From a normative vantage point, post-deliberative opinions should be linked to the quality of arguments presented during discussion. Yet, there is a dearth of research testing this claim. Our study makes a first attempt to overcome this deficiency. By analyzing a European deliberative poll on third country migration, we explore whether statements backed by reason affect opinions, which we term deliberative persuasion. We contrast deliberative persuasion to non-deliberative persuasion, whereby we explore whether the most frequently repeated position influences opinions. We find that with regard to regularization of irregular immigrants, deliberative persuasion took place. In the context of European involvement in immigration affairs, however, opinions are driven by the most frequently repeated position rather than by the quality of argumentation.
AckermanBFishkinJS (2002) Deliberation day. Journal of Political Philosophy10(2): 129–152.
2.
AlvarezRMBrehmRMAJ (2002) Hard Choices, Easy Answers: Values, Information and American Public Opinion, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
3.
Arkes HR and Blumer C (1984) Repetition and the perceived validity of political statements. In: Paper presented at the Midwestern Psychological Association, May, Chicago, IL.
4.
Baccaro L, Craden C and Deville-Naggay M (2011) Should foreigners vote? Outcomes of a deliberation experiment in the city of Rousseau. In: ECPR joint sessions of workshops, St. Gallen, CH, 12–16 April 2011.
5.
BarabasJ (2004) How deliberation affects policy opinions. American Political Science Review98(4): 687–701.
6.
BartleJ (2000) Political awareness, opinion constraint and the stability of ideological positions. Political Studies48(3): 467–484.
7.
BrewerPRGrossK (2005) Values, framing, and citizens’ thoughts about policy issues: Effects on content and quantity. Political Psychology26(6): 929–948.
8.
CalvertAWarrenME (forthcoming) Deliberative democracy and framing effects: Why frames are a problem and how deliberative minipublics might overcome them. In: GrönlundKBächtigerASetäläM (eds) Deliberative Mini-Publics, Colchester: ECPR Press.
9.
ChambersS (1996) Reasonable Democracy: Jürgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
10.
ChambersS (2003) Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science6(1): 307–326.
11.
ChambersS (2004) Behind closed doors: Publicity, secrecy, and the quality of deliberation. Journal of Political Philosophy12(4): 389–410.
12.
ChongDDruckmanJN (2007) Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review101(4): 637–655.
13.
ChongDDruckmanJN (2013) Counterframing effects. The Journal of Politics75(1): 1–16.
14.
CohenJ (1989) Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In: HamlinAPettitP (eds) The Good Polity, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 17–34.
15.
ConversePE (1964) The nature of belief systems among mass publics. In: ApterD (ed) Ideology and Discontent, New York: Free Press, pp. 206–261.
16.
DelliCarpiniMXKeeterS (1996) What Americans Know About Politics and Why it Matters, London: Yale University Press.
17.
DicksonESHaferCLandaD (2008) Cognition and strategy: A deliberation experiment. The Journal of Politics70(4): 974–989.
18.
DruckmanJN (2001) The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior23(3): 225–256.
19.
DruckmanJNNelsonKR (2003) Framing and deliberation: How citizens’ conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science47(4): 729–745.
20.
EsterlingKMNebloMALazerDM (2011) Means, motive, and opportunity in becoming informed about politics: A deliberative field experiment with members of Congress and their constituents. Public Opinion Quarterly75(3): 483–503.
21.
EstlundD (1997) Beyond fairness and deliberation: The epistemic dimension of deliberative authority. In: BohmanJRehgW (eds) Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 127–160.
22.
FarrarCFishkinJSGreenDP (2010) Disaggregating deliberation's effects: An experiment within a deliberative poll. British Journal of Political Science40(2): 333–347.
23.
FishkinJS (2009) When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24.
FishkinJS (2010) Response to critics of when the people speak: The deliberative deficit and what to do about it. The Good Society19(1): 68–76.
25.
GelmanA (2006) Multilevel (hierarchical) modeling: What it can and cannot do. Technometrics48(3): 432–435.
26.
Gerber M, Bächtiger A, Shikano S, et al. (2012) Deliberative abilities of ordinary citizens. Evidence from a transnational deliberative poll (Europolis). In: APSA conference, New Orleans, 30 August–2 September 2012.
27.
GoodinRE (2000) Democratic deliberation within. Philosophy and Public Affairs29(1): 81–109.
28.
GutmannAThompsonD (2002) Deliberative democracy beyond process. Journal of Political Philosophy10(2): 153–174.
29.
HabermasJ (1991) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30.
HansenKM (2007) The sophisticated public: The effect of competing frames on public opinion. Scandinavian Political Studies30(3): 377–396.
31.
IserniaPFishkinJS (2014) Introduction. European Union Politics15(3): 311–327.
32.
KnightJJohnsonJ (2011) The Priority of Democracy: Political Consequences of Pragmatism, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
33.
KymlickaW (2000) Nation-building and minority rights: Comparing West and East. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies26(2): 183–212.
34.
LandemoreHMercierH (2012) Talking it out with others vs. deliberation within and the law of group polarization: Some implications of the argumentative theory of reasoning. Análise Social205(4): 910–934.
35.
LandisJRKochGG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics33(1): 159–174.
36.
LavineHGJohnstonCDSteenbergenMR (2012) The Ambivalent Partisan: How Critical Loyalty Promotes Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37.
LupiaA (2002) Deliberation disconnected: What it takes to improve civic competence. Law and Contemporary Problems65(3): 133–150.
38.
LupiaAMcCubbinsMD (1998) The Democratic Dilemma, Cambridge: University Press.
39.
Luskin RC (2002) True versus measured information gain. Available at: http://cdd.stanford.edu/research/ (accessed 10 December 2012).
40.
LuskinRCFishkinJSJowellR (2002) Considered opinions: Deliberative polling in Britain. British Journal of Political Science32(3): 455–487.
41.
MansbridgeJ (1983) Beyond Adversary Democracy, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
42.
MendelbergT (2002) The deliberative citizen: Theory and evidence. In: Delli CarpiniMXHuddyLShapiroRY (eds) Political Decision Making, Deliberation and Participation: Research in MicropoliticsVol. 6. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 151–193.
43.
MoonsWGMackieDMGarcia-MarquesT (2009) The impact of repetition-induced familiarity on agreement with weak and strong arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology96(1): 32–44.
44.
MorrellME (2010) Empathy and Democracy: Feeling, Thinking, and Deliberation, University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
45.
MucciaroniGQuirkPJ (2010) Rhetoric and reality: Going beyond discourse ethics in assessing legislative deliberation. Legisprudence4(1): 35–52.
46.
MutzDC (2006) Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
MutzDC (2008) Is deliberative democracy a falsifiable theory?Annual Review of Political Science11(1): 521–538.
48.
Myers DC (2012) Interests, information and minority influence in political deliberation. In: MPSA conference, Chicago, IL, 11–15 April 2012.
49.
Neblo MA (2007a) Change for the better? Linking the mechanisms of deliberative opinion change to normative theory. Available at: polisci.osu.edu/faculty/mneblo/papers/ChangeC4.pdf (accessed 8 January 2012).
50.
NebloM (2007b) Family disputes: Diversity in defining and measuring deliberation. Swiss Political Science Review13(4): 527–557.
51.
NelsonTEClawsonRAOxleyZM (1997) Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. The American Political Science Review91(3): 567–583.
52.
PriceVNeijensP (1998) Deliberative polls: Toward improved measures of ‘informed’ public opinion?International Journal of Public Opinion Research10(2): 145–176.
53.
PriceVNirLCappellaJN (2005) Framing public discussion of gay civil unions. Public Opinion Quarterly69(2): 179–212.
54.
PrimoDMJacobsmeierMLMilyoJ (2007) Estimating the impact of state policies and institutions with mixed-level data. State Politics & Policy Quarterly7(4): 446–459.
55.
RawlsJ (1993) Political Liberalism, New York: Columbia University Press.
56.
SandersD (2012) The effects of deliberative polling in an EU-wide experiment: Five mechanisms in search of an explanation. British Journal of Political Science42(3): 617–640.
57.
SchneiderhanEKhanS (2008) Reasons and inclusion: The foundation of deliberation. Sociological Theory26(1): 1–24.
58.
Siu A (2009) Look who’s talking: Examining Social influence, opinion change and argument quality in deliberation. PhD Thesis, Stanford University, USA.
59.
SnidermanPMTheriaultSM (2004) The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In: SarisWESnidermanPM (eds) Studies in Public Opinion, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 133–165.
60.
SteenbergenMR (2010) Decomposing the vote: Individual, communal, and cantonal sources of voting behavior in Switzerland. Swiss Political Science Review16(3): 403–424.
61.
SteenbergenMRBächtigerASpörndliM (2003) Measuring political deliberation: A discourse quality index. Comparative European Politics1(1): 21–48.
62.
Stromer-GalleyJ (2007) Measuring deliberation content: A coding scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation3(1): 1–35.
63.
ZallerJ (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
64.
ZallerJFeldmanS (1992) A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science36(3): 579–616.
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.
