The role of deliberation in attitude change: An empirical assessment of three theoretical mechanisms

Abstract

Though the impact of deliberative polling on attitude change has received ample attention in the literature, micro models of attitude change before, during, and after deliberation are understudied. The relative strength of three competing views of the way attitudes change—the heuristics, systematic, and deliberative models—is assessed, using the quasi-experimental data of the EuroPolis deliberative project and comparing a group of people who participated in the deliberative poll with a control group. The results are: (1) in line with the systematic model, predispositions play a larger role than in the heuristics or deliberative models; (2) predispositions play a different role for participants and nonparticipants; (3) predispositions shape attitude formation in different ways depending on the issue at hand. On some issues the beliefs of participants change as a consequence of deliberation and become more complex and nuanced than before. This is, however, not the case for immigration issues where deliberation seems to strengthen predispositions.

Changing preferences towards redistribution: How deliberation shapes welfare attitudes

“…A similar pattern was observable in the second example. However, here it was not increased factual knowledge, but a certain “revelation process” (Smets & Isernia, , p. 395) based on reasoning which seems to have influenced the considerations that affect attitudes. The participant was constantly forced to justify, weigh, and specify her position when interacting with the others, and this led her to a much more fine‐grained and elaborated judgement.…”

“…Empirical studies on deliberation also frequently report attitude change, usually measured via pre‐ and post‐deliberation surveys (Fishkin, , p. 134). Although a fully‐fledged conceptualization of what is actually happening in terms of micro‐processes is currently missing (Smets & Isernia, , p. 404), information , reasoning , and group processes seem, in particular, to be decisive for attitude change during deliberation.…”

“…With regard to the role of reasoning , a similar assumption applies: people might be able to better align values or interests with expressed preferences if they have the opportunity to argue, justify, weigh, or develop a thought during a discussion and by interacting with others (Mercier & Landmore, ; Smets & Isernia, ). Reasoning thus introduces the dynamic aspect of deliberation.…”

Citizen Panels and Opinion Polls: Convergence and Divergence in Policy Preferences

“…These types of citizen engagement exercises involve choosing a large and representative sample of ordinary citizens to meet several times to discuss policy options and conclude with some form of opinion aggregation, such as a vote on policy options (Rowe & Frewer, 2005;Fournier et al, 2011). The decision to form a citizen panel is based on the premise that ordinary citizens are capable of making difficult policy decisions if they are given sufficient time and resources (Fournier et al, 2011;French & Laver, 2009;Smets & Isernia, 2014).…”

What drives the polarisation and moderation of opinions? Evidence from a Finnish citizen deliberation experiment on immigration

“…A difference‐in‐difference analysis draws a slightly different picture, however. We implemented the difference‐in‐difference analysis in a standard regression model (see, e.g., Smets & Isernia ), modelling both treatment (like‐minded versus mixed group) and time. The results reveal that, in the case of anti‐immigration participants, the coefficient of the interaction term is significant (b = –1.1; SD = 0.54*), suggesting that there is a difference between anti‐immigration individuals in the like‐minded groups and in the mixed groups.…”