Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T21:09:16.439Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are voters influenced by the results of a consensus conference?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 March 2021

Steven Sloman Open the ORCID record for Steven Sloman [Opens in a new window] ,
Daniella Kupor  and
David Yokum
Steven Sloman*
Affiliation:
Department of Cognitive, Linguistic, and Psychological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA
Daniella Kupor
Affiliation:
Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
David Yokum
Affiliation:
The Policy Lab, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA
*
*Correspondence to: Brown University – CLPS, Box 1821, Providence, RI 02912, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We evaluate whether people will outsource their opinion on public policy to consensus conference participants. The ideal consensus conference brings together a representative sample of citizens and introduces them to the range of perspectives and evidence related to some policy. The sample is given the opportunity to ask questions of experts and to deliberate. Attitudes about each policy are queried before and after the conference to see if the event has changed minds. In general, such conferences do produce opinion shifts. Our hypothesis is that the shift can be leveraged by simply communicating conference results – absent substantive information about the merits of the policies discussed – to scale up the value of conferences to the population at large. In five studies, we tell participants about the impact of a consensus conference on a sample of citizens’ opinions for a range of policies without providing any new information about the inherent value of the policy itself. For several of the policies, we see a shift in opinion. We conclude that the value of consensus conferences can be scaled up simply by telling an electorate about its results. This suggests an economical way to bring evidence and rational argument to bear on citizens’ policy attitudes.

Keywords

deliberative democracyevidence-based policyexpert opinionconsensus conferencecollective cognition
Type
Article
Information
Behavioural Public Policy , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , April 2023 , pp. 395 - 416
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Amit, E., Han, E., Posten, A-C. and Sloman, S. (2021), ‘How people judge institutional corruption’, University of Connecticut Law Review, 52(3): 1121–1138.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, S. and Iyengar, S. (1995), Going negative, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Arendt, H. (1963), Eichmann in Jerusalem: The banality of evil, New York: The Viking Press.Google Scholar
Baron, J. and Spranca, M. (1997), ‘Protected values’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70(1): 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boulianne, S. (2018), ‘Mini-publics and public opinion: Two survey-based experiments’, Political Studies, 66(1): 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullock, J. G. (2011), ‘Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate’, American Political Science Review, 105: 496–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappella, J. N. and Jamieson, K. H. (1997), Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chinni, D. (2016) https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-presidential-debates/do-presidential-debates-impact-election-outcomes-n653801.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B. (1984), Influence: The new psychology of modern persuasion, New York: Morrow.Google Scholar
Cohen, G. L. (2003), ‘Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85: 808–822.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crosby, N. (2003), Healthy democracy: Empowering a clear and informed voice of the people, Edina, MN: Beaver's Pond Press.Google Scholar
Einsiedel, E. F. and Eastlick, D. L. (2000), ‘Consensus conferences as deliberative democracy: A communications perspective’, Science Communication, 21(4): 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, M., Goddu, M. K. and Keil, F. C. (2015), ‘Searching for explanations: How the Internet inflates estimates of internal knowledge’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(3): 674–687.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fishkin, J. S. (2018), Democracy when the people are thinking: Revitalizing our politics through public deliberation, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishkin, J., Siu, A., Diamond, L. and Bradburn, N. (2019), American in one room: Executive summary, Center for Deliberative Democracy. https://cdd.stanford.edu/2019/america-in-one-room/Google Scholar
Fox, R. (2010), Lessons from abroad, how parliaments around the world engage with their public. A report for the group on information for the public, UK parliament, London: Hansard Society.Google Scholar
Freedman, P. and Goldstein, K. (1999), ‘Measuring media exposure and the effects of negative campaign ads’, American Journal of Political Science, 43: 1189–1208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gastil, J. (2000), By popular demand: Revitalizing representative democracy through deliberative elections, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gastil, J., Bacci, C. and Dollinger, M. (2010), ‘Is Deliberation Neutral? Patterns of Attitude Change During “The Deliberative Polls™”’, Journal of Public Deliberation, 6(2): 1–33.Google Scholar
Gastil, J., Knobloch, K. R., Reedy, J., Henkels, M. and Cramer, K. (2018), ‘Assessing the electoral impact of the 2010 Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review’, American Politics Research, 46(3): 534–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagner, P. R. and Rieselbach, L. N. (1978), ‘The impact of the 1976 presidential debates: Conversion or reinforcement?’, in Bishop, G., Meadow, R. and Jackson-Beeck, M. (eds), The presidential debates, New York: Praeger Publications.Google Scholar
Hemmatian, B. and Sloman, S. A. (2018), ‘Community appeal: Explanation without information’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(11): 1677–1712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henrich, J. (2016), The secret of our success: How culture is driving human evolution, domesticating our species, and making us smarter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hugh-Jones, D. and Ooi, J. (2017), Where do fairness preferences come from? Norm transmission in a teen friendship network (No. 2017-02). School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.Google Scholar
Ingham, S. and Levin, I. (2018), ‘Can deliberative minipublics influence public opinion? Theory and experimental evidence’, Political Research Quarterly, 71(3): 654–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Involve (2018), Citizens’ Assembly on Social Care Recommendations for Funding Adult Social Care. Retrieved from: https://www.involve.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/attachemnt/Citizens%27%20Assembly%20on%20Social%20Care%20-%20Recommendations%20for%20funding%20social%20care_0.pdf.Google Scholar
Jefferson Center (2019), Artificial Intelligence (AI) & Explainability Citizens’ Juries Report.Google Scholar
Johnson, E. J. and Goldstein, D. (2003), ‘Do defaults save lives?’, Science, 302: 1338–1339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lanoue, D. J. and Schroff, P. R. (1989), ‘The effects of primary season debates on public opinion’, Political Behavior, 11(3): 289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lippmann, W. (1922), Public opinion, New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Co.Google Scholar
Mindich, D. T. (2005), Tuned out: Why Americans under 40 don't follow the news, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Niemeyer, S. (2011), ‘The emancipatory effect of deliberation: Empirical lessons from mini-publics’, Politics & Society, 39(1): 103–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nkana, N. A. S. (2015), ‘Pictorial impact of television political advertising on voters in a multi-cultural environment’, International Journal of Asian Social Science, 5(4): 220–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, T. E. (1994), Out of order, New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Pinquart, M. and Silbereisen, R. K. (2004), ‘Transmission of values from adolescents to their parents: The role of value content and authoritative parenting’, Adolescence, 39: 153.Google ScholarPubMed
Rabb, N., Han, J. J. and Sloman, S. A. (2020), ‘How others drive our sense of understanding of policies’, Behavioural Public Policy, 1–26.Google Scholar
Renwick, A., Allan, S., Jennings, W., McKee, R., Russell, M. and Smith, G. (2017). A Considered Public Voice on Brexit: The Report of the Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit. Retrieved from: https://www.involve.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/attachemnt/Citizens%27%20Assembly%20on%20Brexit%20-%20Full%20Report.pdf.Google Scholar
Sloman, S. A. and Fernbach, P. (2017), The knowledge illusion: Why we never think alone, New York: Riverhead Press.Google Scholar
Sloman, S. A. and Rabb, N. (2016), ‘Your understanding is my understanding: Evidence for a community of knowledge’, Psychological Science, 27: 1451–1460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Street, J., Duszynski, K., Krawczyk, S. and Braunack-Mayer, A. (2014), ‘The use of citizens’ juries in health policy decision-making: A systematic review’, Social Science & Medicine, 109: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tetlock, P. E. (2003), ‘Thinking the unthinkable: Sacred values and taboo cognitions’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(7): 320–324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valentino, N. A., Hutchings, V. L. and Williams, D. (2004), ‘The impact of political advertising on knowledge, Internet information seeking, and candidate preference’, Journal of communication, 54(2): 337–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, A. F. (2013), ‘Supernormal: How the Internet is changing our memories and our minds’, Psychological Inquiry, 24(4): 341–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, M. E. and Gastil, J. (2015), ‘Can deliberative minipublics address the cognitive challenges of democratic citizenship?’, The Journal of Politics, 77(2): 562–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, D. M. (1993), Air wars: Television advertising in election campaigns, 1952-1992, Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 153.Google Scholar
Yawn, M., Ellsworth, K., Beatty, B. and Kahn, K. F. (1998), ‘How a presidential primary debate changed attitudes of audience members’, Political Behavior, 20(2): 155–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, J. R. (1992), The nature and origins of mass opinion, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Sloman et al. supplementary material

Sloman et al. supplementary material 1

Download Sloman et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 128.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Sloman et al. supplementary material

Sloman et al. supplementary material 2

Download Sloman et al. supplementary material(File)
File 18.5 KB