Encountering Dissimilar Views in Deliberation: Political Knowledge, Attitude Strength, and Opinion Change

Abstract

Conversing with diverse points of view stands as the central tenet of deliberative democracy, yet empirical evidence has suggested mixed outcomes related to perspective change as a result of deliberative encounters. I propose a difference-driven model that suggests individual predispositions moderate the processing of dissimilar views when changing policy preferences. My analysis is based on a random sample of over 400 voters at a California-wide deliberative event, where participants discussed proposals for reforming the state politics. I find that encountering more and different arguments transforms policy attitudes. Yet it is more difficult for people to change their minds on issues about which they hold strong beliefs. Some evidence suggests that different psychologies are at play for people who enter deliberation with substantial or weak political knowledge and for those who deliberate while holding strong or moderate prior opinions. Well-grounded strong opinions are resistant to change, while well-grounded moderate opinions are persuadable in deliberative groups. Uninformed positions can become entrenched in like-minded groups, yet they can be adjusted once participants deliberate with dissimilar views, especially opinions that are held strongly without good informational ground. The findings urge deliberative forums that introduce participants to diverse perspectives to foster a considered public opinion.

Modeling of the Public Opinion Polarization Process with the Considerations of Individual Heterogeneity and Dynamic Conformity

“…Abeleset et al [7] suggested that while people usually tended to think their views were in line with the mainstream, and celebrities were more likely to choose to hide their actual views when they found that their views diverged from the mainstream. Zhang [8] found that individuals could change their opinions by interacting with others, but the level to which individuals could change their opinions varied with their preferences. Qiu et al [9] used simulated annealing algorithms to divide the network nodes into three groups-supporters, opponents, and neutral groups, thereby studying the distribution of views hidden behind user comments.…”

How to boost the boosters? A survey-experiment on the effectiveness of different policies aimed at enhancing acceptance of a “Seasonal” vaccination against COVID-19

“…Aside from the periodical vaccination benefits, barriers, social norms and perceived self-efficacy, hesitators’ intentions are also affected by their own vaccination history against the current pandemic-generating virus, the severity they attribute to the disease, and the level of trust they have in their government. This variance may not be surprising as the psychological literature suggests that strong opinions are less likely to be changed [ 68 ]. In other words, individuals who have yet to decide regarding their actions, or in our context—hesitators, are prone to be easily influenced by multiple factors, compared to people who have already made up their mind.…”

Persuasion or Co-creation? Social Identity Threat and the Mechanisms of Deliberative Transformation

“…Nevertheless, even in these situations, deliberative success still requires that participants exit the deliberation with different meta-beliefs than they entered with. It is for this reason that deliberation's ability to actually produce belief change under different circumstances is such a pressing question within deliberative theory (Fishkin & Luskin, 2005;Mackie, 2006;Zhang, 2019) and that documented examples of deliberative transformation are cited as rebuttals to claims that deliberation is unrealistic or ineffective (Dryzek et al, 2019). 1 However, because deliberation is, by definition, noncoercive, it must possess one or more mechanisms for inducing participants to change their beliefs in the absence of coercive force, including the physical inducements deployed in bargaining.…”