Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59df476f6b-l2s26 Total loading time: 0.31 Render date: 2021-05-17T23:51:26.853Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2012

CHRISTOPHER F. KARPOWITZ
Affiliation:
Brigham Young University
TALI MENDELBERG
Affiliation:
Princeton University
LEE SHAKER
Affiliation:
Portland State University
Corresponding

Abstract

Can men and women have equal levels of voice and authority in deliberation or does deliberation exacerbate gender inequality? Does increasing women's descriptive representation in deliberation increase their voice and authority? We answer these questions and move beyond the debate by hypothesizing that the group's gender composition interacts with its decision rule to exacerbate or erase the inequalities. We test this hypothesis and various alternatives, using experimental data with many groups and links between individuals’ attitudes and speech. We find a substantial gender gap in voice and authority, but as hypothesized, it disappears under unanimous rule and few women, or under majority rule and many women. Deliberative design can avoid inequality by fitting institutional procedure to the social context of the situation.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Aries, Elizabeth. 1976. “Interaction Patterns and Themes of Male, Female, and Mixed Groups.” Small Group Behavior 7: 718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aries, Elizabeth. 1998. “Gender Differences in Interaction: A Reexamination.” In Sex Differences and Similarities in Communication: Critical Essays and Empirical Investigations of Sex and Gender in Interaction, eds. Canary, Daniel J. and Dindia, Kathryn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2136.Google Scholar
Baron, Reuben M., and Kenny, David A.. 1986. “Moderator-Mediator Variables Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (6): 1173–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bouas, Kelly S., and Komorita, S. S.. 1996. “Group Discussion and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22: 1144–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowers, William J., Steiner, Benjamin D., and Sandys, Marla. 2001. “Death Sentencing in Black and White: An Empirical Analysis of Jurors’ Race and Jury Racial Composition.” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 3: 171275.Google Scholar
Burns, Nancy, Schlozman, Kay Lehman, and Verba, Sidney. 2001. The Private Roots of Public Action: Gender, Equality, and Political Participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bryan, Frank M. 2004. Real Democracy: The New England Town Meeting and How it Works. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carlock, C. Jesse, and Martin, Patricia Y.. 1977. “Sex Composition and the Intensive Group Experience.” Social Work 22: 2732.Google Scholar
Carroll, Susan J., ed. 2001. The Impact of Women in Public Office. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, Simone. 1996. Reasonable Democracy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Chatman, Jennifer A., and O'Reilly, Charles A.. 2004. “Asymmetric Reactions to Work Group Sex Diversity among Men and Women.” Academy of Management Journal 47: 193208.Google Scholar
Choi, Seung-Whan. 2009. “The Effect of Outliers on Regression Analysis: Regime Type and Foreign Direct Investment.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 4: 153–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Joshua. l989. “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy.” In The Good Polity, eds. Hamlin, Alan P. and Pettit, Phillip. Oxford: Blackwell, 1734Google Scholar
Craig, Jane M., and Sherif, Carolyn W.. 1986. “The Effectiveness of Men and Women in Problem-solving Groups as a Function of Gender Composition.” Sex Roles 14 (7/8): 453–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cramer Walsh, Katherine. 2007. Talking about Race: Community Dialogues and the Politics of Difference. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croson, Rachel, and Gneezy, Uri. 2009. “Gender Differences in Preferences.” Journal of Economic Literature 47 (2): 448–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowder-Meyer, Melody. 2007. “Gender Differences in Policy Preferences and Priorities.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p196573_index.html (accessed May 19, 2011).Google Scholar
Crowder-Meyer, Melody. 2010. “Local Parties, Local Candidates, and Women's Representation: How County Parties Affect Who Runs for and Wins Political Office.” Ph.D. diss. Princeton University.Google Scholar
Devine, Dennis J., Clayton, Laura, Dunford, Benjamin B., Seying, Rasmy, and Price, Jennifer. 2001. “Jury Decision Making: 45 Years of Empirical Research on Deliberating Groups.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 73 (3): 622727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dindia, Kathryn, and Allen, Mike. 1992. “Sex Differences in Self-disclosure: A Meta-analysis.” Psychological Bulletin 112: 106–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eagly, Alice H. 1987. Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-Role Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ellis, Donald G. 1982. “Relational Stability and Change in Women's Consciousness-raising Groups.” Women's Studies in Communication 5: 7787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esterling, Kevin M., Fung, Archon, and Lee, Taeku. 2009. “How Much Disagreement is Good for Democratic Deliberation? The California Speaks Health Care Reform Experiment.” Presented at the Annual West Coast Experimental Political Science Conference, Del Mar, CA.Google Scholar
Fishkin, James S. 1995. The Voice of the People. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fishkin, James S., He, Baogang, Luskin, Robert C., and Siu, Alice. 2010. “Deliberative Democracy in an Unlikely Place: Deliberative Polling in China.” British Journal of Political Science 40: 435–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, Susan T. 2010. “Venus and Mars, or Down to Earth: Stereotypes and Realities of Gender Differences.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 5 (6): 688–92CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraser, Nancy. 1992. “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy.” In Habermas and the Public Sphere, ed. Calhoun, Craig. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 109–42.Google Scholar
Frohlich, Norman, and Oppenheimer, Joe. 1990. “Choosing Justice in Experimental Democracies with Production.” American Political Science Review 84 (2): 461–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frohlich, Norman, and Oppenheimer, Joe. 1992. Choosing Justice: An Experimental Approach to Ethical Theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Frohlich, Norman, Oppenheimer, Joe, and Eavy, Cheryl, 1987. “Laboratory Results on Rawls's Distributive Justice.” British Journal of Political Science 17: 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, Archon. 2003. “Deliberation Where You Least Expect It: Citizen Participation in Government.” Connections (Fall): 30–33.Google Scholar
Fung, Archon. 2007. “Democratic Theory and Political Science: A Pragmatic Method of Constructive Engagement.” American Political Science Review 101: 443–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gastil, John, Deess, E. Pierre, Weiser, Phil, and Meade, Jordan. 2008. “Jury Service and Electoral Participation: A Test of the Participation Hypothesis.” Journal of Politics 70: 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, Howard, Mulac, Anthony, Bradac, James J., and Johnson, Patricia. 1987. “Speech Accommodation Theory: The First Decade and Beyond.” Communication Yearbook 10: 1348.Google Scholar
Grunenfelder, Rita, and Baechtiger, Andre. 2007. “Gendered Deliberation? How Men and Women Deliberate in Legislatures.” Presented at the European Consortium for Political Research Joint Sessions, Helsinki.Google Scholar
Gutmann, Amy, and Thompson, Dennis. 1996. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gutmann, Amy, and Thompson, Dennis. 2004. Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1989. The Structural Transformation of The Public Sphere: An Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Trans. Burger, T. with the assistance of Lawrence, F.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hannagan, Rebecca J., and Larimer, Christopher. 2011. “Out-group Threat and Gender Balance in Policymaking Groups.” Presented at the 2nd European Conference on Politics and Gender, Budapest.Google Scholar
Hansen, Susan B. 1997. “Talking about Politics: Gender and Contextual Effects on Political Proselytizing.” Journal of Politics 59: 73103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hastie, Reid, Penrod, Steven D., and Pennington, Nancy. 1983. Inside the Jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickerson, Andrea, and Gastil, John. 2008. “Assessing the Difference Critique of Deliberation: Gender, Emotion, and the Jury Experience.” Communication Theory 18: 281303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, and Sprague, John. 1995. Citizens, Politics, and Social Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphreys, Macartan, Masters, William A., and Sandbu, Martin E.. 2006. “Democratic Deliberations: Results from a Field Experiment in São Tomé and Príncipe.” World Politics 58: 583622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, Keele, Luke, and Tingley, Dustin. 2010. “A General Approach to Causal Mediation Analysis.” Psychological Methods 15 (4): 309–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacobs, Lawrence R., Cook, Fay L., and Delli Carpini, Michael X.. 2009. Talking Together: Public Deliberation and Political Participation in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Cathryn. 1994. “Gender, Legitimate Authority, and Leader-Subordinate Conversations.” American Sociological Review 59: 122–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Richard A., and Schulman, Gary I.. 1989. “Gender-role Composition and Role Entrapment in Decision-making Groups.” Gender and Society 3: 355–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kameda, Tatsuya 1991. “Procedural Influence in Small-group Decision Making: Deliberation Style and Assigned Decision Rule.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61: 245–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanter, Rosabeth M. 1977a. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
Kanter, Rosabeth M. 1977b. Work and Family in the United States: A Critical Review and Policy Agenda. Frontiers of Social Science Series. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Martin F., and Miller, Charles E.. 1987. “Group Decision-making and Normative versus Informational Influence: Effects of Type of Issue and Assigned Decision Rule.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53: 306–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karpowitz, Christopher F., Raphael, Chad, and Hammond IV, Allen S.. 2009. “Deliberative Democracy and Inequality: Two Cheers for Enclave Deliberation among the Disempowered.” Politics and Society 37: 576615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kathlene, Lyn. 1994. “Power and Influence in State Legislatures: The Interaction of Gender and Position in Committee Hearing Debates.” American Political Science Review 88: 560–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krook, Mona L. 2009. Quotas for Women in Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macedo, Stephen, Alex-Assensoh, Yvette, Berry, Jeffrey M., Brintnall, Michael, Campbell, David E., Fraga, Luis Ricardo, Fung, Archon, et al. 2005. Democracy at Risk: How Political Choices Undermine Citizen Participation, and What We Can Do about It. Washington, DC: Brookings Press.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane J. 1983. Beyond Adversary Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane J. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes.’Journal of Politics 61: 628–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane J., Hartz-Karp, Janette, Amengual, Matthew, and Gastil, John. 2006. “Norms of Deliberation: An Inductive Study.” Journal of Public Deliberation 2 (1): 7293.Google Scholar
Massie, Tajuana, Johnson, Susan W., and Gubala, Sara M.. 2002. “The Influence of Gender and Race on Judicial Decisions in the United States Courts of Appeals.” Presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Meeting, Chicago.Google Scholar
Mathis, Jerome. 2011. “Deliberation with Evidence.” American Political Science Review 105: 516–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maltz, Daniel, and Borker, Ruth. 1982. “A Cultural Approach to Male-Female Miscommunication.” In Language and Social Identity, ed. Gumperz, John. New York: Cambridge University Press, 281312.Google Scholar
McCarrick, Anne K., Manderscheid, Ronald W., and Silbergeld, Sam. 1981. “Gender Differences in Competition and Dominance during Married-couples Group Therapy.” Social Psychology Quarterly 44: 164–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDermott, Rose. 2011. “Internal and External Validity.” In Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, eds. Druckman, James N., Green, Donald P., Kuklinski, James H., and Lupia, Arthur. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendelberg, Tali. 2002. “The Deliberative Citizen: Theory and Evidence.” In Political Decision-making, Deliberation, and Participation, ed. Delli Carpini, Michael X.. San Diego: Elsevier Science, 151–93.Google Scholar
Mendelberg, Tali, and Karpowitz, Christopher F.. 2007. “Deliberating about Justice.” In Deliberation, Participation, and Democracy: Can the People Govern?, ed. Rosenberg, Shawn. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 101–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merelman, Richard M., Streich, Greg, and Martin, Paul. 1998. “Unity and Diversity in American Political Culture: An Exploratory Study of the National Conversation on American Pluralism and Identity.” Political Psychology 19: 781807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Judi B. 1985. “Patterns of Control in Same-sex Conversations: Differences between Women and Men.” Women's Studies in Communication 8: 6299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, Rebecca M., and Williams, Kenneth C.. 2010. Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moscovici, Serge. 1980. “Toward a Theory of Conversion Behavior.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 13: 209–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moscovici, Serge. 1985. “Innovation and Minority Influence.” In The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2, eds. Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E.. New York: Random House, 347412.Google Scholar
Neblo, Michael A., Esterling, Kevin M., Kennedy, Ryan P., Lazer, David M.J., and Sokhey, Anand E.. 2010. “Who Wants to Deliberate—and Why?American Political Science Review 104: 566–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemeth, Charlan J. 1977. “Interactions between Jurors as a Function of Majority vs. Unanimity Decision Rules.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 7: 3856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pateman, Carole. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piliavin, Jane A., and Martin, Rachel R.. 1978. “The Effects of the Sex Composition of Groups on Style of Social Interaction.” Sex Roles 4: 281–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapoport, Ronald B. 1981. “The Sex Gap in Political Persuading: Where the ‘Structured Principle’ Works.” American Journal of Political Science 25 (1): 3248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reskin, Barbara F., McBrier, Debra B., and Kmec, Julie A.. 1999. “The Determinants and Consequences of Workplace Sex and Race Composition.” Annual Review of Sociology 25: 335–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridgeway, Cecilia L. 1982. “Status in Groups: The Importance of Motivation.” American Sociological Review 47: 7688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridgeway, Cecilia L., and Smith-Lovin, Lynn. 1999. “The Gender System and Interaction.” Annual Review of Sociology 25: 191216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, Shawn. 2007. “Rethinking Democratic Deliberation: The Limits and Potential of Citizen Participation.” Polity 39: 335–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryfe, David M. 2005. “Does Deliberative Democracy Work?Annual Review of Political Science 8: 4971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Lynn. 1997. “Against Deliberation.” Political Theory 25 (3): 347–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapiro, Virginia. 2003. “Theorizing Gender in Political Psychology Research.” In Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, eds. Sears, David O., Huddy, Leonie, and Jervis, Robert. New York: Oxford University Press, 601–36.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Robert Y., and Mahajan, Harpreet. 1986. “Gender Differences in Policy Preferences: A Summary of Trends from the 1960s to the 1980s.” Public Opinion Quarterly 50 (1): 4246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 1992. Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Smith-Lovin, Lynn, and Brody, Charles. 1989. “Interruptions in Group Discussions: The Effects of Gender and Group Composition.” American Sociological Review 54: 424–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strodtbeck, Fred L., James, Rita M., and Hawkins, Charles. 1957. “Social Status in Jury Deliberations.” American Sociological Review 22: 713–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, Cass. 2002. Designing Democracy: What Constitutions Do. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1990. You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
Thompson, Dennis F. 2008. “Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science.” Annual Review of Political Science 11:497520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Knippenberg, Daan, and Schippers, Michaela C.. 2007. “Work Group Diversity.” Annual Review of Psychology 58: 515–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, Melissa S. 2000. “The Uneasy Alliance of Group Representation in Deliberative Democracy.” In Citizenship in Diverse Societies, eds. Kymlicka, Will and Norman, Wayne. London: Oxford University Press, 124–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Iris M. 1996. “Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy.” In Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of The Political, ed. Benhabib, Seyla. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 120–36Google Scholar
Young, Iris M. 2001. “Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy.” Political Theory 29: 670–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Karpowitz et al. supplementary material

Appendix

Download Karpowitz et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 2 MB

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *