$$ increments0, and gender +females coded as the high value0. Ne%s media use %as tapped via t%o items to maintain maximum comparabilit5 %ith the measurement in Stud5 ". 4espondents %ere as<ed to report the number of da5s reading a ne%spaper +M Q -.9", SD Q #..D0 and to rate, on a "$-point scale from Rrarel5T to Rall the time,T their freUuenc5 of vie%ing net%or< television ne%s +M Q -.#D, SD Q /.9/0. Oo measure communicator5 utilit5, respondents %ere as<ed to indicate the extent to %hich a series of Uuestions applied to themselves in terms of R%h5 the5 turn to ne%s

about the presidential campaignT using a "$-point scale from Rnot at allT to Rver5 much.T 'ommunicator5 utilit5 gratifications %ere assessed b5 the average of four of these items regarding use of ne%s so that information could be passed on to others, to get information to use in disagreements, to give interesting things to tal< about, and to use as ammunition in arguments + Q .6D, M Q /..., SD Q #."$0. ;reUuenc5 of discussion of the presidential campaign %as measured %ith a single item regarding the freUuenc5 of discussion of Rimportant issues in the presidential campaignT using a "$-point scale from Rnot ver5 oftenT to Rver5 oftenT +M Q D.$/, SD Q #.9#0. &o%nloaded b5 A >A niversiteitsbibliothee< SBC at $/7/D "/ ;ebruar5 #$"# Discussion and Knowledge 18( Oo measure elaboration on ne%s content, respondents %ere as<ed to indicate the applicabilit5 of a number of statements about the %a5s people use the ne%s media for stories about the presidential election campaign using a "$-point scale ranging from Rnot at allT +applicable0 to Rver5 much.T 3laboration %as measured using the average of three of these indicators regarding the extent to %hich respondents thin< about ne%s information after exposure, tr5 to tie together ideas of their o%n and ne%s stor5 content, and interpret ne%s stories in %a5s that are personall5 meaningful + Q .99, M Q D.9", SD Q #.",0. Ohe <e5 dependent variable in the present stud5 %as candidate issue stance <no%ledge. Mssue stance <no%ledge %as measured b5 as<ing respondents to place each of the t%o ma?or presidential candidates on "$-point scales from Rstrongl5 opposeT to Rstrongl5 favorT for several issues +i.e., educational vouchers, use of the National Guard to combat drugs, and a balanced budget amendment0. Mn the same %a5 that ideological <no%ledge %as tapped in Stud5 ", respondents %ere given one point for placing the candidates in the Rrelativel5 correctT position. Ohat is, as long as respondents %ere capable of seeing &ole as more supportive of educational vouchers than 'linton(regardless of the actual scale positions used(this %as considered a correct response. *eaving the scale blan< for either candidate, or placing candidates on the same position or in the %rong relative positions, led to a score of zero for that issue. Scores on each of the three issues %ere averaged and then multiplied b5 "$$ to construct the measure of candidate issue stance <no%ledge + Q .9$, M Q -".,", SD Q /6.,,0. Results E/ stated that communicator5 utilit5 motivations should be positivel5 related to elaboration on ne%s content. As indicated in Oable #, this h5pothesis received considerable support. After controlling for demographic variables, ne%s use, and self-reported discussion, the motivation to use ne%s for later discussion %as positivel5 and significantl5 related to elaborating on ne%s content + Q ./", p X .$"0. E- %as also strongl5 supported. Table 2 K*S regression results predicting elaboration on ne%s content +",,. local data0 3laboration on ne%s content $ +S30 Age .$## +.$$60 .".YY

3ducation .$9. +.$-$0 .""^ Mncome Z.$D6 +.$D#0 Z.$. Gender +;0 Z./"9 +.##90 Z.$9 O> ne%s vie%ing Z.$#, +.$/#0 Z.$D Ne%spaper reading .$$# +.$-60 .$$ 'ommunicator5 utilit5 motivation ./#$ +.$./0 ./"YY ;reUuenc5 of discussion .#D6 +.$-,0 ./#YY Ad?usted %# .#,9 S3 of estimate ".6#/ &ote. $ Q unstandardized regression coefficient= Q standardized regression coefficient +beta0. ^p X ."$= YYp X .$". &o%nloaded b5 A >A niversiteitsbibliothee< SBC at $/7/D "/ ;ebruar5 #$"# 188 William P. Eveland, r. Eolding all other variables constant, discussion of the campaign %as strongl5 related to ne%s elaboration + Q ./#, p X .$"0. ED predicted that elaboration %ould be positivel5 related to candidate issue stance <no%ledge. Ohis h5pothesis %as also supported b5 the data +see Oable /0 %hen controlling demographics and ne%s use + Q .#/, p X .$"0. Ohis relationship remained after control for self-reported discussion and communication utilit5 motivations as %ell + Q ."., p X .$D0. Mt is important to note that the mediation process implied b5 the three h5potheses tested in this stud5 is borne out in the data. As sho%n in Oable /, t%o models %ere run. Mn the first model, onl5 demographic and ne%s use variables %ere controlled, and then communicator5 utilit5 and campaign discussion %ere individuall5 entered into the regression eUuation predicting political <no%ledge. Mn this model, both communicator5 utilit5 and campaign discussion %as positivel5 and significantl5 related to <no%ledge. 3ven %hen these t%o variables %ere entered into the eUuation together +not sho%n in tables0, each approached significance +p X ."$0 in predicting <no%ledge. Eo%ever, once elaboration is entered into the eUuation, both commu-nicator5 utilit5 and discussion are reduced to nonsignificance, calling into Uuestion the support for E" in this stud5. Mn fact, %hen alternating models, one excluding communicator5 utilit5 and one excluding discussion, but both including elaboration, are tested +not sho%n in tables0, in both cases elaboration is a significant predictor of <no%ledge, but neither discussion nor communicator5 utilit5 even approach significance +p _ ."$0. Ohese findings are consistent %ith the implied mediation in both the anticipator5 elaboration and discussiongenerated elaboration explanations(that is, these explanations ultimatel5 claim that it is elaboration, not necessaril5 the motivation or discussion itself, that produces the increase in <no%ledge. Table 3 K*S regression results predicting candidate issue <no%ledge +",,. local data0 'andidate issue stance <no%ledge Hodel " Hodel # $ +SE0 $ +SE0

Age Z.#D" +."-90 Z.""^ Z./$" +."-90 Z."/Y 3ducation -.$.. +.9#-0 ./#YY /.9## +.9-D0 .#,YY Mncome /.#-9 +.,,$0 .",YY /.//- +.,9-0 .#$YY Gender +;0 Z9./#- +-.//-0 Z.$,^ Z9.#9# +-.#"60 Z.$,^ O> ne%s Z.##, +..$,0 Z.$# Z.D96 +..$#0 Z.$. Ne%spaper "./#. +.,#"0 .$, ".$/. +.6,60 .$9 'ommunicator5 utilit5 ."6YY ".-DD +".#"60 .$6 ;reUuenc5 of discussion ."6YY .,/6 +.,D90 .$9 3laboration on ne%s .#/YY #.66- +"."/,0 .".Y Ad?usted %# .",9 .#-6 S3 of estimate /-.6D", //.9-" &ote. $ Q unstandardized regression coefficient= Q standardized regression coefficient +beta0. Hodel "7 coefficients %ith onl5 demographic and ne%s use controlled. Hodel #7 coefficients %ith all variables in the model controlled. ^p X ."$= Yp X .$D= YYp X .$". &o%nloaded b5 A >A niversiteitsbibliothee< SBC at $/7/D "/ ;ebruar5 #$"# Discussion and Knowledge 18) 'oncluzia A numrului de studii recente au replicat rezultatele timpurii 4obinson i *ev5 +",6.0, care a relevat o relaie semnificativ ntre discuii politice i cunotine de politic. Acest studiu ofer dovezi ale unei relaii ntre discuii i cunotine, dar, de asemenea, adaug la este oferind trei explicaii teoretice potenial pentru aceast relaie, precum i o iniial empirice ncerca s nelegem mai exact natura de o astfel de relaie. Orei explicaii posibile oferite pentru relaia dintre discuii politice i cunotine politice au fost explicaia expunerea, explicatia anticipativ elaborarea i explicaia generate de discuii elaborarea. 3xplicaia expunere modele, n esen, fluxul de dou etape +Fatz 8 *azarsfeld, ",DD0. Aceasta sugereaz c, n procesul de a avea o discuie politic, participantii vor primi expunerea la tiri informaii, fie ca o 12doz suplimentar12 pentru cei care au fost de?a expuse la tiri sau ca o prima sansa la expunerea pentru cei care nu au fost de?a expuse la tiri. Aici, canalul interpersonale este transport doar tiri informaii pentru expunerea repetat. 4ezultatele studiului " nu accept n mod clar aceast explicaie. &ei frecvena politic general discuii ( i chiar i frecvena de discuie politic cu un anumit partener si nivelul de cunotine perceput ca partener ( sunt pozitiv i semnificativ legate politice de cunotine, interaciunea estimat ntre frecvena i discuii partener cunotine nu a fost evident n datele prezent. &ac motivul pentru discuii politice este legat de cunotine este c discuia participanii sunt expuse informaii faptice n timpul aceste conversaii, aceast interaciune ar trebui s au fost semnificative i datele ar trebui s au artat mai mare de nvare la discuii cu partenerii de cunotine dec!t parteneri neinformat. )n plus, studiul # a dezvluit c controlul pentru elaborarea conduce discuia s fie redus la nonsignificance. Astfel, aceste constatri ridic unele ntrebri despre valabilitatea explicaia expunere care pare c au fost ndeplinite n cel mai trecut cercetare pe discuii i cunotine politice.

&irect de dovezi n spri?inul dou alte explicaii-explicaia anticipat elaborarea i explicaia generate de discuii elaborarea ( a fost disponibil n studiul # doar. Studiul # a demonstrat c explicaia anticipativ elaborarea este viabil printr-o relaie puternic i semnificative ntre utilizarea mass-media din motive 12utilitate communicator512 +adic, pentru a aduna informaii pentru discuii ulterioare0 i elaborarea pe mass-media de coninut. 3xplicaia generate de discuii elaborarea, de asemenea, s-a artat a fi viabile printr-o relaie puternic i semnificative dintre discuii politice i elaborarea pe coninutul de tiri. )n plus, ambele explicaii au fost susinute prin legtura semnificativ dintre elaborarea Stiri cunotine coninut i politice. 'ommunicator5 utilitate motivaiile i nici discuii politice a avut orice relaie cu cunotine politice, odat ce a fost controlat elaborarea, spri?inirea medierea implicite de efectele de discuii i motivaia prin elaborarea. Aceste constatri suport lucrrile recente 12model de mediere cognitive12 examinarea importana informaii de prelucrare ca mediator de efectele de comunicare motivaii politice cunotinelor +a se vedea 3veland, #$$", #$$#0 i extinde pentru a arta c procesarea informaiei mediaz efectul de comunicare interpersonal politice n sine. )n ciuda acestor dovezi de susinere, mai trebuie s fie fcut pentru a evalua trei explicaii. ;urther surve5 research is one potential avenue. Mnstead of measuring respondentsV perceptions of the level of information of their discussion partners, follo%-up intervie%s %ith discussion partners +e.g., Euc<feldt, Lohnson, 8 Sprague, #$$#0 and direct measurement of their <no%ledge %ould be ideal. Mt is possible that the lac< of significant interaction effects in Stud5 " %as the result of poor measurement of discussant <no%ledge through respondent perceptions. Horeover, direct measures of elaboration during political conversations %ould help to empiricall5 distinguish the anticipator5 elaboration and discussion-generated elaboration explanations. ;inall5, data collected specificall5 to test the relevant h5potheses %ould include similar measures across %aves of a panel so that panel anal5ses could be conducted to produce greater confidence in the necessaril5 causal claims made regarding the relationship bet%een discussion and <no%ledge. Another valuable approach to data collection(currentl5 in the field(%ould be to construct a combined experimental and observational stud5 in %hich anticipation of discussion as %ell as discussion itself could be experimentall5 manipulated, and in %hich information processing could be more precisel5 associated %ith a time frame of before +anticipator50 or during +discussion-generated0 discussion. Horeover, since the exposure explanation depends entirel5 on the assumption that the content of political conversation t5picall5 carries factual ne%s content(and moreover that the content is accuratel5 conve5ed( such research should attempt to ans%er this central Uuestion about the nature of political conversations. All of these various approaches to further research can contribute to our understanding of the relationship bet%een discussion of politics and political <no%ledge. &uring the past decade or so, there has been considerable interest in the role of RdeliberationT in improving or sustaining democrac5 +e.g., ;ish<in, ",,"0. &espite this

tremendous interest, political philosophers are not in agreement about the inherent value of deliberation for democrac5 +'oo<e, #$$$= Sanders, ",,9= Schudson, ",,90. Horeover, although some have explicitl5 identified deliberation to ta<e place in the context of small, face-to-face groups +:ur<halter, Gastil, 8 Felsha%, #$$#0, others are much more liberal in their definition of %here and ho% deliberation ma5 ta<e place +including via media= see @age, ",,.0, and so it is not clear %hether or not deliberation ma5 ta<e place in d5adic settings or among friends and famil5 members. Assuming for the moment that there is not a group size limit besides greater than or eUual to t%o, the empirical evidence presented here ma5 contribute to the evidence on deliberation b5 extending prior findings that discussion of politics %ith others is associated %ith higher levels of political <no%ledge. Hore %or< no% needs to be done to build and test theor5 about %h5 this relationship exists. Notes ". Ohis approach to as<ing respondents about their perceptions of their discussion partners is common in the stud5 of interpersonal political discussion +e.g., Euc<feldt 8 Sprague, ",,D= Jeatherford, ",6#0. Eo%ever, it does suffer from potential inaccuracies in respondent perceptions. Mdeall5, %e %ould have direct measures of discussion partner <no%ledge, but access to such data is unavailable %ithout a separate sample of discussion partners(something not done as part of the #$$$ AN3S. #. Some prior research has demonstrated significant interactions bet%een ne%s media use and interpersonal discussion in predicting political <no%ledge, although the form of such interactions has been inconsistent +*enart, ",,-= Scheufele, #$$#0. Oherefore, a post hoc anal5sis %as conducted +not sho%n in tables0 to test for interactions bet%een the t%o ne%s use variables and the freUuenc5 of political discussion. No significant interactions %ere detected bet%een either form of ne%s media use and freUuenc5 of political discussion. /. Given that our measure of discussion partner <no%ledge is based on respondent selfreport and not direct measurement, there ma5 be considerable measurement error that reduces the abilit5 to demonstrate a significant interaction. Horeover, the nature of surve5 data has been &o%nloaded b5 A >A niversiteitsbibliothee< SBC at $/7/D "/ ;ebruar5 #$"# Discussion and Knowledge 1)1 demonstrated to produce greater difficult5 in demonstrating interactions than in experimental studies +3veland, ",,90. Oherefore, future research should %or< to develop stronger tests of this h5pothesis. -. Mn order to ensure that %e did not bias our findings b5 focusing onl5 on the first mentioned

discussion partner, these anal5ses %ere rerun in several different %a5s. ;irst, a ne% file %as constructed %ith a separate line of data for each discussion partner, %here each original surve5 respondent had as man5 lines of data in the file as there %ere discussion partners for that respondent. Ohen a regression model %as run including onl5 the <no%ledge dependent variable, discussion partner freUuenc5 and discussion partner <no%ledge, and the interaction bet%een them. Kf course, this anal5sis violates the assumption of independence of observations. Eo%ever, since positive nonindependence +as in this case0 tends to increase the li<elihood of significant results +as %ould the artifactual increase in sample size0, the finding of a non-significant interaction bet%een freUuenc5 and <no%ledge of discussion partner +* X ", p Q .--D0 in this anal5sis further supports the original findings. +:5 contrast, both freUuenc5 and <no%ledge of discussion partner are significant in an additive model.0. ;inall5, a third anal5sis %as conducted in %hich all cases %ith onl5 one discussion partner are included in a ne% data file. Ohen, for each of those %ith more than one discussion partner, one randoml5 assigned discussion partner %as selected and added to the data file, producing a data file %ith ","-9 cases(one case for each surve5 respondent %ith valid values for the dependent variable and independent variables for at least one discussion partner. Ohen a regression model %as run %ith participant <no%ledge as the dependent variable and discussion partner freUuenc5 of discussion and discussion partner <no%ledge, plus their interaction, as independent variables. Ohis process +resampling for those %ith more than " discussion partner and rerunning the regression model0 %as replicated "$,$$$ times. +Ohis process %as also follo%ed %ith a model excluding the interaction term(a purel5 additive model.0 Ohe average %# of the additive model %as .$-/6-, %hereas the average %# of the interactive model %as .$-D/"(a ver5 small improvement. Mn "$,$$$ tests, the interaction %as statisticall5 significant "$.D/P of the time, %hen b5 chance alone %e %ould expect it to be significant DP of the time +i.e., p X .$D0. Ohe ,DP confidence interval around the unstandardized interaction coefficient %as Z$.". and /.96. Ohis finding strongl5

suggests nonsignificance for the interaction. :5 contrast, the coefficient for freUuenc5 in the additive model is significant in all "$,$$$ replications, and the coefficient for <no%ledge of discussion partner is significant in 6$P of the replications. Ohese additional anal5ses confirm the findings for the first discussion partner presented in the text. References Althaus, S. *. +",,60. Mnformation effects in collective preferences. +merican Political Science %eview, ),, D-DZDD6. :artels, *. +",,.0. ninformed votes7 Mnformation effects in presidential elections. +merican ournal o- Political Science, 4., ",-Z#/$. :ennett, S. 3. +",6,0. Orends in AmericansV political information, ",.9Z",69. +merican Politics /uarterl", 1(, -##Z-/D. :ennett, S. 3., ;lic<inger, 4. S., 8 4hine, S. *. +#$$$0. @olitical tal< over here, over there, over time. 0ritis! ournal o- Political Science, 3., ,,Z"",. :ur<halter, S., Gastil, L., 8 Felsha%, O. +#$$#0. A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public deliberation in small, face-to-face groups. 1ommunication 2!eor", 1,, /,6Z-##. 'haffee, S. E. +",9D0. Ohe diffusion of political information. Mn S. E. 'haffee +3d.0, Political communication3 4ssues and strategies -or researc! +pp. 6DZ"#60. :everl5 Eills, 'A7 Sage. 'oo<e, H. +#$$$0. ;ive arguments for deliberative democrac5. Political Studies, 48, ,-9Z ,.,. de :oer, '., 8 >elthui?sen, A. S. +#$$"0. @articipation in conversations about the ne%s. 4nternational ournal o- Pu$lic 5pinion %esearc!, 13, "-$Z"D6. &elli 'arpini, H. `., 8 Feeter, S. +",,#0. Ohe publicVs <no%ledge of politics. Mn L. &. Fennamer +3d.0, Pu$lic opinion, t!e press, and pu$lic polic" +pp. ",Z-$0. Jestport, 'O7 @raeger. &elli 'arpini, H. `., 8 Feeter, S. +",,.0. W!at +mericans 6now a$out politics and w!" it matters. Ne% Eaven, 'O7 aale niversit5 @ress. &o%nloaded b5 A >A niversiteitsbibliothee< SBC at $/7/D "/ ;ebruar5 #$"# 1), William P. Eveland, r. 3veland, J. @., Lr. +",,90. Mnteractions and nonlinearit5 in mass communication7 'onnecting theor5 and methodolog5. ournalism 7 Mass 1ommunication /uarterl", 9-, -$$Z-".. 3veland, J. @., Lr. +#$$"0. Ohe cognitive mediation model of learning from the ne%s7 3vidence

from non-election, off-5ear election, and presidential election contexts. 1ommunication %esearc!, ,8, D9"Z.$". 3veland, J. @., Lr. +#$$#0. Ne%s information processing as mediator of the relationship bet%een motivations and political <no%ledge. ournalism 7 Mass 1ommunication /uarterl", (), #.Z -$. 3veland, J.@., Lr., 8 Scheufele, &. +#$$$0. 'onnecting ne%s media use %ith gaps in <no%ledge and participation. Political 1ommunication, 1(, #"DZ#/9. ;ish<in, L. S. +",,"0. Democrac" and deli$eration3 &ew directions -or democratic re-orm. Ne% Eaven, 'O7 aale niversit5 @ress. Gastil, L., 8 &illard, L. @. +",,,0. Mncreasing political sophistication through public deliberation. Political 1ommunication, 1', /Z#/. Euc<feldt, 4., Lohnson, @. 3., 8 Sprague, L. +#$$#0. @olitical environments, political d5namics, and the survival of disagreement. ournal o- Politics, '4, "Z#". Euc<feldt, 4., 8 Sprague, L. +",,D0. 1iti8ens, politics, and social communication3 4n-ormation and in-luence in an election campaign. Ne% aor<7 'ambridge niversit5 @ress. Lanis, M. *., 8 Fing, :. O. +",D-0. Ohe influence of role pla5ing on opinion change. ournal o+$normal and Social Ps"c!olog", 4), #""Z#"6. Fatz, 3., 8 *azarsfeld, @. ;. +",DD0. Personal in-luence3 2!e part pla"ed $" people in t!e -low omass communications. Glencoe, M*7 ;ree @ress. Fing, :. O., 8 Lanis, M. *. +",D.0. 'omparison of the effectiveness of improvised versus nonimprovised role-pla5ing in producing opinion changes. 9uman %elations, ), "99Z"6.. *arsen, K. N., 8 Eill, 4. L. +",D-0. Hass media and interpersonal communication in the diffusion of a ne%s event. +merican Sociological %eview, 1), -#.Z-//. *azarsfeld, @. ;., :erelson, :., 8 Gaudet, E. +",-60. 2!e people:s c!oice3 9ow t!e voter ma6es up !is mind in a presidential campaign. Ne% aor<7 'olumbia niversit5 @ress. *enart, S. +",,-0. S!aping political attitudes3 2!e impact o- interpersonal communication and mass media. Ohousand Ka<s, 'A7 Sage. Hc&onald, &. G. +",,$0. Hedia orientation and television ne%s vie%ing. ournalism /uarterl", '(, ""Z#$. Hc*eod, L. H., 8 :ec<er, *. :. +",9-0. Oesting the validit5 of gratification measures through

political effects anal5sis. Mn L. G. :lumler 8 3. Fatz +3ds.0, 2!e uses o- mass communications3 1urrent perspectives on grati-ications researc! +pp. "/9Z".-0. :everl5 Eills, 'A7 Sage. Hc*eod, L. H., 8 :ec<er, *. :. +",6"0. Ohe uses and gratifications approach. Mn &. Nimmo 8 F. Sanders +3ds.0, 9and$oo6 o- political communication +pp. .9Z,,0. :everl5 Eills, 'A7 Sage. Hc*eod, L. H., Scheufele, &. A., Ho5, @., Eoro%itz, 3. H., Eolbert, 4. *., Bhang, J., Bubric, S., 8 Bubric, L. +",,,0. nderstanding deliberation7 Ohe effects of discussion net%or<s on participation in a public forum. 1ommunication %esearc!, ,', 9-/Z99-. Neuman, J. 4. +",9.0. @atterns of recall among television ne%s vie%ers. Pu$lic 5pinion /uarterl", 4., ""DZ"#/. @age, :. M. +",,.0. W!o deli$erates; Mass media in modern democrac". 'hicago7 niversit5 of 'hicago @ress. @ett5, 4. 3., 8 'acioppo, L. O. +",6"0. +ttitudes and persuasion3 1lassic and contemporar" approac!es. &ubuUue, MA7 Jilliam '. :ro%n. 4obinson, L. @., 8 *ev5, H. 4. +",6.0. Mnterpersonal communication and ne%s comprehension. Pu$lic 5pinion /uarterl", #., ".$Z"9D. 4ogers, 3. H. +#$$$0. 4eflections on ne%s event diffusion research. ournalism 7 Mass 1ommunication /uarterl", ((, D."ZD9.. Sanders, *. H. +",,90. Against deliberation. Political 2!eor", ,#, /-9Z/9.. &o%nloaded b5 A >A niversiteitsbibliothee< SBC at $/7/D "/ ;ebruar5 #$"# Discussion and Knowledge 1)3 Scheufele, &. A. +#$$$0. Oal< or conversationW &imensions of interpersonal discussion and their implications for participator5 democrac5. ournalism 7 Mass 1ommunication /uarterl", ((, 9"/Z9#,. Scheufele, &. A. +#$$#0. 3xamining differential gains from mass media and their implications for participator5 behavior. 1ommunication %esearc!, ,), -.Z.D. Schudson, H. +",,90. Jh5 conversation is not the soul of democrac5. 1ritical Studies in Mass 1ommunication, 14, #,9Z/$,. Jeatherford, H. S. +",6#0. Mnterpersonal net%or<s and political behavior. +merican ournal oPolitical Science, ,', ""9Z"-/.

Jenner, *. A. +",6D0. Ohe nature of ne%s gratifications. Mn F. 3. 4osengren, *. A. Jenner, 8 @. @almgreen +3ds.0 Media grati-ications researc!3 1urrent perspectives +pp. "9"Z",/0. :everl5 Eills, 'A7 Sage. Jic<s, 4. E. +",,#0. Mmprovement over time in recall of media information7 An explorator5 stud5. ournal o- 0roadcasting 7 Electronic Media, 3', #69Z/$#. Ba?onc, 4. :. +",.$0. Ohe process of cognitive tuning in communication. ournal o+$normal and Social Ps"c!olog", '1, "D,Z".9. &o%nloaded b5 A >A niversiteitsbibliothee< SBC at $/7/D "/ ;ebruar5 #$"#