Advertisement

The potential of deliberative reasoning: patterns of attitude change and consistency in cross-cutting and like-minded deliberation

  • Staffan Himmelroos
  • Henrik Serup Christensen
Original Article

Abstract

Previous studies have found that deliberative practices such as mini-publics produce opinion changes among participants. Nevertheless, the underlying mechanisms and whether these conform to deliberative ideals have received much less attention. This is problematic since research on public opinion and political psychology suggests that political opinions often are unstable or driven by prior notions. For this reason, we examine the underlying mechanisms of change in opinions and attitude consistency. We do so with data from an experiment with two deliberative treatments—cross-cutting and like-minded discussions—as well as a control group, where no deliberation took place to be able to determine whether deliberation actually cause the observed changes. The results suggest that participants in cross-cutting deliberation are more willing to change opinions, even when they have prior experiences with discussing the topic at hand, which is in line with deliberative theory, but attitude consistency is largely unaffected by the deliberations.

Keywords

Deliberative democracy Opinion change Political attitudes Experimental research Immigration 

References

  1. Andersen, V.N., and K.M. Hansen. 2007. How Deliberation Makes Better Citizens: The Danish Deliberative Poll on the Euro. European Journal of Political Research 46: 531–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baccaro, L., A. Bächtiger, and M. Deville. 2016. Small Differences that Matter: The Impact of Discussion Modalities on Deliberative Outcomes. British Journal of Political Science 46 (3): 551–566.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123414000167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barabas, J. 2004. How Deliberation Affects Policy Opinions. American Political Science Review 98 (4): 687–701.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055404041425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benhabib, S. 1996. Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy. In Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political.Google Scholar
  5. Brambor, T., W.R. Clark, and M. Golder. 2006. Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses. Political Analysis 14 (1): 63–82.  https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpi014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carpini, M.X.D., F.L. Cook, and L.R. Jacobs. 2004. Public Deliberation, Discursive Participation, and Citizen Engagement: A Review of the Empirical Literature. Annual Review of Political Science 7 (1): 315–344.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chambers, S. 1996. Reasonable Democracy: Jürgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, J. 1997. Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, ed. J. Bohman and W. Rehg, 67–92. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203986820.Google Scholar
  9. Converse, P.E. 1964. The nature of belief systems in mass publics (1964), (March 2012). Critical Review: A Journal of Politics 18: 1–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dryzek, J.S. 2007. Theory, evidence, and the tasks of deliberation. In Deliberation, Participation and Democracy: Can the People Govern?, ed. Shawn Rosenberg, 237–250. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.  https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230591080_11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Farrar, C., J.S. Fishkin, D.P. Green, C. List, R.C. Luskin, and E. Levy Paluck. 2010. Disaggregating Deliberation’s Effects: An Experiment within a Deliberative Poll. British Journal of Political Science 40 (02): 333.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123409990433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fishkin, J.S. 2009. When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fraser, N. 1990. Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. Social Text 26 (25/26): 56–80.  https://doi.org/10.2307/466240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Freedman, D.A. 2008. On Regression Adjustments in Experiments with Several Treatments. Annals of Applied Statistics 2 (1): 176–196.  https://doi.org/10.1214/07-AOAS143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gastil, J., L.W. Black, and K. Moscovitz. 2008. Ideology, Attitude Change, and Deliberation in Small Face-to-Face Groups. Political Communication 25 (1): 23–46.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600701807836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gastil, J., and J.P. Dillard. 1999. Increasing Political Sophistication Through Public Deliberation. Political Communication 16 (1): 3–23.  https://doi.org/10.1080/105846099198749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goodin, R. 2000. Democratic Deliberation Within. Philosophy & Public Affairs 29 (1): 81–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grönlund, K. 2012. FSD2958 Citizen Deliberation on Immigration: Survey Data 2012. http://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi:fsd:T-FSD2958
  19. Grönlund, K., A. Bächtiger, and M. Setälä. 2014. Introduction. In Deliberative Mini-Publics: Involving Citizens in the Democratic Process, ed. K. Grönlund, A. Bächtiger, and M. Setälä. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
  20. Grönlund, K., K. Herne, and M. Setälä. 2015. Does Enclave Deliberation Polarize Opinions? Political Behavior 37 (4): 995–1020.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-015-9304-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Habermas, 1987. The Theory of Communicative Action. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hansen, K.M., and V.N. Andersen. 2004. Deliberative Democracy and the Deliberative Poll on the Euro. Scandinavian Political Studies.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2004.00106.x.Google Scholar
  23. Himmelroos, S., and H.S. Christensen. 2014. Deliberation and Opinion Change: Evidence from a Deliberative Mini-public in Finland. Scandinavian Political Studies 37 (1): 41–60.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9477.12013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Himmelroos, S., and M. Leino. 2015. Does the Neighborhood Context Explain Attitudes Toward Immigration? A Study of Opinions on Immigration in the City of Turku, Finland. Research on Finnish Society 8 (1): 33–45.Google Scholar
  25. Jaakkola, M. 2009. Maahanmuuttajat suomalaisten näkökulmasta: asennemuutokset 1987-2007. Helsinki: Helsingin kaupungin tietokeskus (City of Helsinki Urban Facts).Google Scholar
  26. Kam, C.D., and M.J. Trussler. 2017. At the Nexus of Observational and Experimental Research: Theory, Specification, and Analysis of Experiments with Heterogeneous Treatment Effects. Political Behavior 39 (4): 789–815.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9379-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Karjalainen, M., and L. Rapeli. 2015. Who will not deliberate? Attrition in a multi-stage citizen deliberation experiment. Quality & Quantity 49 (1): 407–422.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014-9993-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Karpowitz, C.F., and T. Mendelberg. 2011. An experimental approach to citizen deliberation. In Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, ed. J. Druckman, D.P. Green, J.H. Kuklinski, and A. Lupia, 258–272. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Karpowitz, C.F., T. Mendelberg, and L. Shaker. 2012. Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation. American Political Science Review 106 (3): 533–547.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Karpowitz, C.F., C. Raphael, and A.S. Hammond. 2009. Deliberative Democracy and Inequality: Two Cheers for Enclave Deliberation among the Disempowered. Politics and Society 37 (4): 576–615.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329209349226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Knight, J., and J. Johnson. 2011. The Priority of Democracy: Political Consequences of Pragmatism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kunda, Z. 1990. The Case for Motivated Reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 108 (3): 480–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Levitan, L.C., and P.S. Visser. 2008. The Impact of the Social Context on Resistance to Persuasion: Effortful Versus Effortless Responses to Counter-Attitudinal Information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44 (3): 640–649.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.03.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lin, W. 2013. Agnostic Notes on Regression Adjustments to Experimental Data: Reexamining Freedman’s Critique. Annals of Applied Statistics 7 (1): 295–318.  https://doi.org/10.1214/12-AOAS583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lindell, M., A. Bächtiger, K. Grönlund, K. Herne, M. Setälä, and D. Wyss. 2017. What Drives the Polarisation and Moderation of Opinions? Evidence from a Finnish Citizen Deliberation Experiment on Immigration. European Journal of Political Research 56 (1): 23–45.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. List, C., R.C. Luskin, J.S. Fishkin, and I. Mc Lean. 2013. Deliberation, Single-Peakedness, and the Possibility of Meaningful Democracy: Evidence from Deliberative Polls. Journal of Politics.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381612000886.Google Scholar
  37. Lupia, A., M.D. McCubbins, and S.L. Popkin. 2000. Elements of Reason. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Luskin, R.C., J.S. Fishkin, and R. Jowell. 2002. Considered Opinions: Deliberative Polling in Britain. British Journal of Political Science 32 (3): 455–487.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123402000194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mansbridge, J. 1996. Using power/fighting power: The polity. In Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, ed. S. Benhabib. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Meffert, M.F., M. Guge, and M. Lodge. 2004. Good, bad, and ambivalent: The consequences of multidimensional political attitudes. Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change, 63–92. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Merkle, D. 1996. The National Issues Convention Deliberative Poll. The Public Opinion Quarterly 60 (January): 588–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Molden, D.C., and E.T. Higgins. 2005. Motivated thinking. In The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning, ed. K.J. Holyoak and R.G. Morrison, 295–320. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734689.013.0020.Google Scholar
  43. Mutz, D.C. 2006. Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative Versus Participatory Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nyhan, B., and J. Reifler. 2010. When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions. Political Behavior 32 (2): 303–330.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. O’Flynn, I. 2006. Deliberative Democracy and Divided Societies. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Redlawsk, D.P., A.J.W. Civettini, and K.M. Emmerson. 2010. The Affective Tipping Point: Do Motivated Reasoners Ever “Get It”? Political Psychology 31 (4): 563–593.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00772.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Setälä, M., K. Grönlund, and K. Herne. 2010. Citizen Deliberation on Nuclear Power: A Comparison of Two Decision-Making Methods. Political Studies 58: 688–714.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2010.00822.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Smets, K., and P. Isernia. 2014. The Role of Deliberation in Attitude Change: An Empirical Assessment of Three Theoretical Mechanisms. European Union Politics 15 (3): 389–409.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116514533016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sniderman, P.M., P.E. Tetlock, and L. Elm. 2001. Public opinion and democratic politics: The problem of nonattitudes and the social construction of political judgment. In Citizens and Politics. Perspectives from Political Psychology (pp. 254–288). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Strandberg, K., S. Himmelroos, and K. Grönlund. 2017. Do Discussions in Like-Minded Groups Necessarily Lead to More Extreme Opinions? Deliberative Democracy and Group Polarization. International Political Science Review.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512117692136.Google Scholar
  51. Stuart, E.A. 2010. Matching Methods for Causal Inference: A Review and a Look Forward. Statistical Science: A Review Journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics 25 (1): 1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1214/09-STS313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sunstein, C.R. 2002. The Law of Group Polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy 10 (2): 175–195.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sunstein, C.R. 2009. Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Taber, C.S., and M. Lodge. 2006. Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs. American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 755–769.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tesser, A. 1978. Self-Generated Attitude Change. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 11 (C): 289–338.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60010-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vinokur, A., and E. Burnstein. 1978. Depolarization of Attitudes in Groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36 (8): 872–885.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.8.872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Visser, P.S., and R.R. Mirabile. 2004. Attitudes in the Social Context: The Impact of Social Network Composition on Individual-Level Attitude Strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87 (6): 779–795.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Weithman, P. 2005. Deliberative Character*. Journal of Political Philosophy 13 (3): 263–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wojcieszak, M. 2011. Deliberation and Attitude Polarization. Journal of Communication 61 (4): 596–617.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01568.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wojcieszak, M., and V. Price. 2010. Bridging the Divide or Intensifying the Conflict? How Disagreement Affects Strong Predilections about Sexual Minorities. Political Psychology 31 (3): 315–339.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00753.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zaller, J. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Contemporary History and Political ScienceUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  2. 2.SamforskÅbo Akademi UniversityTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations