IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/4ubwh.html

How design features affect evaluations of participatory platforms

Author

Listed:
  • Christensen, Henrik Serup

Abstract

Online participatory platforms are introduced to boost citizen involvement in political decision-making. However, the design features of these platforms vary considerably, and these are likely to affect how prospective users evaluate the usefulness of these platforms. Previous studies explored how prevalent different design features are and how they affect the success of platforms in terms of impact, but the attitudes of prospective users remain unclear. Since these evaluations affect the prospects for launching successful participatory platforms, it is imperative to assess what citizens want from such digital possibilities for participation. This study uses a conjoint experiment (n=1048) conducted in Finland that explore the impact of seven design features: Discussion possibilities; Interaction with politicians and experts; Information availability, Aim of participation; Identity verification; Anonymous participation and Accessibility. Furthermore, it is examined whether the effects differ across use of ICTs measured by generation, time online and prior use of participatory platforms. The results suggest that most design features have clear effects on evaluations, and that deliberative features have the strongest effects. Furthermore, the effects are relatively stable across prior use although the less experienced put a stronger emphasis on verification.

Suggested Citation

  • Christensen, Henrik Serup, 2020. "How design features affect evaluations of participatory platforms," SocArXiv 4ubwh, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:4ubwh
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/4ubwh
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5ec656b0c75686001e2d9758/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/4ubwh?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. Leeper, Thomas J. & Hobolt, Sara B. & Tilley, James, 2020. "Measuring Subgroup Preferences in Conjoint Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 207-221, April.
    2. Leeper, Thomas J. & Hobolt, Sara & Tilley, James, 2020. "Measuring subgroup preferences in conjoint experiments," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100944, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Meng Ma & Ritu Agarwal, 2007. "Through a Glass Darkly: Information Technology Design, Identity Verification, and Knowledge Contribution in Online Communities," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 42-67, March.
    4. Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2014. "Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-30, January.
    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. Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.
    2. Tukiainen, Janne & Blesse, Sebastian & Bohne, Albrecht & Giuffrida, Leonardo M. & Jääskeläinen, Jan & Luukinen, Ari & Sieppi, Antti, 2024. "What are the priorities of bureaucrats? Evidence from conjoint experiments with procurement officials," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    3. Fumiya Uchikoshi & Hirofumi Miwa & Yoshikuni Ono, 2025. "Gendered Expectations for College Applications: Experimental Evidence from a Gender Inegalitarian Education Context," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 66(5), pages 1-27, August.
    4. Lindgren, Oskar & Jagers, Sverker C. & Lindvall, Daniel, 2026. "The impact of policy design on opposition to restrictive climate policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    5. Kim, Sung Eun & Park, Jong Hee & Rhee, Inbok & Yang, Joonseok, 2025. "What do aid recipients want? Public attitudes toward foreign aid in developing countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    6. Liza G. Steele & Laird Gallagher, 2025. "Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Refugees During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the U.S," Journal of International Migration and Integration, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 2593-2627, December.
    7. Chu, Haoran & Liu, Sixiao, 2021. "Light at the end of the tunnel: Influence of vaccine availability and vaccination intention on people’s consideration of the COVID-19 vaccine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 286(C).
    8. Ahlback, Johan & Yeandle, Alexander, 2025. "What drives public trust in elections? Experimental evidence from Malawi," OSF Preprints xhuz5_v1, Center for Open Science.
    9. Nela Mrchkovska & Nives Dolšak & Aseem Prakash, 2024. "Morality meets menu: investigating the impact of moral appeals on vegetarianism through a conjoint survey experiment," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 177(3), pages 1-19, March.
    10. Yuko KASUYA & Hirofumi MIWA & Yoshikuni ONO, 2022. "Why are There More Women in the Upper House?," Discussion papers 22094, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    11. Burak Sonmez & Kirils Makarovs & Nick Allum, 2023. "Public perception of scientists: Experimental evidence on the role of sociodemographic, partisan, and professional characteristics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-20, July.
    12. Akira Igarashi & Yoshinobu Kano & Hirofumi Miwa, 2025. "ChatGPT versus humans in judging discriminatory scenarios: experimental evidence from a Japanese context," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, December.
    13. Tellez,Juan Fernando & Balcells,Laia, 2022. "Social Cohesion, Economic Security, and Forced Displacement in the Long-Run : Evidence from Rural Colombia," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10019, The World Bank.
    14. Gosciak, Jennah & Molitor, Daniel & Lundberg, Ian, 2025. "Adaptive Randomization in Conjoint Survey Experiments," SocArXiv 69y2j_v1, Center for Open Science.
    15. Lukas Rudolph & Fabian Haggerty & Paul W. Thurner, 2026. "Examining public support for Ukraine’s defense against autocratic aggression," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 17(1), pages 1-20, December.
    16. Erlich, Aaron & Gans-Morse, Jordan & Nichter, Simeon & Holverscheid, Arne, 2025. "What corruption is most harmful? Unbundling citizen perceptions," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    17. Justesen, Mogens K. & Koob, Sigrid & Smid, Sina, 2025. "Clientelism and programmatic redistribution: Evidence from a conjoint survey experiment in Brazil," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    18. Raman, Shyam & Kriner, Douglas & Ziebarth, Nicolas & Simon, Kosali & Kreps, Sarah, 2022. "COVID-19 booster uptake among US adults: Assessing the impact of vaccine attributes, incentives, and context in a choice-based experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 310(C).
    19. Brian Burgoon & Theresa Kuhn & Francesco Nicoli & Frank Vandenbroucke, 2022. "Unemployment risk-sharing in the EU: How policy design influences citizen support for European unemployment policy," European Union Politics, , vol. 23(2), pages 282-308, June.
    20. Pieter Vanhuysse & Michael Jankowski & Markus Tepe, 2021. "Vaccine alliance building blocks: a conjoint experiment on popular support for international COVID-19 cooperation formats," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(3), pages 493-506, September.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:osf:socarx:4ubwh. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.