A greement and disagreement in group deliberation

Effects on deliberation satisfaction, future engagement, and decision legitimacy

Jennifer Stromer-Galley, Peter Muhlberger

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

65 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

While research on democratic deliberation has burgeoned, little systematic work has been done on the effects of the communication content of deliberations. We examine how expressions of agreement and disagreement during online deliberation affect participants' evaluations of their experience, including satisfaction, reevaluation of opinions, and expected future participation. The effects of these evaluations on perceived legitimacy and opinion ambivalence also are considered. Several alternative hypotheses are entertained, including avoidance, in which high disagreement reduces evaluations; reevaluation, in which high disagreement enhances evaluations; sociability, in which high agreement enhances evaluations; balance, which suggests that a balance of agreement and disagreement would enhance evaluations; and disequilibrium, which indicates that high agreement and low disagreement and the reverse yield good evaluations. The hypotheses are tested with survey data and a discussion content analysis of a representative sample of 179 individuals who participated in a deliberation experiment. Findings indicate that deliberation evaluations are important for decision legitimacy and ambivalence. Also, the sociability hypothesis is strongly confirmed for satisfaction. The disequilibrium hypothesis is confirmed for future engagement. The avoidance hypothesis is not supported, contesting the prevalent view that people seek to avoid political disagreements.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)173-192
Number of pages20
JournalPolitical Communication
Volume26
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

deliberation
legitimacy
Communication
evaluation
Group
Experiments
sociability
ambivalence
content analysis
participation
communication
experiment
experience

Keywords

  • Agreement
  • Attitude strength
  • Deliberation
  • Deliberation satisfaction
  • Political disagreement
  • Political motivation
  • Stealth democracy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Communication
  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

@article{232e81b6750048eda96ae0d05092ef55,
title = "A greement and disagreement in group deliberation: Effects on deliberation satisfaction, future engagement, and decision legitimacy",
abstract = "While research on democratic deliberation has burgeoned, little systematic work has been done on the effects of the communication content of deliberations. We examine how expressions of agreement and disagreement during online deliberation affect participants' evaluations of their experience, including satisfaction, reevaluation of opinions, and expected future participation. The effects of these evaluations on perceived legitimacy and opinion ambivalence also are considered. Several alternative hypotheses are entertained, including avoidance, in which high disagreement reduces evaluations; reevaluation, in which high disagreement enhances evaluations; sociability, in which high agreement enhances evaluations; balance, which suggests that a balance of agreement and disagreement would enhance evaluations; and disequilibrium, which indicates that high agreement and low disagreement and the reverse yield good evaluations. The hypotheses are tested with survey data and a discussion content analysis of a representative sample of 179 individuals who participated in a deliberation experiment. Findings indicate that deliberation evaluations are important for decision legitimacy and ambivalence. Also, the sociability hypothesis is strongly confirmed for satisfaction. The disequilibrium hypothesis is confirmed for future engagement. The avoidance hypothesis is not supported, contesting the prevalent view that people seek to avoid political disagreements.",
keywords = "Agreement, Attitude strength, Deliberation, Deliberation satisfaction, Political disagreement, Political motivation, Stealth democracy",
author = "Jennifer Stromer-Galley and Peter Muhlberger",
year = "2009",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1080/10584600902850775",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "26",
pages = "173--192",
journal = "Political Communication",
issn = "1058-4609",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A greement and disagreement in group deliberation

T2 - Effects on deliberation satisfaction, future engagement, and decision legitimacy

AU - Stromer-Galley, Jennifer

AU - Muhlberger, Peter

PY - 2009/4

Y1 - 2009/4

N2 - While research on democratic deliberation has burgeoned, little systematic work has been done on the effects of the communication content of deliberations. We examine how expressions of agreement and disagreement during online deliberation affect participants' evaluations of their experience, including satisfaction, reevaluation of opinions, and expected future participation. The effects of these evaluations on perceived legitimacy and opinion ambivalence also are considered. Several alternative hypotheses are entertained, including avoidance, in which high disagreement reduces evaluations; reevaluation, in which high disagreement enhances evaluations; sociability, in which high agreement enhances evaluations; balance, which suggests that a balance of agreement and disagreement would enhance evaluations; and disequilibrium, which indicates that high agreement and low disagreement and the reverse yield good evaluations. The hypotheses are tested with survey data and a discussion content analysis of a representative sample of 179 individuals who participated in a deliberation experiment. Findings indicate that deliberation evaluations are important for decision legitimacy and ambivalence. Also, the sociability hypothesis is strongly confirmed for satisfaction. The disequilibrium hypothesis is confirmed for future engagement. The avoidance hypothesis is not supported, contesting the prevalent view that people seek to avoid political disagreements.

AB - While research on democratic deliberation has burgeoned, little systematic work has been done on the effects of the communication content of deliberations. We examine how expressions of agreement and disagreement during online deliberation affect participants' evaluations of their experience, including satisfaction, reevaluation of opinions, and expected future participation. The effects of these evaluations on perceived legitimacy and opinion ambivalence also are considered. Several alternative hypotheses are entertained, including avoidance, in which high disagreement reduces evaluations; reevaluation, in which high disagreement enhances evaluations; sociability, in which high agreement enhances evaluations; balance, which suggests that a balance of agreement and disagreement would enhance evaluations; and disequilibrium, which indicates that high agreement and low disagreement and the reverse yield good evaluations. The hypotheses are tested with survey data and a discussion content analysis of a representative sample of 179 individuals who participated in a deliberation experiment. Findings indicate that deliberation evaluations are important for decision legitimacy and ambivalence. Also, the sociability hypothesis is strongly confirmed for satisfaction. The disequilibrium hypothesis is confirmed for future engagement. The avoidance hypothesis is not supported, contesting the prevalent view that people seek to avoid political disagreements.

KW - Agreement

KW - Attitude strength

KW - Deliberation

KW - Deliberation satisfaction

KW - Political disagreement

KW - Political motivation

KW - Stealth democracy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70449591727&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70449591727&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/10584600902850775

DO - 10.1080/10584600902850775

M3 - Article

VL - 26

SP - 173

EP - 192

JO - Political Communication

JF - Political Communication

SN - 1058-4609

IS - 2

ER -