Abstract
Direct voting and public deliberation are often considered as a means to increase legitimacy of political decision-making. This study investigates whether the legitimizing effects of these procedural arrangements are affected by the level of threat stemming from topic associated with a decision-making situation. Further, we explore potential individual-level moderators. A vignette experiment with a mixed design was conducted (N = 220). Results showed that the presence of a direct vote as well as public deliberation increased perceived legitimacy of the decision-making process, the effect of the latter being considerably stronger. Contrary to our expectations, all legitimizing effects remained unaffected by the presence of threat. Nevertheless, the legitimizing effect of a direct vote was stronger for people who were more alienated from and less interested in politics, while it was negligible if alienation was low and interest high. The legitimizing effect of public deliberation was less strong (but still present) for people with higher right-wing authoritarianism and lower political interest.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, C.J., A. Blais, S. Bowler, et al. 2005. Losers’ consent: Elections and democratic legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Arnesen, S. 2017. Legitimacy from decision-making influence and outcome favourability: Results from general population survey experiments. Political Studies 65 (1S): 146–161.
Arnesen, S., and Y. Peters. 2018. The legitimacy of representation: How descriptive, formal, and responsiveness representation affect the acceptability of political decisions. Comparative Political Studies 51 (7): 868–899.
Bauer, P.C., and M. Fatke. 2014. Direct democracy and political trust: Enhancing trust, initiating distrust–or both? Swiss Political Science Review 20 (1): 49–69.
Blader, S.L. 2007. What determines people’s fairness judgments? Identification and outcomes influence procedural justice evaluations under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43 (6): 986–994.
Brader, T. 2005. Striking a responsive chord: How political ads motivate and persuade voters by appealing to emotions. American Journal of Political Science 49 (2): 388–405.
Christensen, H.S., S. Himmelroos, and M. Setälä. 2020. A matter of life or death: A survey experiment on the perceived legitimacy of political decision-making on euthanasia. Parliamentary Affairs 73: 627–650.
Citrin, J., H. Mcclosky, J.M. Shanks, et al. 1975. Personal and political sources of political alienation. British Journal of Political Science 5 (1): 1–31.
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Czech Statistical Office. 2020. Labour Market in the Czech Republic - Time Series - 1993–2019, https://www.czso.cz/csu/czso/labour-market-in-the-czech-republic-time-series-1993-2019#. Accessed 19 July 2021.
Duckitt, J. 2009. Authoritarianism and dogmatism. In Handbook of individual differences in social behavior, ed. M.R. Leary and R.H. Hoyle, 298–317. New York: The Guilford Press.
Duckitt, J., and B. Farre. 1994. Right-wing authoritarianism and political intolerance among Whites in the future majority-rule South Africa. The Journal of Social Psychology 134 (6): 735–741.
Esaiasson, P., M. Gilljam, and M. Persson. 2012. Which decision-making arrangements generate the strongest legitimacy beliefs? Evidence from a randomised field experiment. European Journal of Political Research 51: 785–808.
Esaiasson, P., M. Persson, M. Gilljam, et al. 2019. Reconsidering the role of procedures for decision acceptance. British Journal of Political Science 49 (1): 291–314.
Feldman, S. 2020. Authoritarianism, threat, and intolerance. In At the forefront of political psychology: Essays in honor of John L. Sullivan, ed. E. Borgida, C.M. Federico, and J.M. Miller. New York: Routledge.
Finifter, A.W. 1970. Dimensions of political alienation. The American Political Science Review 64 (2): 389–410.
Fox, S. 2020. Political alienation and referendums: how political alienation was related to support for Brexit. British Politics. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41293-020-00134-8.
Funke, F. 2005. The dimensionality of right-wing authoritarianism: Lessons from the dilemma between theory and measurement. Political Psychology 26 (2): 195–218.
Gallego, A., and D. Oberski. 2012. Personality and political participation: The mediation hypothesis. Political Behavior 34: 425–451.
Gibson, J.L. 2006. Enigmas of intolerance: Fifty years after Stouffer’s communism, conformity, and civil liberties. Perspectives on Politics 4 (1): 21–34.
Gil de Zúñiga, H., and T. Diehl. 2019. News finds me perception and democracy: Effects on political knowledge, political interest, and voting. New Media & Society 21 (6): 1253–1271.
Gilljam, M., P. Esaiasson, and L. Torun. 2010. The voice of the pupils: An experimental comparison of decisions made by elected pupil councils, pupils in referenda, and teaching staff. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 22: 73–88.
Groenendyk, E.W., and A.J. Banks. 2014. Emotional rescue: How affect helps partisans overcome collective action problems. Political Psychology 35 (3): 359–378.
Hazama, Y. 2011 Determinants of political tolerance: a literature review. IDE Discussion Paper 288, March, https://ir.ide.go.jp/?action=repository_uri&item_id=37884&file_id=22&file_no=1. Accessed 30 Nov 2020.
Hilmer, J.D. 2010. The state of participatory democratic theory. New Political Science 32 (1): 43–63.
Jacobs, K., A. Akkerman, and A. Zaslove. 2018. The voice of populist people? Referendum preferences, practices and populist attitudes. Acta Politica 53: 517–541.
Jacobs, L.R., F.L. Cook, and M.X. Delli Carpini. 2009. Talking together: Public deliberation and political participation in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jacquet, V. 2017. Explaining non-participation in deliberative mini-publics. European Journal of Political Research 56 (3): 640–659.
Johnston, M., M. Naylor, G. Dickson, et al. 2020. Determinants of support and participation in a major sport event referendum. Sport Management Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2020.08.001.
Kemmelmeier, M. 2015 Authoritarianism. In International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, ed. J. Wright, vol. 2, 2nd ed, 262–268. Oxford: Elsevier.
Kern, A. 2017. The effect of direct democratic participation on citizens’ political attitudes in Switzerland: The difference between availability and use. Politics and Governance 5 (2): 16–26.
Kern, A., and M. Hooghe. 2017. The effect of direct democracy on the social stratification of political participation: Inequality in democratic fatigue? Comparative European Politics 16: 724–744.
Knight, J., and J. Johnson. 1994. Aggregation and deliberation: On the possibility of democratic legitimacy. Political Theory 22 (2): 277–296.
Levi, M., A. Sacks, and T. Tyler. 2009. Conceptualizing legitimacy, measuring legitimating beliefs. American Behavioral Scientist 53 (3): 354–375.
Lind, E.A., and T.R. Tyler. 1988. The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.
Lind, E.A., R. Kanfer, and P.C. Earley. 1990. Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59 (5): 952–959.
Lu, Y., and J.K. Lee. 2020. Determinants of cross-cutting discussion on Facebook: Political interest, news consumption, and strong-tie heterogeneity. New Media & Society 23: 175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819899879.
MacKuen, M., J. Wolak, L. Keele, et al. 2010. Civic engagements: Resolute partisanship or reflective deliberation. American Journal of Political Science 54 (2): 440–458.
Manin, B. 1987. On legitimacy and political deliberation. Political Theory 15 (3): 338–368.
McMillan, J., and K. Harriger. 2002. College students and deliberation: A benchmark study. Communication Education 51 (3): 237–253.
Marcus, G.E. 2008. Different situations, different responses: Threat, partisanship, risk, and deliberation. Critical Review 20 (1–2): 75–89.
Marcus, G.E. 2013. The theory of affective intelligence and liberal politics. In Emotions in politics: The affect dimension in political tension, ed. N. Demertzis, 17–38. Palgrave Macmillan.
Marien, S., and A. Kern. 2018. The winner takes it all: Revisiting the effect of direct democracy on citizens’ political support. Political Behavior 40: 857–882.
Muhlberger, P. 2018. Stealth democracy: Authoritarianism and democratic deliberation. Journal of Public Deliberation 14 (2): 7. https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.309.
Muthén, L.K. and B.O. Muthén. 1998–2015. Mplus User’s Guide. 7th edition. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
Nielsen, J.H. 2016. Do group decision rules affect trust? A laboratory experiment on group decision rules and trust. Scandinavian Political Studies 39 (2): 115–137.
Olken, B.A. 2010. Direct democracy and local public goods: Evidence from a field experiment in Indonesia. American Political Science Review 104 (2): 243–267.
Persson, M., P. Esaiasson, and M. Gilljam. 2013. The effects of direct voting and deliberation on legitimacy beliefs: An experimental study of small group decision-making. European Political Science Review 5 (3): 381–399.
Ranade, W., and P. Norris. 1984. Democratic consensus and the young: A cross national comparison of Britain and America. Journal of Adolescence 7: 45–57.
Russo, S., M. Roccato, and C. Mosso. 2019. Authoritarianism, societal threat, and preference for antidemocratic political systems. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology 26 (3): 419–429.
Saward, M. 2001. Making democratic connections: Political equality, deliberation and direct democracy. Acta Politica 36 (4): 361–379.
Sinclair, A.H., M.L. Stanley, and P. Seli. 2020. Closed-minded cognition: Right-wing authoritarianism is negatively related to belief updating following prediction error. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 27: 1348–1361.
Skitka, L.J. 2002. Do the means always justify the ends, or do the ends sometimes justify the means? A value protection model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28 (5): 588–597.
Skitka, L.J., and E. Muller. 2002. Understanding judgments of fairness in a real-world political context: A test of the value protection model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28 (10): 1419–1429.
Stevens, D., and N. Vaughan-Williams. 2016. Everyday security threats: Perceptions, experiences, and consequences. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Ťápal, A. 2012. Cognitive-motivational dispositions of authoritarianism. Bachelor's thesis, Masaryk University, Brno.
Terwel, B.W., F. Harinck, N. Ellemers, et al. 2010. Voice in political decision-making: The effect of group voice on perceived trustworthiness of decision makers and subsequent acceptance of decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 16 (2): 173–186.
The jamovi project. 2020. jamovi (computer software). https://www.jamovi.org. Accessed 30 Nov 2020.
Towfigh, E.V., S.J. Goerg, A. Glöckner, et al. 2016. Do direct-democratic procedures lead to higher acceptance than political representation? Experimental survey evidence from Germany. Public Choice 167: 47–65.
Tyler, T.R. 2006. Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology 57: 375–400.
Tyler, T.R. 2012. Justice theory. In Handbook of theories of social psychology, vol. 2, ed. P.A.M. Van Lange, A.W. Kruglanski, and E.T. Higgins, 344–361. London: SAGE Publications.
Valentino, N.A., T. Brader, E.W. Groenendyk, et al. 2011. Election night’s alright for fighting: The role of emotions in political participation. The Journal of Politics 73 (1): 156–170.
Valentino, N.A., K. Gregorowicz, and E.W. Groenendyk. 2009. Efficacy, emotions and the habit of participation. Political Behavior 31 (3): 307–330.
Van den Bos, K. 1999. What are we talking about when we talk about no-voice procedures? On the psychology of the fair outcome effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 35 (6): 560–577.
Van den Bos, K., R. Vermunt, and H.A.M. Wilke. 1997. Procedural and distributive justice: What is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72 (1): 95–104.
Vasilopoulos, P. 2019. Affective intelligence and emotional Dynamics in voters’ decision making processes. In Oxford research encyclopedia of politics. Oxford University Press. https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-767.
Wang, S.-I. 2007. Political use of the internet, political attitudes and political participation. Asian Journal of Communication 17 (4): 381–395.
Weber, C. 2013. Emotions, campaigns, and political participation. Political Research Quarterly 66 (2): 414–428.
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by the Czech Science Foundation [Grant Number GA18-19883S].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interests
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Šerek, J., Mužík, M., Lomičová, L. et al. How a direct vote and public deliberation contribute to the legitimacy of political decision-making: examining situational and individual-level moderators. Acta Polit 57, 687–709 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-021-00217-4
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-021-00217-4