Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T08:02:33.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of direct voting and deliberation on legitimacy beliefs: an experimental study of small group decision-making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 August 2012

Mikael Persson ,
Peter Esaiasson  and
Mikael Gilljam
Mikael Persson*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
Peter Esaiasson
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
Mikael Gilljam
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
*
*E-mail: mikael.persson@pol.gu.se
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In democratic theory, two frequently occurring ideas are that deliberation and direct voting in referendums can increase perceived legitimacy of democratic procedures. To evaluate this claim, we conducted a controlled field experiment in which 215 high school students participated by being subject to a decision on a collective issue. The decision was made either by direct voting or as a non-voting procedure (decision made by the teacher). Additionally, we manipulated the opportunities for deliberation prior to the decision. Our primary finding is that both voting and deliberation significantly increase perceived legitimacy compared with a procedure in which these components are absent. However, applying both voting and deliberation does not yield significantly higher perceived legitimacy than applying voting without deliberation. We also found that perceived influence in the decision-making process mediates the effect of both voting and deliberation, whereas the epistemic quality of the decision, which is heavily emphasized in deliberative democratic theory, gained no support as a mediator.

Keywords

democratic decision-makingdirect democracydeliberative democracyprocedural fairnessepistemic qualityfield experiments
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , November 2013 , pp. 381 - 399
Copyright
Copyright © European Consortium for Political Research 2012 

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

Anderson, C.J., Blais, A., Bowler, S., Donovan, T.Listhaug, O. (2005), Losers’ Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bohman, J. (2009), ‘Epistemic value and deliberative democracy’, The Good Society 18: 28–34.Google Scholar
Bovens, L.Rabinowicz, W. (2004), ‘Voting procedures for complex collective decisions – an epistemic perspective’, Ratio Juris 17: 241–258.Google Scholar
Bovens, L.Rabinowicz, W. (2006), ‘Democratic answers to complex questions – an epistemic perspective’, Synthese 150: 131–153.Google Scholar
Bowler, S., Donovan, S.Karp, J. (2007), ‘Enraged or engaged? Preferences for direct citizen participation in affluent democracies’, Political Research Quarterly 60: 351–377.Google Scholar
Brockner, J., Siegel, P.A., Martin, D., Reed, D., Heuer, L., Wiesenfeld, B., Grover, S.Bjorgvinsson, S. (1998), ‘The moderating effect of self-esteem in reaction to voice: converging evidence from five studies’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75: 394–407.Google Scholar
Chambers, S. (2003), ‘Deliberative democratic theory’, Annual Review of Political Science 6: 307–326.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1997), ‘Deliberation and democratic legitimacy’, in J. Bohman and W. Rehg (eds), Deliberative Democracy, Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 67–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, M. (2000), ‘Five arguments for deliberative democracy’, Political Studies 48: 947–969.Google Scholar
Dahl, R.A. (1989), Democracy and Its Critics, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Delli Carpini, M.X., Cook, F.L.Jacobs, L.R. (2004), ‘Public deliberation, discursive participation and citizen engagement: a review of empirical literature’, Annual Review of Political Science 7: 315–344.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J.S. (2000), Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, and Contestations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J.S.List, C. (2003), ‘Social choice theory and deliberative democracy: a reconciliation’, British Journal of Political Science 33: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duflo, E., Glennerster, R.Kremer, M. (2008), ‘Using randomization in development economics research: a toolkit’, in T.P. Schultz and J. Strauss (eds), Handbook of Development Economics, vol. 4. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 3896–3962.Google Scholar
Esaiasson, P. (2010), ‘Will citizens take no for an answer? What government officials can do to enhance decision acceptance’, European Political Science Review 2: 351–371.Google Scholar
Esaiasson, P., Gilljam, M., Persson, M. (2012), ‘Which decision-making arrangements generate the strongest legitimacy beliefs? Evidence from a randomized field experiment’, European Journal of Political Research. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.2011.02052.xGoogle Scholar
Estlund, D. (2008), Democratic Authority, Princeton: University Press.Google Scholar
Fearon, J.D. (1998), ‘Deliberation as discussion’, in J. Elster (ed.), Deliberative Democracy, Cambridge: University Press, pp. 44–68.Google Scholar
Folger, R., Rosenfield, D., Grove, J.Corkran, L. (1979), ‘Effects of “voice” and peer opinions on responses to inequity’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37: 2253–2261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishkin, J.S.Luskin, C. (2005), ‘Experiment with a democratic ideal: deliberative polling and public opinion’, Acta Politica 40: 284–298.Google Scholar
Gerber, A., Huber, G.Washington, E. (2010), ‘Party affiliation, partisanship, and political beliefs: a field experiment’, American Political Science Review 104: 720–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilljam, M., Esaiasson, P.Lindholm, T. (2009), ‘The voice of the pupils: an experimental comparison of decisions made by elected pupil councils, pupils in referenda, and teaching staff’, Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 22: 73–88.Google Scholar
Goodin, R.E. (2008), Innovating Democracy: Democratic Theory and Practice After the Deliberative Turn, Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
Grimes, M. (2008), ‘Consent, political trust and compliance: rejoinder to Kaina's remarks on “Organizing Consent” ’, European Journal of Political Research 47: 522–535.Google Scholar
Grönlund, K., Setälä, M.Herne, K. (2010), ‘Deliberation and civic virtue – lessons from a citizen deliberation experiment’, European Political Science Review 2: 95–117.Google Scholar
Helwig, C.C., Arnold, M.L., Tan, D.Boyd, D. (2007), ‘Mainland Chinese and Canadian adolescents’ judgments and reasoning about the fairness of democratic and other forms of government’, Cognitive Development 22: 96–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karpowitz, C.F.Mendelberg, T. (2011), ‘An experimental approach to citizen deliberation’, in J.N. Druckman, D.P. Green, J.H. Kuklinski and A. Lupia (eds), Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 258–272.Google Scholar
Knight, J.Johnson, J. (1994), ‘Aggregation and deliberation: on the possibility of democratic legitimacy’, Political Theory 22.Google Scholar
Lind, E.A.Tyler, T.R. (1988), The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Lind, E.A., Kanfer, R.Earley, P.C. (1990), ‘Voice, control, and procedural justice: instrumental and non-instrumental concerns in fairness judgments’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59: 952–959.Google Scholar
List, C.Goodin, R.E. (2001), ‘Epistemic democracy: generalizing the Condorcet jury theorem’, Journal of Political Philosophy 9(3): 277–306.Google Scholar
Luskin, R.C., Fishkin, J.S.Jowell, R. (2002), ‘Considered opinions: deliberative polling Britain’, British Journal of Political Science 32: 455–487.Google Scholar
Manin, B. (1987), ‘On legitimacy and political deliberation’, Political Theory 15: 338–368.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Estlund, D., Føllesdal, A., Fung, A., Lafont, C., Manin, B.Marti, J.I. (2010), ‘The place of self-interest and the role of power in deliberative democracy’, The Journal of Political Philosophy 18: 64–100.Google Scholar
Morrell, M.E. (1999), ‘Citizen's evaluations of participatory democratic procedures: normative theory meets empirical science’, Political Research Quarterly 52: 293–322.Google Scholar
Morrell, M.E. (2005), ‘Deliberation, democratic decision-making and internal political efficacy’, Political Behavior 27: 49–69.Google Scholar
Mutz, D.C. (2006), Hearing the Other Side, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mutz, D.C. (2008), ‘Is deliberative democracy a falsifiable theory?’, Annual Review of Political Science 11: 521–538.Google Scholar
Palfrey, T.R. (2009), ‘Laboratory experiment in political economy’, Annual Review of Political Science 12: 379–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pateman, C. (1970), Participation and Democratic Theory, London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Przeworski, A. (1998), ‘Deliberation and ideological domination’, in Elster J. (ed.), Deliberative Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 140–160.Google Scholar
Raudenbush, S.W. (1997), ‘Statistical analysis and optimal design for cluster randomized trials’, Psychological Methods 2: 173–185.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, S.W. (2007), ‘Introduction’, in Rosenberg S.W. (ed.), Deliberation, Participation and Democracy: Can the People Govern?. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
Sanders, L.M. (1997), ‘Against deliberation’, Political Theory 25: 347–376.Google Scholar
Simon, A.F.Sulkin, T. (2002), ‘Discussion's impact on political allocations: an experimental approach’, Political Analysis 10: 403–412.Google Scholar
Shapiro, I. (1999), ‘Enough of deliberation: politics is about interests and power’, in Macedo S. (ed.), Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scharpf, F.W. (2009), ‘Legitimacy in the multilevel European polity’, European Political Science Review 1: 173–204.Google Scholar
Sulkin, T.Simon, A.F. (2001), ‘Habermas in the lab: a study of deliberation in an experimental setting’, Political Psychology 22: 809–826.Google Scholar
Setälä, M., Grönlund, K.Herne, K. (2010), ‘Citizen deliberation on nuclear power: a comparison of two decision-making methods’, Political Studies 58: 688–714.Google Scholar
Skitka, L.J., Winquist, J.Hutchinson, S. (2003), ‘Are outcome fairness and outcome favorability distinguishable psychological constructs? A meta-analytic review’, Social Justice Research 16: 309–341.Google Scholar
Teorell, J. (2008), ‘Samtalsdemokrati med förhinder – en kritik av Fishkins medborgarpaneler’, in J. Hermansson, C. Karlsson and H. Montgomery (eds), Samtalets mekanismer, Liber: Malmö, pp. 277–296.Google Scholar
Thompson, D.F. (2008), ‘Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science’, The Annual Review of Political Science 11: 497–520.Google Scholar
Tyler, T.R. (1990), Why People Obey the Law: Procedural Justice, Legitimacy and Compliance, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, T.R. (2006), ‘Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation’, Annual Review of Psychology 57: 375–400.Google Scholar
van den Bos, K. (1999), What are we talking about when we talk about no-voice procedures? On the psychology of the fair outcome effect, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 35: 560–577.Google Scholar
van den Bos, K., Lind, E.A., Vermunt, R.Wilke, H.A.M. (1997), ‘How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the fair process effect’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72: 1034–1046.Google Scholar
Warren, M. (1992), ‘Democratic theory and self-transformation’, American Political Science Review 86: 8–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, I.M. (2000), Inclusion and Democracy, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar