IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/img/manwps/14.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does discussion lead to opinion change? An experiment in deliberative democracy

Author

Listed:
  • Daniele Archibugi

    (Birkbeck, University of London, UK)

  • Martina Bavastrelli

    (Ninetynine Marketing Ideas, Italy)

  • Marco Cellini

    (Department of Political and Social Sciences, LUISS, Rome, Italy)

Abstract

While the model of deliberative democracy gives a crucial role to dialogue, empirical evidence has not yet established if discussion helps to reach a better understanding of political issues and, above all, if individuals are prepared to change their views and preferences. This article presents an experiment carried out within the Department of Political and Social Sciences at the LUISS University of Rome. Students were asked to discuss in the classroom the course issues, and to cast a vote on selected issues before and after the deliberation. Although our sample is not representative, we have managed to gather evidences from the same population on a rather large number of issues. Students changed their view in 25.5 per cent of cases, they agreed that discussion increased their understanding of the various issues, while students with strong ex-ante views are more reluctant to change their opinions as a consequence of discussion. The experiment also shows the presence of impermeable and permeable subjects, the former which are more refractory to the discussion in changing their opinion, while the latter are more likely to change their preferences following deliberation. Thanks to their volatility, this second group can provide different majorities and so to be crucial in any electoral dynamics. * Italian National Research Council,

Suggested Citation

  • Daniele Archibugi & Martina Bavastrelli & Marco Cellini, 2018. "Does discussion lead to opinion change? An experiment in deliberative democracy," Management Working Papers 14, Birkbeck Department of Management, revised Feb 2021.
    • Handle: RePEc:img:manwps:14
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/22145/1/22145.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luskin, Robert C. & Fishkin, James S. & Jowell, Roger, 2002. "Considered Opinions: Deliberative Polling in Britain," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(3), pages 455-487, July.
    2. Bohm, Robert M. & Vogel, Ronald E., 1994. "A comparison of factors associated with uninformed and informed death penalty opinions," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 125-143.
    3. Cochran, John K. & Chamlin, Mitchell B., 2005. "Can information change public opinion? Another test of the Marshall hypotheses," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 573-584.
    4. Barabas, Jason, 2004. "How Deliberation Affects Policy Opinions," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(4), pages 687-701, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Martina Bavastrelli, 2015. "(English) Democracy and deliberation. Can discussion changes opinions? (Italiano) Democrazia e deliberazione. Discutere fa cambiare opinione?," IRPPS Working Papers 76:2015, National Research Council, Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies.
    2. Andrew G.H. Thompson & Oliver Escobar & Jennifer J. Roberts & Stephen Elstub & Niccole M. Pamphilis, 2021. "The Importance of Context and the Effect of Information and Deliberation on Opinion Change Regarding Environmental Issues in Citizens’ Juries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-21, September.
    3. Baccaro, Lucio & Simoni, Marco, 2010. "Organizational determinants of wage moderation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 33510, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Marlène Gerber & André Bächtiger & Irena Fiket & Marco Steenbergen & Jürg Steiner, 2014. "Deliberative and non-deliberative persuasion: Mechanisms of opinion formation in EuroPolis," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(3), pages 410-429, September.
    5. Jungin Kim, 2021. "The Effects and Antecedents of Perceived Fairness in the Deliberative Process for Sustainable Citizens’ Participation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-12, July.
    6. Patrick Bernhagen & Hermann Schmitt, 2014. "Deliberation, political knowledge and vote choice: Results from an experiment with second-order elections," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(3), pages 352-371, September.
    7. Juita-Elena (Wie) Yusuf & Burton St. John & Pragati Rawat & Michelle Covi & Janet Gail Nicula & Carol Considine, 2019. "The Action-oriented Stakeholder Engagement for a Resilient Tomorrow (ASERT) framework: an effective, field-tested approach for engaging stakeholders," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 9(4), pages 409-418, December.
    8. Meirowitz, Adam, 2005. "Deliberative Democracy or Market Democracy: Designing Institutions to Aggregate Preferences and Information," Papers 03-28-2005, Princeton University, Research Program in Political Economy.
    9. George Butler & Gabriella Pigozzi & Juliette Rouchier, 2019. "Mixing Dyadic and Deliberative Opinion Dynamics in an Agent-Based Model of Group Decision-Making," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-31, August.
    10. Delshad, Ashlie B. & Raymond, Leigh & Sawicki, Vanessa & Wegener, Duane T., 2010. "Public attitudes toward political and technological options for biofuels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3414-3425, July.
    11. Sarkki, Simo & Heikkinen, Hannu I., 2015. "Why do environmentalists not consider compromises as legitimate?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 110-117.
    12. Álvarez-Farizo, Begoña & Gil, José M. & Howard, B.J., 2009. "Impacts from restoration strategies: Assessment through valuation workshops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 787-797, January.
    13. Briguglio, Marie & Delaney, Liam & Wood, Alex, 2018. "Partisanship, priming and participation in public-good schemes," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 136-150.
    14. Benjamin A. Lyons, 2019. "Discussion Network Activation: An Expanded Approach to Selective Exposure," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 32-41.
    15. Robert E. Goodin & Simon J. Niemeyer, 2003. "When Does Deliberation Begin? Internal Reflection versus Public Discussion in Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 51(4), pages 627-649, December.
    16. Andreas C. Goldberg & Erika J. van Elsas & Claes H. De Vreese, 2021. "Eurovisions: An Exploration and Explanation of Public Preferences for Future EU Scenarios," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(2), pages 222-241, March.
    17. Deng, Chung-Yeh & Wu, Chia-Ling, 2010. "An innovative participatory method for newly democratic societies: The "civic groups forum" on national health insurance reform in Taiwan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 896-903, March.
    18. Bohm, Robert M. & Vogel, Brenda L., 2004. "More than ten years after: The long-term stability of informed death penalty opinions," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 307-327.
    19. Mikko Leino & Katariina Kulha & Maija Setälä & Juha Ylisalo, 2022. "Expert hearings in mini-publics: How does the field of expertise influence deliberation and its outcomes?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(3), pages 429-450, September.
    20. Cavalcanti, Carina & Schläpfer, Felix & Schmid, Bernhard, 2010. "Public participation and willingness to cooperate in common-pool resource management: A field experiment with fishing communities in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 613-622, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:img:manwps:14. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Luca Andriani (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dmbbkuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.