IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0346574.html

Effects of controversial contexts on opinion changes through discussion and evaluation of decisions: A group decision experiment regarding the issue of removed soil in Fukushima

Author

Listed:
  • Yume Souma
  • Yukihide Shibata
  • Mie Tsujimoto
  • Qinglin Cui
  • Takashi Nakazawa
  • Tomoyuki Tatsumi
  • Yoshiko Arima
  • Susumu Ohnuma

Abstract

Designing settings that enable structured deliberation is crucial, particularly for contentious public issues, as debates can sometimes shift opinions toward extremes, create social division, and make it difficult to evaluate decisions positively. Constructive controversy has been proposed to avoid such breakdowns. However, only a few empirical studies have been conducted in the context of contentious public issues. This study aims to examine how competitive and cooperative controversies influence opinion change and decision evaluation in the context of public decision-making by conducting a group decision experiment. The discussion topic was the final disposal of the removed soil outside Fukushima Prefecture, which was caused by a nuclear power plant accident. The removed soil is currently stored in facilities in the towns of Okuma and Futaba, Fukushima Prefecture. By law, the government must complete the final disposal of the removed soil outside Fukushima Prefecture by 2045. The participants were 128 Japanese university students. This study manipulated controversial contexts as independent variables. One was a competitive context condition, whereby participants refuted opposing opinions, and the other was a cooperative context condition, whereby participants contemplated both pros and cons thoroughly. Each group consisted of four participants, and there were 32 groups in total (16 per condition). Participants in both conditions discussed and decided whether to approve the final disposal of the removed soil outside Fukushima Prefecture. The results indicated no significant differences in opinion changes between the conditions. However, participants in the cooperative condition evaluated their decisions more positively than those in the competitive condition did. Notably, under competitive conditions, participants whose pre-discussion opinions were not reflected in the groups’ decisions tended to rate outcomes less favorably. These findings contribute to a deliberative design and lead to more structured discussions on public issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Yume Souma & Yukihide Shibata & Mie Tsujimoto & Qinglin Cui & Takashi Nakazawa & Tomoyuki Tatsumi & Yoshiko Arima & Susumu Ohnuma, 2026. "Effects of controversial contexts on opinion changes through discussion and evaluation of decisions: A group decision experiment regarding the issue of removed soil in Fukushima," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(4), pages 1-23, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0346574
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0346574
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0346574
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0346574&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0346574?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Nicole Curato & Marit Böker, 2016. "Linking mini-publics to the deliberative system: a research agenda," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(2), pages 173-190, June.
    10. Maija Setälä & Kimmo Grönlund & Kaisa Herne, 2010. "Citizen Deliberation on Nuclear Power: A Comparison of Two Decision‐Making Methods," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(4), pages 688-714, October.
    11. Benslimane, Ismaël & Crosetto, Paolo & Magni-Berton, Raul & Varaine, Simon, 2023. "Intellectual property reform in the laboratory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 204-221.
    12. Disslbacher, Franziska & Haselmayer, Martin & Rapp, Severin & Lehner, Lukas & Windisch, Franziska, 2025. "The Good Council: Deliberating Inequality in a Field Experiment," SocArXiv zcuw6_v1, Center for Open Science.
    13. 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.
    14. Ilyana Kuziemko & Michael I. Norton & Emmanuel Saez & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2015. "How Elastic Are Preferences for Redistribution? Evidence from Randomized Survey Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(4), pages 1478-1508, April.
    15. Erling Moxnes, 2023. "Challenges for sustainability: misperceptions and misleading advice," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 39(3), pages 185-206, July.
    16. Denburg, Avram E. & Ungar, Wendy J. & Chen, Shiyi & Hurley, Jeremiah & Abelson, Julia, 2020. "Does moral reasoning influence public values for health care priority setting?: A population-based randomized stated preference survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(6), pages 647-658.
    17. 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.
    18. Alessandro Nai, 2015. "The Maze and the Mirror: Voting Correctly in Direct Democracy," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(2), pages 465-486, June.
    19. El-Emam, Rami S. & Constantin, Alina & Bhattacharyya, Rupsha & Ishaq, Haris & Ricotti, Marco E., 2024. "Nuclear and renewables in multipurpose integrated energy systems: A critical review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    20. James S Fishkin & Robert C Luskin & Alice Siu, 2014. "Europolis and the European public sphere: Empirical explorations of a counterfactual ideal," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(3), pages 328-351, September.

    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:plo:pone00:0346574. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.