IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Who will not deliberate? Attrition in a multi-stage citizen deliberation experiment

Listed author(s):
  • Maija Karjalainen
  • Lauri Rapeli

    ()

Registered author(s):

    This article examines the determinants of attrition in deliberative mini-publics. We approach attrition from a social psychological and a socioeconomic perspective and draw several hypotheses. We find that age and life situation are the primary predictors of attrition, but also having a negative opinion about immigration and reluctance to expose oneself to conflicting opinions play an important role. We use data from a citizen deliberation experiment organized in Finland in 2012. The data allows us to analyze attrition in several stages of recruitment, resulting in 207 people from an initial population of 12,000 participating in a deliberation experiment. The topic of the discussions was immigration, and the experiment was designed to test the theoretical assumptions of enclave deliberation. Our results feed the ongoing discussion about equality and representation in deliberative mini-publics and highlight the importance of social psychological variables in explaining attrition. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11135-014-9993-y
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Springer in its journal Quality & Quantity.

    Volume (Year): 49 (2015)
    Issue (Month): 1 (January)
    Pages: 407-422

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:49:y:2015:i:1:p:407-422
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-014-9993-y
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.springer.com

    Order Information: Web: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11135

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as
    in new window


    1. Hausman, Jerry A & Wise, David A, 1979. "Attrition Bias in Experimental and Panel Data: The Gary Income Maintenance Experiment," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 455-473, March.
    2. Goodin, Robert E., 2004. "Representing Diversity," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(03), pages 453-468, July.
    3. 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(03), pages 455-487, July.
    4. Farrar, Cynthia & Fishkin, James S. & Green, Donald P. & List, Christian & Luskin, Robert C. & Levy Paluck, Elizabeth, 2010. "Disaggregating Deliberation’s Effects: An Experiment within a Deliberative Poll," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(02), pages 333-347, April.
    5. Sides, John & Citrin, Jack, 2007. "European Opinion About Immigration: The Role of Identities, Interests and Information," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(03), pages 477-504, July.
    6. John Parkinson, 2003. "Legitimacy Problems in Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 51(1), pages 180-196, 03.
    7. Conover, Pamela Johnston & Searing, Donald D. & Crewe, Ivor M., 2002. "The Deliberative Potential of Political Discussion," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(01), pages 21-62, January.
    8. Graham Smith & Corinne Wales, 2000. "Citizens' Juries and Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 48(1), pages 51-65, 03.
    9. Uhrig, S.C. Noah, 2008. "The nature and causes of attrition in the British Household Panel Study," ISER Working Paper Series 2008-05, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:49:y:2015:i:1:p:407-422. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla)

    or (Rebekah McClure)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.