Talking With Different Others: Roles of Superordinate Citizen Identity in Cross-Cutting Discussions

• In Event: Intergroup Communication Research in Progress

Abstract

The theory of deliberative democracy envisions inclusive deliberation in which people in different social groups—with different identities, opinions and interests—engage in reflexive, cross-cutting discussions. Yet both theorists and practitioners recognize various real world challenges, including structural inequalities, cultural differences, and linguistic biases. In this paper, I argue that a construction of relational citizenship identity can be a key internal dynamic to navigate these challenges. Specifically, by drawing on the notion of “superordinate identity,” a concept that has been advanced in the literature of collective identity and self-categorization, I set out to examine the effects of highlighting a relational dimension of citizenship in the context of a hypothetical discussion. I argue that a superordinate citizenship identity, which on a more general level is a consequence of an inclusive democratic polity, can work against various barriers to deliberative interactions, such as group-based or opinion-based biases and cognitive closure.

This proposition is tested in an exploratory empirical study. Specifically, I examine how an individual’s deliberative practice in a context characterized by disagreements and conflicting voices is influenced by (1) his/her general understanding of citizenship (relational vs. conventional) and (2) a heightened sense of the superordinate, relational citizen identity. A web-based survey study, which embedded a quasi-experiment, was conducted to examine the roles of relational citizenship understanding. Student participants (N=458) in a large Midwest university first responded to questions about their citizenship understanding and their opinions about affirmative action. They were then exposed to an invitation flyer to a hypothetical discussion event on the topic of affirmative action in college admissions, along with a hypothetical Student A’s opinion profile about the topic. The message that heightens either the relational citizenship identity or group-level identity was embedded into the invitation flyer. Approximately a half of the participants were exposed to the message in which a super-ordinate level of social belonging and relationships between citizens is highlighted; the other half were exposed to the message that emphasizes a sub-group level belonging and ideological differences. After the citizenship identity was (1) measured and (2) sensitized (vs. not sensitized), participants’ expectations about the discussion event and the hypothetical discussion partner Student A were examined. The opinion difference between the participants and the hypothetical Student A on the topic of affirmative action issue was calculated by measuring the difference score. This study tests the following research questions and hypotheses.

RQ1: Does sensitizing superordinate (relational) citizenship identity have any effect on people’s perceptions about the potential discussion (e.g., willingness to have the discussion and positive expectations about the discussion)?
H1a: There will be a positive relationship between opinion similarity and the perception that the opinion of other is based on rational considerations.
H1b: There will be a negative relationship between opinion similarity and the perception that the opinion of other is based on biased considerations.
H2: There will be a positive relationship between opinion similarity and willingness to discuss the issue.
H3: There will be a positive relationship between opinion similarity and positive expectations about the discussion.
RQ2: Is the tendency to privilege the like-minded moderated by individual’s relational citizenship understanding?
RQ3: Can the tendency to privilege the like-minded be reduced when people are sensitized of their relational citizenship identity?
The results present some preliminary evidence that supports the theoretical argument of this paper. (Further analysis will be conducted).

Implications of the results for intergroup communication, practices of deliberative democracy, and future research will be discussed.

Author

• Kyurim Kyoung, University of Wisconsin at Madison