Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-kp629 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-22T23:16:46.612Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deliberative participation and personality: the effect of traits, situations, and motivation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 February 2018

Julia Jennstål
Julia Jennstål*
Affiliation:
Department of Government, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
*
*E-mail: Julia.jennstal@statsvet.uu.se
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Inclusiveness is essential to deliberative democracy, but factors influencing citizens’ willingness to participate in deliberation need to be better understood. In the case of deliberative minipublics, demographic, and attitudinal attributes demonstrably correlate with willingness to participate, and thus arguably affect the inclusiveness of deliberative events. Similarly, features of deliberative situations also influence participation – whether it will be decisive, for example. However, what is lacking is a framework for how individual and situational characteristics interact, and the role of background political and cultural settings in influencing this dynamic. Advances in personality psychology offers a useful framework for addressing this lacuna, as well as providing tools for understanding how effective participation can be enhanced. In this article, I explore how personality interacts with situational features to influence patterns of deliberative participation, as well as the motivations that are associated. These effects are illustrated by drawing on data from a field experiment, involving minipublic deliberation in Sweden on the issue of begging by internal EU migrants. The findings support the relevance of personality as a predictor of participation in deliberation, which interacts with features of deliberative situations to induce particular motivations to either participate or refuse.

Keywords

deliberative democracyrepresentationinclusivenesspersonalitypersonality niching

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , August 2018 , pp. 417 - 440
Copyright
© European Consortium for Political Research 2018 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Antonioni, D. (1998), ‘Relationship between the big five personality factors and conflict management styles’, The International Journal of Conflict Management 9: 336–355.Google Scholar
Asendorpf, J.B. (2009), ‘Personality: traits and situations’, in Corr P.J. and Matthews G. (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 43–53.Google Scholar
Bächtiger, A., Niemeyer, S., Neblo, M., Steenbergen, M.R. and Steiner, J. (2010), ‘Disentangling diversity in deliberative democracy: competing theories, their blind spots and complementarities’, Journal of Political Philosophy 18: 32–63.Google Scholar
Blass, T. (1991), ‘Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience experiment: the role of personality, situations, and their interactions’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60: 398–413.Google Scholar
Caprara, G.V., Schwartz, S., Capanna, C. and Vecchione, M. (2006), ‘Personality and politics: values, traits and political choice’, Political Psychology 27: 1–28.Google Scholar
Caspi, A., Chajut, E., Saporta, K. and Beyth-Marom, R. (2006), ‘The influence of personality on social participation in learning environment’, Learning and Individual Differences 16: 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1992), Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Professional Manual, Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Curato, N. and Niemeyer, S.J. (2013), ‘Reaching out to overcome political apathy: building participatory capacity through deliberative engagement’, Politics & Policy 41: 355–383.Google Scholar
DeYoung, C.G., Quilty, L.C. and Peterson, J.B. (2007), ‘Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93: 880–896.Google Scholar
Djuve, A.B., Friberg, J.H., Tyldum, G. and Zhang, H. (2015), When Poverty Meets Affluence. Migrants from Romania on the Streets of the Scandinavian Capitals, Oslo: Fafo Rockwool Foundation.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J.S. (1990), Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy and Political Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J.S. (2009), ‘Democratization as deliberative capacity building’, Comparative Political Studies 42: 1379–1402.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J.S. and Niemeyer, S.J. (2008), ‘Discursive representation’, American Political Science Review 102: 481–494.Google Scholar
Gerber, A.S., Huber, G.A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C.M. and Ha, S.E. (2010), ‘Personality and political attitudes: relationships across issue domains and political contexts’, American Political Science Review 104: 111–133.Google Scholar
Gerber, A.S., Huber, G.A., Doherty, D. and Dowling, C.M. (2011a), ‘The Big Five personality traits in the political arena’, Annual Review of Political Science 14: 265–287.Google Scholar
Gerber, A.S., Huber, G.A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C.M., Raso, C. and Ha, S.E. (2011b), ‘Personality traits and participation in political processes’, Journal of Politics 73: 692–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, A.S., Huber, G.A., Doherty, D. and Dowling, C.M. (2012), ‘Disagreement and the avoidance of political discussion: aggregate relationships and differences across personality traits’, American Journal of Political Science 56: 849–874.Google Scholar
Goodin, R.E. (2000), ‘Democratic deliberation within’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 29: 81–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, R.E. and Dryzek, J.S. (2006), ‘Deliberative impacts: the macro-political uptake of mini-publics’, Politics & Society 34: 219–244.Google Scholar
Gosling, S.D., Rentfrow, P.J. and Swann, W.B.J. (2003), ‘A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains’, Journal of Research in Personality 37: 504–528.Google Scholar
Graziano, W.G., Habashi, M.M., Sheese, B.E. and Tobin, R.M. (2007), ‘Agreeableness, empathy, and helping: a person× situation perspective’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93: 583–599.Google Scholar
Gutmann, A. and Thompson, D.F. (1996), Democracy and Disagreement, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Halfhill, T., Sundström, E., Lahner, J., Calderone, W. and Nielsen, T.M. (2005), ‘Group personality composition and group effectiveness: an integrative review of empirical research’, Small Group Research 36: 83–105.Google Scholar
Hibbing, J.R. and Theiss-Morse, E. (2002), Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs About How Government Should Work, New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hibbing, M.V., Ritchie, M. and Anderson, M.R. (2011), ‘Personality and political discussion’, Political Behavior 33: 601–624.Google Scholar
Jacquet, V. (2017), ‘Explaining non-participation in deliberative mini-publics’, European Journal of Political Research 56: 640–659.Google Scholar
Jennstål, J. and Niemeyer, S.J. (2014), ‘The deliberative citizen: the role of personality and context in deliberative behaviour’. Working Paper Series, Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra, Canberra.Google Scholar
Karjalainen, M. and Rapeli, L. (2015), ‘Who will not deliberate? Attrition in a multi-stage citizen deliberation experiment’, Quality & Quantity 1: 407–422.Google Scholar
Lubensky, R. and Carson, L. (2013), ‘Choose me: the challenges of national random selection’, in Carson L. and Gastil J. (eds), The Australian Citizens’ Parliament and the Future of Deliberative Democracy, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, pp. 35–48.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, M.K. and Warren, M.E. (2012), ‘Two trust-based uses of minipublics in democratic systems’, in Parkinson J. and Mansbridge J.J. (eds), Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 95–124.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, J.J. (1999), ‘Everyday talk in the deliberative system’, in Macedo S. (ed.) Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 211–239.Google Scholar
Martin, L.S., Oades, L.G. and Caputi, P. (2012), ‘What is personality change coaching and why is it important’, International Coaching Psychology Review 7: 185–193.Google Scholar
McAdams, D.P. and Pals, J.L. (2006), ‘A new Big Five. Fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality’, American Psychologist 61: 204–217.Google Scholar
McCrae, R.R., Jang, K.L., Livesley, J.W., Riemann, R. and Angleitner, A. (2001), ‘Sources of structure: genetic, environmental, and artifactual influences on the covariation of personality traits’, Journal of Personality 69: 511–535.Google Scholar
Mondak, J.J. (2010), Personality and the Foundations of Political Behavior, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mondak, J.J. and Halperin, K.D. (2008), ‘A framework for the study of personality and political behavior’, British Journal of Political Science 38: 335–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondak, J.J., Hibbing, M.V., Canache, D., Seligson, M.A. and Anderson, M.A. (2010), ‘Personality and civic engagement: an integrative framework for the study of trait effects on political behavior’, American Political Science Review 104: 85–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, D.C. (2006), Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative Versus Participatory Democracy, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mutz, D.C. (2013), ‘Reflections on hearing the other side, in theory and in practice’, Critical Review 25: 260–276.Google Scholar
Neblo, M.A., Esterling, K.M., Kennedy, R.P., Lazer, D.M.J. and Sokhey, A.E. (2010), ‘Who wants to deliberate—and why?’, American Political Science Review 104: 566–583.Google Scholar
Rammstedt, B. and John, O.P. (2007), ‘Measuring personality in one minute or less: a 10-item short version of the Big Five inventory in English and German’, Journal of Research in Personality 41: 203–212.Google Scholar
Roberts, B.W., Wood, D. and Caspi, A. (2008), ‘The development of personality traits in adulthood’, in John O.P., Robins R.W. and Pervin L.A. (eds), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 3rd edn, New York: Guilford Press, pp. 375–398.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, G. (2002), ‘The crisis of consensus in postwar Sweden’, in Witoszek N. and Trädgårdh L. (eds), Culture and Crisis: The Case of Germany and Sweden, New York: Berghahn Books, pp. 170–201.Google Scholar
Ryan, M. and Smith, G. (2014), ‘Defining minipublics’, in Grönlund K., Bächtiger A. and Setälä M. (eds), Deliberative Mini-Publics: Practices, Promises, Pitfalls, Essex: ECPR Press, pp. 9–17.Google Scholar
Sanders, L. (1997), ‘Against deliberation’, Political Theory 25: 347–376.Google Scholar
Sass, J. and Dryzek, J.S. (2014), ‘Deliberative cultures’, Political Theory 42: 3–25.Google Scholar
Smith, G. (2012), ‘Deliberative democracy and mini-publics’, in Geissel B. and Newton K. (eds), Evaluating Democratic Innovations: Curing the Democratic Malaise?, London: Routledge, pp. 90–111.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. (2002), ‘The law of group polarization’, The Journal of Political Philosophy 10: 175–195.Google Scholar
Svensson, J. (2007), ‘Its a long way from Helsingborg to Porto Alegre’, Journal of Public Deliberation 4: Article 4.Google Scholar
Thompson, D.F. (2008), ‘Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science’, Annual Review of Political Science 11: 497–520.Google Scholar
Vecchione, M. and Caprara, G.V. (2009), ‘Personality determinants of political participation: the contribution of traits and self-efficacy beliefs’, Personality and Individual Differences 46: 487–492.Google Scholar
Wagerman, S.A. and Funder, D.C. (2009), ‘Personality psychology of situations’, in Corr P.J. and Gerald M. (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 27–42.Google Scholar
Young, I.M. (2000), Inclusion and democracy, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Jennstål supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Jennstål supplementary material(File)
File 312 KB