This article reports on deliberation between citizens and politicians in a citizens’ forum about closing small schools and building a school center in a Finnish municipality. This real-world policy issue was highly contested at the time of the deliberation. The purpose of the study was to analyze both the magnitude of opinion changes and potential opinion convergence between citizens and politicians. The citizens’ forum used an experimental design whereby half of the groups engaged in discussion under the guidance of a facilitator with discussion rules, and the other half of the groups had no facilitation or rules. The analyses test how potential opinion changes are mediated by how deliberators experience discussion quality and moderated by the type of participant (citizen or politician). The findings show that opinion changes, both regarding magnitude and convergence, are not uniform for politicians and citizens. Moreover, this study shows how different layers of opinions may be affected differently by deliberation.
AjzenIcek (1991) The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes50: 179–211.
2.
BaccaroLucioBächtigerAndréDevilleMarion (2016) Small Differences That Matter: The impact of discussion modalities on deliberative outcomes. British Journal of Political Science46(3): 551–566.
3.
BächtigerAndréSetäläMaijaGrönlundKimmo (2014) Towards a New Era of Deliberative Mini-publics. In GrönlundKimmoBächtigerAndréSetäläMaija (eds), 225–247, Deliberative Mini-Publics: Involving Citizens in the Democratic Process. Colchester: ECPR Press.
4.
BarabasJason (2004) How deliberation affects policy opinions. American Political Science Review98(4): 687–701.
5.
BarrettGregoryWymanMiriamCoelhoVera Schattan P (2012) Assessing the Policy Impacts of Deliberative Civic Engagement: Comparing engagement in the health policy processes of Brazil and Canada. In NabatchiTinaGastilJohnMichael WeiksnerG, et al. (eds) Democracy in Motion. Evaluating the Practice and Impact of Deliberative Civic Engagement. New York: Oxford University Press, 181–204.
CarcassonMartínSprainLeah (2016) Beyond Problem Solving: Reconceptualizing the work of public deliberation as deliberative inquiry. Communication Theory26(1): 41–63.
10.
ChambersSimone (2003) Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science6(1): 307–326.
11.
ElstubStephenEcranSelenMendoncaRicardo F (2016) Editorial Introduction: The fourth generation of deliberative democracy. Critical Policy Studies10(2): 139–151.
12.
EvansJonathanStanovichKeith (2013) Dual-process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science8(3): 223–241.
13.
FarrarCynthiaGreenDonald PGreenJennifer ENickersonDavid WShewfeltSteven (2009) Does Discussion Group Composition Affect Policy Preferences? Results from three randomized experiments. Political Psychology30(4): 615–647.
14.
FarrellDavid MO’MalleyEoinSuiterJane (2016) Deliberative Democracy in Action Irish-style: The 2011 We the Citizens pilot citizens’ assembly. Irish Political Studies28(1): 99–113.
15.
FishbeinMartinAjzenIcek (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York: Psychology Press.
16.
FishkinJames S (2009) Virtual Public Consultation: Prospects for internet deliberative democracy. In DaviesToddGangadharanSeeta Peña (eds) Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 23–35.
17.
FungArchon (2003) Survey Article: Recipes for public spheres: Eight institutional design choices and their consequences. Journal of Political Philosophy11(3): 338–367.
18.
GastilJohn (2000) Is face-to-face deliberation a luxury or a necessity for democracy?Political Communication17: 357–361.
19.
GastilJohnBlackLauraMoscovitzKara (2008) Ideology, attitude change, and deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Political Communication25(1): 23–46.
20.
GerberMarlène (2015) Equal Partners in Dialogue? Participation equality in a transnational deliberative poll (Europolis). Political Studies63(1): 110–130.
21.
GerberMarlèneBächtigerAndréFiketIrenaSteenbergerMarcoSteinerJürg (2014) Deliberative and Non-deliberative Persuasion: Mechanisms of opinion formation in EuroPolis. European Union Politics15(3): 410–429.
22.
GerberMarlèneBächtigerAndréShikanoSusumuReberSimonRohrSamuel. (2018) Deliberative abilities and influence in a transnational deliberative poll (EuroPolis). British Journal of Political Science48(4): 1–26.
23.
GrönlundKimmoHerneKaisaSetäläMaija (2015) Does enclave deliberation polarize opinions?Political Behavior37(4): 995–1020.
24.
HayesAndrew (2017) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis – A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford Press.
25.
HendriksCarolyn M (2016) Coupling Citizens and Elites in Deliberative Systems: The role of institutional design. European Journal of Political Research55(1): 43–60.
26.
HimmelroosStaffanChristensenHenrik Serup (2018) The Potential of Deliberative Reasoning: Patterns of attitude change and consistency in cross-cutting and like-minded deliberation. Acta Politica1–21.
27.
KraemerHelena ChmuraThiemannSue (1987) How Many Subjects? Statistical Power Analysis in Research. London: Sage Publications.
28.
LandwehrClaudia (2014) Facilitating Deliberation: The role of impartial intermediaries in deliberative mini-publics. In GrönlundKimmoBächtigerAndréSetäläMaija (eds) Deliberative Mini-Publics: Involving Citizens in the Democratic Process, 77–92. Colchester: ECPR Press.
29.
LevinePeterFungArchonGastilJohn (2005) Future directions for public deliberation. Journal of Public Deliberation1(1): 1–15.
30.
LeysChristopheSchumannSandy (2010) A Nonparametric Method to Analyze Interactions: The adjusted rank transform test. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology46(4): 684–688.
31.
LindellMarinaBächtigerAndréGrönlundKimmoHerneKaisaSetäläMaijaWyssDominic (2017) What Drives the Polarisation and Moderation of Opinions? Evidence from a Finnish citizen deliberation experiment on immigration. European Journal of Political Research56(1): 23–45.
32.
MansbridgeJane (1992) A Deliberative Theory of Interest Representation. In PetraccaMark P (ed.) The Politics of Interests: Interest Groups Transformed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 32–57.
33.
MendelbergTaliKarpowitzChristopher (2007) How People Deliberate about Justice: Groups, gender, and decision rules. In RosenbergShawn W (ed.) Can the People Govern. Deliberation, Participation and Democracy. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 101–129.
34.
MinozziWilliamNebloMichael AEsterlingKevin MLazerDavid MJ. (2015) Field experiment evidence of substantive, attributional, and behavioral persuasion by members of congress in online town halls. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences112(13): 3937–3942.
35.
MorrellMichael E (2010) Empathy and Democracy: Feeling, Thinking, and Deliberation. University Park: Pennsylvania State Press.
36.
O’KeefeDaniel (2003) Message Properties, Mediating States, and Manipulation Checks: Claims, evidence, and data analysis in experimental persuasive message effects research. Communication Theory13(3): 251–274.
37.
SchneiderhanErikKhanShamus (2008) Reasons and Inclusion: The foundation of deliberation. Sociological Theory26(1): 1–24.
38.
SmetsKaatIserniaPierangelo (2014) The Role of Deliberation in Attitude Change: An empirical assessment of three theoretical mechanisms. European Union Politics15(3): 389–409.
39.
SteinerJürg (2012) The Foundations of Deliberative Democracy: Empirical Research and Normative Implications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
40.
StrandbergKim (2015) Designing for Democracy? – An experimental study comparing the outcomes of citizen discussions in online forums to those of a designed online citizen deliberation venue. European Political Science Review7(3): 451–474.
41.
StrandbergKimHimmelroosStaffanGrönlundKimmo (2019) Do Discussions in Like-Minded Groups Necessarily Lead to More Extreme Opinions? Deliberative democracy and group polarization. International Political Science Review40(1): 41–57.
42.
SuiterJaneFarrellDavid MO’MalleyEoin (2016) When do Deliberative Citizens Change Their Opinions? Evidence from the Irish citizens’ assembly. International Political Science Review37(2): 198–212.
43.
SunsteinCass R (2009) Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide. New York: Oxford University Press.
44.
TorgersonDavid JTorgersonCarole J (2008) Designing Randomised Trials in Health, Education and the Social Sciences: An Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
45.
VinokurAmiramBurnsteinEugene (1978) Depolarization of Attitudes in Groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology36(8): 872–85.
46.
YoungIris M (2000) Inclusion and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
