Ideology, Attitude Change, and Deliberation in Small Face-to-Face Groups

Previous research has found that face-to-face deliberation can result in aggregate shifts in participants' political views. What is less well known is how such attitude changes vary depending on individual attributes and the nature of a group's deliberation. The present study extends prior research by exploring the relationship between participant ideology and attitude change in small, face-to-face groups. To test a set of hypotheses and research questions, 57 zero-history groups discussed three different public problems for 30–60 minutes, and each participant completed pre- and postdiscussion questionnaires. Participant ideology had a clear association with changes on specific discussion-related issues, but participants from every ideological group experienced increased differentiation between ideologically distinct attitudes. Within-group variance in attitude change was positively correlated with average group scores on self-reported measures of deliberation, extraversion, and conscientiousness. The conclusion discusses these and other findings in relation to future research and public deliberation programs.

[1]  Robert Y. Shapiro,et al.  Politicians Don't Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness , 2000 .

[2]  S. Verba.  The Voice of the People , 1993 .

[3]  John Gastil,et al.  Democracy in Small Groups: Participation, Decision Making, and Communication , 1993 .

[4]  P. Costa,et al.  Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. , 1987, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[5]  Joshua Cohen,et al.  DELIBERATION AND DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY , 2005, Philosophy, Politics, Democracy.

[6]  P. Lachenbruch.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[7]  F. Mathews,et al.  Politics for People: Finding a Responsible Public Voice , 1994 .

[8]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[9]  Daniel M. Merkle.  THE POLLS—REVIEWTHE NATIONAL ISSUES CONVENTION DELIBERATIVE POLL , 1996 .

[10]  Benjamin I. Page,et al.  The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans' Policy Preferences , 1992 .

[11]  R. Anderson.  The place of the media in popular democracy , 1998 .

[12]  James S. Fishkin,et al.  Considered Opinions: Deliberative Polling in Britain , 2002 .

[13]  James S. Fishkin,et al.  Bringing Deliberation to the Democratic Dialogue , 1999 .

[14]  R. Bales.  Interaction process analysis , 1976 .

[15]  P. Sniderman.  Personality and Democratic Politics , 2024 .

[16]  W. Russell Neuman,et al.  Differentiation and Integration: Two Dimensions of Political Thinking , 1981, American Journal of Sociology.

[17]  L. Sanders,et al.  Against Deliberation , 1997 .

[18]  Ronald Lippitt,et al.  Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created “Social Climates” , 1939 .

[19]  N. Allum,et al.  A Different Take on the Deliberative Poll Information, Deliberation, and Attitude Constraint , 2005 .

[20]  William G. Jacoby.  The Structure of Ideological Thinking in the American Electorate , 1995 .

[21]  D. Rucinski.  The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. , 1994 .

[22]  Robert C. Luskin.  Measuring Political Sophistication , 1987 .

[23]  Dennis S. Gouran,et al.  The Evolution and Current Status of the Functional Perspective on Communication in Decision-Making and Problem-Solving Groups , 1993 .

[24]  Randy Hirokawa.  Discussion Procedures and Decision-Making Performance: A Test of a Functional Perspective. , 1985 .

[25]  M. Kent Jennings,et al.  IDEOLOGICAL THINKING AMONG MASS PUBLICS AND POLITICAL ELITES , 1992 .

[26]  Ned Crosby,et al.  Citizens Juries: One Solution for Difficult Environmental Questions , 1995 .

[27]  T. Adorno.  The Authoritarian Personality , 1950 .

[28]  L. Pellizzoni.  The myth of the best argument: power, deliberation and reason. , 2001, The British journal of sociology.

[29]  Dennis W. Organ,et al.  Personality and Organizational Citizenship Behavior , 1994 .

[30]  John Gastil,et al.  Exploring the psychological foundations of democratic group deliberation: Personality factors, Confirming interaction, and democratic decision making , 2002 .

[31]  W. Barnett Pearce,et al.  Moral Conflict: When Social Worlds Collide , 1997 .

[32]  M. D. Carpini,et al.  Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature , 2004 .

[33]  Seymour Sudman,et al.  Numbered Voices: How Opinion Polling Has Shaped American Politics. , 1993 .

[34]  John Gastil,et al.  A Conceptual Definition and Theoretical Model of Public Deliberation in Small Face—to—Face Groups , 2002 .

[35]  John Gastil,et al.  The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies For Effective Civic Engagement In The Twenty-First Century , 2005 .

[36]  Dennis F. Thompson,et al.  Democracy and Disagreement , 1996 .

[37]  Stuart A. Lilie,et al.  Liberalism and Conservatism: The Nature and Structure of Social Attitudes@@@Beyond Liberal and Conservative: Reassessing the Political Spectrum , 1985 .

[38]  Michael B. Binford.  The Democratic Political Personality: Functions of Attitudes and Styles of Reasoning , 1983 .

[39]  William G. Jacoby.  Ideological Identification and Issue Attitudes , 1991 .

[40]  J. Zaller,et al.  The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. , 1992 .

[41]  John Gastil,et al.  Increasing Political Sophistication Through Public Deliberation , 1999 .

[42]  T. Webler,et al.  Fairness and competence in citizen participation : evaluating models for environmental discourse , 1995 .

[43]  S. Verba,et al.  The Civic Culture , 1963 .

[44]  J. Bessette.  The mild voice of reason , 1994 .