Constructing the Message: The Influence of Differing Political Communication Styles of Voter Decision Making

Abstract

Practitioner communication is commonly criticized for substituting emotion for policy, while deliberative communication is critiqued for removing emotion from reason altogether. This study proposes agonism as an attempt to bridge the divide. Agonistic political communication strives to substantively inform and motivate citizens. Furthermore, it attempts to shift unavoidable political divides from the moral realm to the political realm. To study the effects of all three message types, sample messages were constructed to reflect the differing theoretical approaches. These messages then served as the basis of small group discussions about politics and the economy. A pretest/posttest design was utilized to measure how the messages affected levels of political knowledge, efficacy, party favorability, social trust and institutional trust. Qualitative analysis of short answers and video recorded discussion offered further understanding of effects. Statistical analysis offered little support for agonism, but qualitative analysis showed agonism had potential to fulfill its theoretical purpose.