IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bjposi/v46y2016i03p551-566_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Baccaro, Lucio
  • Bächtiger, André
  • Deville, Marion

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Baccaro, Lucio & Bächtiger, André & Deville, Marion, 2016. "Small Differences that Matter: The Impact of Discussion Modalities on Deliberative Outcomes," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(3), pages 551-566, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:46:y:2016:i:03:p:551-566_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007123414000167/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Scharpf, Fritz W., 2016. "De-constitutionalization and majority rule: A democratic vision for Europe," MPIfG Discussion Paper 16/14, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.

    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:cup:bjposi:v:46:y:2016:i:03:p:551-566_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jps .

    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.