Linking Theories of Motivation, Game Mechanics, and Public Deliberation to Design an Online System for Participatory Budgeting

Abstract

Existing systems for online civic engagement and public consultation need a better architecture if they are to realize the aspirations of deliberative democracy. To improve the design of such systems, we develop an empirical model of online civic engagement that connects common game mechanics to four key democratic processes and outcomes—inclusion, deliberative engagement, sound and influential public input, and long-term civic impacts. We then link game mechanics and deliberation with theories of motivation to show how these mechanics can leverage people’s drives to fulfill basic needs, forge social connections, and gain status. To illustrate our model in more concrete terms, we show how game mechanics could motivate both participants and policymakers in an online participatory budgeting system. We conclude by describing a multi-stage experimental approach to testing this model within an existing system of online participatory budgeting.

Reason against the machine? Future directions for mass online deliberation

“…Gamification was another topic drawing substantial interest with 7 publications, e.g., Gordon et al (2016), Gastil and Broghammer (2021). Other publications covered the topics of media presentation (3 publications) (Ramsey and Wilson, 2009;Brinker et al, 2015;Semaan et al, 2015) or other specific design dimensions.…”

“…In their review on online deliberation, Friess and Eilders (2015) point out that the design component of online deliberation needs to be better understood, especially how design influences the effects on the individual as well as quality of the deliberation. More recently, Gastil and Broghammer (2021) call for more research on the impact of digital deliberative platforms on institutional legitimacy, which arises from perceptions of procedural justice and trust. Hence, as these scholars show, deliberative ideals are directly influenced by the design features and design process used to create online mass deliberative platforms.…”

“…She assumes that if more citizens are encouraged to participate in deliberations and perceive their involvement as meaningful, it would not only increase the number of citizens in the governance of their communities, but also help to convince public officials that it can improve governmental decision-making (Hassan, 2017). Beyond engagement and activation, gamification is seen to improve the quality of digital deliberations by promoting social connection and empathy, improving self-esteem and social status, argue Gastil and Broghammer (2021). To create empathy for example, the authors suggest that a deliberation bot could ask participants to reflect on the needs and experiences of fictionalized residents of their community or discuss fictional scenarios based on real residents.…”

“…The functionalities of gamified environments for deliberation in the literature are many. Some use rewardbased approaches to award users based on their activities, or stimulating inter-user competition (Hassan, 2017) others may use collaborative reward structures that provide incentives for reaching a consensus or taking collective action (Gastil and Broghammer, 2021). Others again try to steer users to formulate opinions that fit the discussion phase and to shorten the response time of answering questions (Ito, 2018), or to promote civility among users (Jhaver et al, 2017).…”

Listening to the Public: An Inductive Analysis of the Good Citizen in a Deliberative System

“…Scholars and practitioners have begun to think about how deliberation might be made fun, particularly through gamification and role-playing (Gastil & Broghammer 2020;Hassan 2017;Lerner 2014), but the other two suggestions have received less practical focus. Theory and research should consider how deliberation might be better integrated with work and the ways that workplaces or job types may be considered distinct interest groups.…”