IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v49y2015i1p407-422.html

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

Author

Listed:
  • Maija Karjalainen
  • Lauri Rapeli

Abstract

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

Suggested Citation

  • Maija Karjalainen & Lauri Rapeli, 2015. "Who will not deliberate? Attrition in a multi-stage citizen deliberation experiment," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 407-422, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:49:y:2015:i:1:p:407-422
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-014-9993-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

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

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Druckman, James N. & Green, Donald P. & Kuklinski, James H. & Lupia, Arthur, 2006. "The Growth and Development of Experimental Research in Political Science," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 100(4), pages 627-635, November.
    2. 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.
    3. John Parkinson, 2003. "Legitimacy Problems in Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 51(1), pages 180-196, March.
    4. Graham Smith & Corinne Wales, 2000. "Citizens' Juries and Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 48(1), pages 51-65, March.
    5. Neblo, Michael A. & Esterling, Kevin M. & Kennedy, Ryan P. & Lazer, David M.J. & Sokhey, Anand E., 2010. "Who Wants To Deliberate—And Why?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 104(3), pages 566-583, August.
    6. Noah Uhrig, S.C., 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.
    7. Dryzek, John S. & Niemeyer, Simon, 2008. "Discursive Representation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(4), pages 481-493, November.
    8. Goodin, Robert E., 2004. "Representing Diversity," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(3), pages 453-468, July.
    9. 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(1), pages 21-62, January.
    10. John Fitzgerald & Peter Gottschalk & Robert Moffitt, 1998. "An Analysis of Sample Attrition in Panel Data: The Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 33(2), pages 251-299.
    11. 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.
    12. 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(2), pages 333-347, April.
    13. Mutz, Diana C., 2002. "Cross-cutting Social Networks: Testing Democratic Theory in Practice," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 96(1), pages 111-126, March.
    14. 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(3), pages 477-504, 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. Christopher J. Gerry & Georgios Papadopoulos, 2015. "Sample attrition in the RLMS, 2001–10," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 23(2), pages 425-468, April.
    2. Robert Weymouth & Janette Hartz-Karp & Dora Marinova, 2020. "Repairing Political Trust for Practical Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-25, August.
    3. Nicole Watson & Mark Wooden, 2011. "Re-engaging with Survey Non-respondents: The BHPS, SOEP and HILDA Survey Experience," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 379, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    4. Richard Dorsett, 2004. "Using matched substitutes to adjust for nonignorable nonresponse: an empirical investigation using labour market data," PSI Research Discussion Series 16, Policy Studies Institute, UK.
    5. Terence C. Cheng & Pravin K. Trivedi, 2015. "Attrition Bias in Panel Data: A Sheep in Wolf's Clothing? A Case Study Based on the Mabel Survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(9), pages 1101-1117, September.
    6. Martin Huber, 2012. "Identification of Average Treatment Effects in Social Experiments Under Alternative Forms of Attrition," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 37(3), pages 443-474, June.
    7. Kapteyn, Arie & Michaud, Pierre-Carl & Smith, James P. & van Soest, Arthur, 2006. "Effects of Attrition and Non-Response in the Health and Retirement Study," IZA Discussion Papers 2246, IZA Network @ LISER.
    8. 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.
    9. Martin Huber, 2010. "Identification of average treatment effects in social experiments under different forms of attrition," University of St. Gallen Department of Economics working paper series 2010 2010-22, Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen.
    10. Bloemraad, Irene & Voss, Kim & Silva, Fabiana, 2014. "Framing the Immigrant Movement as about Rights, Family, or Economics: Which Appeals Resonate and for Whom?," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt3b32w33p, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    11. Michael Fertig & Stefanie Schurer, 2007. "Earnings Assimilation of Immigrants in Germany: The Importance of Heterogeneity and Attrition Bias," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 30, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    12. Michela Bia & Martin Huber & Lukáš Lafférs, 2024. "Double Machine Learning for Sample Selection Models," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(3), pages 958-969, July.
    13. Marcel Das & Vera Toepoel & Arthur van Soest, 2011. "Nonparametric Tests of Panel Conditioning and Attrition Bias in Panel Surveys," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 40(1), pages 32-56, February.
    14. Sangbum Shin & Taedong Lee, 2021. "Credible Empowerment and Deliberative Participation: A Comparative Study of Two Nuclear Energy Policy Deliberation Cases in Korea," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(1), pages 97-112, January.
    15. Nobuhiko Fuwa, 2010. "Should We Track Migrant Households When Collecting Household Panel Data? Household Relocation, Economic Mobility, and Attrition Biases in the Rural Philippines," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(1), pages 56-82.
    16. Shin, Jaeun & Moon, Sangho, 2006. "Fertility, relative wages, and labor market decisions: A case of female teachers," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 591-604, December.
    17. John S. Dryzek & Simon J. Niemeyer, 2024. "How to constitute global citizens' forums: Key selection principles," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 15(4), pages 604-614, September.
    18. Markus Frölich & Martin Huber, 2014. "Treatment Evaluation With Multiple Outcome Periods Under Endogeneity and Attrition," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 109(508), pages 1697-1711, December.
    19. ter Horst, Jenke R. & Nijman, Theo E. & Verbeek, Marno, 2001. "Eliminating look-ahead bias in evaluating persistence in mutual fund performance," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 345-373, September.
    20. Harding, Matthew & Lamarche, Carlos, 2019. "A panel quantile approach to attrition bias in Big Data: Evidence from a randomized experiment," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 211(1), pages 61-82.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:spr:qualqt:v:49:y:2015:i:1:p:407-422. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.