UNIGE document Scientific Article
previous document  unige:84639  next document
add to browser collection
Title

Small Differences that Matter: The Impact of Discussion Modalities on Deliberative Outcomes

Authors
BÄCHTIGER, ANDRÉ
Published in British Journal of Political Science. 2014, p. 1-16
Abstract An experiment on the extension of the political rights of foreigners in the Swiss city of Geneva used three different procedural ways to structure deliberation: participants take positions at the outset, do not take positions, and reflect first. Most opinion change occurred when participants did not have to take a position at the outset. However, no learning effects were recorded, the deliberative quality was poor and group influence had the greatest impact. When participants had to take a position at the outset, opinion change and group influence were least, but there was significant learning, and the deliberative quality was better. These results indicate a potential trade-off between opinion change – which many scholars equate with deliberative success – and good procedural deliberative quality.
Keywords DeliberationExperimentPolitical rightsForeignersModeration
Identifiers
Full text
Structures
Project FNS: 100017_131941
Citation
(ISO format)
BACCARO, Lucio, BÄCHTIGER, ANDRÉ, DEVILLE, Marion. Small Differences that Matter: The Impact of Discussion Modalities on Deliberative Outcomes. In: British Journal of Political Science, 2014, p. 1-16. https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:84639

102 hits

0 download

Update

Deposited on : 2016-06-20

Export document
Format :
Citation style :