Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Small Differences that Matter: The Impact of Discussion Modalities on Deliberative Outcomes

  • Lucio Baccaro, André Bächtiger and Marion Deville

Abstract

An experiment on the extension of the political rights of foreigners in the Swiss city of Geneva used three different procedural ways to structure deliberation: participants take positions at the outset, do not take positions, and reflect first. Most opinion change occurred when participants did not have to take a position at the outset. However, no learning effects were recorded, the deliberative quality was poor and group influence had the greatest impact. When participants had to take a position at the outset, opinion change and group influence were least, but there was significant learning, and the deliberative quality was better. These results indicate a potential trade-off between opinion change – which many scholars equate with deliberative success – and good procedural deliberative quality.

Copyright

Footnotes

Hide All
*

Department of Sociology, University of Geneva; Department of Political Science, University of Luzern; Department of Sociology; University of Geneva, respectively (emails: lucio.baccaro@unige.ch; Andre.Baechtiger@unilu.ch; Marion.Deville-Naggay@unige.ch). The authors wish to thank Simone Chambers, Michael Bechtel, Alex Gabadinho, Dominik Hangartner, Annabelle Lever, Michael McKenzie, Paul Quirk, Mark Warren, participants at two Geneva brownbag seminars (April and June 2013), participants at the annual conference of the ‘Arbeitskreis Handlungs- und Entscheidungstheorie’ (Munich, June 2013), three reviewers, and the editor Bob Goodin for excellent comments and suggestions on previous versions of this article. For excellent research assistance, they thank Julien Barut and Alexis Scherrer. They are grateful to all the students who contributed as moderators and technicians. They acknowledge financial support from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF Grants 100017_143210 and PP00P1_128576). The online appendix and data replication sets are available at http://;dx.doi.org/doi: 10.1017/S0007123414000167.

Footnotes

References

Hide All
Baccaro, Lucio, Cradden, Conor, and Deville, Marion. 2011. Should Foreigners Vote? Outcomes of a Deliberation Experiment in the City of Rousseau. Paper presented at ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops, St. Gallen.
Carens, Joseph H. 2005. The Integration of Immigrants. Journal of Moral Philosophy 2 (1):2946.
Carens, Joseph H. 2014. The Ethics of Immigration . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, Joshua. 1986. An Epistemic Conception of Democracy. Ethics 97 (1):2638.
Converse, Philip E. 1964. The Nature of Belief Systems among Mass Publics. Pp. 206261 in Ideology and Discontent, edited by David E. Apter. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
Cruikshank, Jeffrey, and Susskind, Lawrence. 1989. Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes. New York: Basic Books.
Dahl, Robert A. 1998. On Democracy. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Dryzek, John S. 2000. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Elga, Adam. 2006. Reflection and Disagreement. Nous 41:478502.
Elster, Jon. 1997. The Market and the Forum: Three Varieties of Political Theory. Pp. 334 in Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, edited by James Bohman and William Rehg. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Esterling, Kevin M., Neblo, Michael A., and Lazer, David M. J.. 2011. Means, Motive, and Opportunity in Becoming Informed about Politics: A Deliberative Field Experiment with Members of Congress and Their Constituents. Public Opinion Quarterly 75:483503.
Fisher, Roger, Ury, William L., and Patton, Bruce. 1991. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In. London: Penguin.
Fishkin, James. 2009. When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fishkin, James S. 2010. Response to Critics of When the People Speak: The Deliberative Deficit and What To Do about It. The Good Society 19 (1):6876.
Fishkin, James, Luskin, S. Robert, and Siu, Alice. (2014, forthcoming) Europolis and the European Wide Public Sphere: Empirical Explorations of a Counter-Factual Ideal. European Union Politics.
Forst, Rainer. 2001. The Rule of Reasons: Three Models of Deliberative Democracy. Ratio Juris 14:345378.
Gerber Marlène, André Bächtiger, Susumu, Shikano, et al. 2011. The European Deliberative Citizen in Action? Evidence from a Transnational Deliberative Poll (Europolis). Paper presented at the 6th ECPR General Conference, Reykjavik.
Goodin, Robert E. 1996. Laundering Preferences. Pp 75102 in Foundations of Social Choice Theory, edited by Elster, Jon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodin, Robert E. 2005. Sequencing Deliberative Moments. Acta Politica 40 (2):182196.
Goodin, Robert E. 2007. Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and its Alternatives. Philosophy & Public Affairs 35 (1):4068.
Goodin, Robert E., and Niemeyer, Simon J.. 2003. When does Deliberation Begin? Internal Reflection versus Public Discussion in Deliberative Democracy. Political Studies 51 (4):627649.
Goodman, S. 2010. Naturalisation Policies in Europe: Exploring Patterns of Inclusion and Exclusion. Eudo citizen observatory. Available at http://eudo-citizenship.eu/docs/7-Naturalisation%20Policies%20in%20Europe.pdf (last accessed 15 May 2014).
Gosseries, Axel. 2005. Publicity. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Available from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/publicity/
Habermas, Jürgen. 1992. Faktizität und Geltung: Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechtsund des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
Jellison, Jerald M., and Mills, Judson. 1969. Effect of Public Commitment upon Opinions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 5:340346.
Karpowitz, Christopher F., Mendelberg, Tali and Shaker, Lee. 2012. Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation. American Political Science Review 106:533547.
Knight, Jack, and Johnson, James. 2011. The Priority of Democracy: Political Consequences of Pragmatism. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Liker, Jeffrey K., Augustyniak, Sue, and Duncan, Greg J.. 1985. Panel Data and Models of Change: A Comparison of First Difference and Conventional Two-Wave Models. Social Science Research 14:80101.
Lopez-Guerra, Claudio. 2005. Should Expatriates Vote? Journal of Political Philosophy 13 (2):216234.
Luskin, Robert C., Fishkin, James S., and Hahn, Kyu S.. 2007. Deliberation and Net Attitude Change. ECPR General Conference, Pisa, Italy.
Luskin, Robert C., Fishkin, James S., and Jowell, Roger. 2002. Considered Opinions: Deliberative Polling in Britain. British Journal of Political Science 32 (3):455487.
Mackie, Gerry. 2006. Does Democratic Deliberation Change Minds? Politics, Philosophy & Economics 5:279303.
Miller, David. 2008. National Responsibility and Global Justice. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 11 (4):383399.
Mucciaroni, Gary, and Quirk, Paul J.. 2006. Deliberative Choices: Debating Public Policy in Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Neblo, Michael. 2007. Change for the Better? Linking the Mechanisms of Deliberative Opinion Change to Normative Theory. Available at polisci.osu.edu/faculty/mneblo/papers/ChangeC4.pdf, accessed 8 January 2012.
Polletta, Francesca, and Lee, John. 2006. Is Telling Stories Good for Democracy? Rhetoric in Public Deliberation after 9/11. American Sociological Review 71:699723.
Robert, Henry M. 1951 [1876]. Robert’s Rules of Order, revised edition. Chicago: Scott, Foreman.
Sanders, David. 2012. The Effects of Deliberative Polling in an EU-Wide Experiment: Five Mechanisms in Search of an Explanation. British Journal of Political Science 42 (3):617640.
Setälä, Maija, Grönlund, Kimmo, and Herne, Kaisa. 2010. Citizen Deliberation on Nuclear Power: A Comparison of Two Decision-Making Methods. Political Studies 58 (4):688714.
Steiner, Jürg, Bächtiger, André, Spörndli, Markus, and Steenbergen, Marco R.. 2004. Deliberative Politics in Action: Analysing Parliamentary Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stromer-Galley, Jennifer. 2007. Measuring Deliberation’s Content: A Coding Scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation 3 (1):135, Article 12. Available at: http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol3/iss1/art12
Sunstein, Cass R. 2002. The Law of Group Polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy 10 (2):175195.
Walzer, Michael. 1984. Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality. New York: Basic Books.
Warren, Mark E., and Pearse, Hilary, eds. 2008. Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO
Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary materials

Baccaro Supplementary Material
Appendix

 PDF (155 KB)
155 KB

Small Differences that Matter: The Impact of Discussion Modalities on Deliberative Outcomes

  • Lucio Baccaro, André Bächtiger and Marion Deville

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.