Skip to main content
Log in

How a direct vote and public deliberation contribute to the legitimacy of political decision-making: examining situational and individual-level moderators

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Acta Politica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Arnesen, S. 2017. Legitimacy from decision-making influence and outcome favourability: Results from general population survey experiments. Political Studies 65 (1S): 146–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finifter, A.W. 1970. Dimensions of political alienation. The American Political Science Review 64 (2): 389–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funke, F. 2005. The dimensionality of right-wing authoritarianism: Lessons from the dilemma between theory and measurement. Political Psychology 26 (2): 195–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallego, A., and D. Oberski. 2012. Personality and political participation: The mediation hypothesis. Political Behavior 34: 425–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J.L. 2006. Enigmas of intolerance: Fifty years after Stouffer’s communism, conformity, and civil liberties. Perspectives on Politics 4 (1): 21–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groenendyk, E.W., and A.J. Banks. 2014. Emotional rescue: How affect helps partisans overcome collective action problems. Political Psychology 35 (3): 359–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, K., A. Akkerman, and A. Zaslove. 2018. The voice of populist people? Referendum preferences, practices and populist attitudes. Acta Politica 53: 517–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jacquet, V. 2017. Explaining non-participation in deliberative mini-publics. European Journal of Political Research 56 (3): 640–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, J., and J. Johnson. 1994. Aggregation and deliberation: On the possibility of democratic legitimacy. Political Theory 22 (2): 277–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levi, M., A. Sacks, and T. Tyler. 2009. Conceptualizing legitimacy, measuring legitimating beliefs. American Behavioral Scientist 53 (3): 354–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E.A., and T.R. Tyler. 1988. The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manin, B. 1987. On legitimacy and political deliberation. Political Theory 15 (3): 338–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, J., and K. Harriger. 2002. College students and deliberation: A benchmark study. Communication Education 51 (3): 237–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, G.E. 2008. Different situations, different responses: Threat, partisanship, risk, and deliberation. Critical Review 20 (1–2): 75–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muhlberger, P. 2018. Stealth democracy: Authoritarianism and democratic deliberation. Journal of Public Deliberation 14 (2): 7. https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saward, M. 2001. Making democratic connections: Political equality, deliberation and direct democracy. Acta Politica 36 (4): 361–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, D., and N. Vaughan-Williams. 2016. Everyday security threats: Perceptions, experiences, and consequences. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T.R. 2006. Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology 57: 375–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentino, N.A., K. Gregorowicz, and E.W. Groenendyk. 2009. Efficacy, emotions and the habit of participation. Political Behavior 31 (3): 307–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, C. 2013. Emotions, campaigns, and political participation. Political Research Quarterly 66 (2): 414–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the Czech Science Foundation [Grant Number GA18-19883S].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Šerek.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-021-00217-4

Keywords

Navigation