Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T03:28:37.477Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discussion Group Composition and Deliberation Experience

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2017

Nathanael Gratias Sumaktoyo ,
David W. Nickerson  and
Michael J. Keane
Nathanael Gratias Sumaktoyo
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA; e-mail: www.nathanaelmu.com
David W. Nickerson
Affiliation:
Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA; e-mail: david.w.nickerson@gmail.com
Michael J. Keane
Affiliation:
Institutional Research, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA, USA; e-mail: michael.keane@lmu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In order to encouragee broad participation in deliberative forums, it is important to understand how people from politically less powerful groups perceive the deliberative experience and how discussion group composition affects their experiences. Using data from 27 deliberative polls from 2004, we examine how four individual characteristics (sex, age, race, and education) and randomly assigned small group composition predict participants’ attitudes about the deliberative experience. We find evidence that women, young people, non-whites, and those without college degree generally evaluate the experience positively, but find no evidence for the argument that including more people from these groups would lead to more positive deliberation experience for participants from the groups. That is, there is no interaction between minority status and group composition in predicting participants’ evaluation of the deliberation process.

Keywords

Deliberative democracydeliberative pollgenderraceeducationdiscussionstatus
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Experimental Political Science , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , Winter 2016 , pp. 164 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © The Experimental Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bryan, Frank M. 2004. Real Democracy: The New England Town Meeting and How it Works. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Farrar, Cynthia, Green, Donald P., Green, Jennifer, Nickerson, David, and Shewfelt, Steven. 2009. “Does Discussion Group Composition Affect Policy Preferences? Results from Three Randomized Experiments.” Political Psychology 30 (1): 615–47.Google Scholar
Fishkin, James S. and Luskin, Robert C.. 2005. “Experimenting with a Democratic Ideal: Deliberative Polling and Public Opinion.” Acta Politica 40: 284–98.Google Scholar
Hannagan, Rebecca and Larimer, Christopher. 2010. “Does Gender Composition Affect Group Decision Outcomes? Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment.” Political Behavior 32 (1): 51–67.Google Scholar
Karpowitz, Christopher F., Mendelberg, Tali, and Shaker, Lee. 2012. “Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation.” American Political Science Review 106 (3): 533–47.Google Scholar
Smith-Lovin, Lynn and Brody, Charles. 1989. “Interruptions in Group Discussions: The Effecs of Gender and Group Composition.” American Sociological Review 54 (3): 424–35.Google Scholar
Mendelberg, Tali, Karpowitz, Christopher F., and Oliphant, Baxter J.. 2014a. “Gender Inequality in Deliberation: Unpacking the Black Box of Interaction.” Perspectives on Politics 12 (1): 18–44.Google Scholar
Mendelberg, Tali, Karpowitz, Christopher F., and Goedert, Nicholas. 2014b. “Does Descriptive Representation Facilitate Women's Distinctive Voice? How Gender Composition and Decision Rules Affect Deliberation.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (2): 291–306.Google Scholar
Myers, C. Daniel and Mendelberg, Tali. 2013. “Political Deliberation.” In Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology 2nd edition, eds. Huddy, Leonie, Sears, David, and Levy, Jack. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Price, Vincent and Cappella, Joseph. 2002. “Online Deliberation and its Influence: The Electronic Dialogue Project in Campaign 2000.” IT & Society. 1 (1): 303–29.Google Scholar
Sanders, Lynn M. 1997. “Against Deliberation,” Political Theory 25 (3) (June 1997): 370.Google Scholar
Simon, Bernd and Sturmer, Stefan. 2003. “Respect for Group Members: Intragroup Determinants of Collective Identification and Group-Serving Behavior.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29 (2): 183–93.Google Scholar
Stromer-Galley, Jennifer, and Peter, Muhlberger. 2009. “Agreement and Disagreement in Group Deliberation: Effects on Deliberation Satisfaction, Future Engagement, and Decision Legitimacy.” Political Communication 26 (2):173–92.Google Scholar
Walsh, Katherine C. 2007. Talking about Race: Community Dialogues and the Politics of Difference. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Williams, M. 2000. “The Uneasy Alliance of Group Representation in Deliberative Democracy”. In Citizenship in Diverse Societies, eds., Kymlicka, Will and Norman, Wayne. London, UK: Oxford University Press, 124–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wojcieszak, Magdalena, Baek, Young M., and Delli Carpini, Michael X.. 2009. “What is Really Going On? Structure Underlying Face-to-Face and Online Deliberation.” Information, Communication, and Society 12 (7): 1080–102.Google Scholar
Young, Iris. 2001. “Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy.” Political Theory 29 (5): 670–90.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Sumaktoyo supplementary material

Sumaktoyo supplementary material

Download Sumaktoyo supplementary material(File)
File 197.1 KB