Social Science
Phase 1 — Selected Findings
Phase 1 was not meant to be a standalone research project. Phase 1 measures were generally asked only once, not before and after deliberation. Post-measures were intended for Phase 2. Nonetheless, Phase 1 yielded a variety of intriguing findings. For those measures that occurred in the concluding questionnaire, only between-experimental group results, not within-individual results, are available. For full elaboration of these findings, please consult the Muhlberger articles catalogued below.
- While there was evidence of substantial change in mean opinion due to information, there is no evidence of such mean change due to deliberationCthe non-discussion control group did not have significantly different means for the four policy views than do the deliberating groups.
- While deliberation did not change mean policy views, it substantially shifted individual's views toward the mean of their discussion group. Discussion did not change the mean of opinion, but both online and face-to-face discussion reduced the variance of opinion. Thus, discussion led to coordination of opinions, a coordination that would make collective action more feasible.
- Participants who discussed, whether online or offline, had much more favorable views of their experience than those in the information-only control group and were also more motivated to participate in future discussions.
- Deliberation ameliorates Astealth democracy beliefs@ as well as a variety of factors resulting in stealth democracy beliefs, including perceptions of unproductive conflict in political discussion and belief in the intrinsic irrationality of political discussion.
- Most participants felt that policy makers should be substantially influenced by deliberation outcomes, even if the participant personally were to disagree with those outcomes.
- Deliberators, both f2f and online in the citizen condition, were more likely to report that being a citizen and being a Pittsburgher are important to who they are. Changes in these identities may indicate that participants are taking their citizenship more seriously and will be more likely to act on their notions of citizenship in the future. Importantly, reaction time measures show that participants in the online plus citizenship reminder condition took significantly longer to decide whether various activities associated with active citizenship were in fact responsibilities of citizens. This might indicate that these participants are thinking more carefully about their responsibilities as citizens, a possible first step toward more deeply internalizing those responsibilities.
- Online discussion also affects manipulation of other participants. Manipulation was measured by asking participants whether they withheld information or gave invalid arguments to strengthen their position in the discussions. Self-reported manipulation of other participants was significantly higher in the online, no citizenship reminder condition than in either f2f condition. The online condition with a citizenship reminder does not significantly differ from the f2f conditions.
http://services.bepress.com/jpd/vol1/iss1/art5.