Abstract

Deliberative (and educational) theories typically predict knowledge gains will be enhanced by information structure and discussion. In two studies, we experimentally manipulated key features of deliberative public engagement (information, instructions, and discussion) and measured impacts on cognitive-affective engagement and knowledge about nanotechnology. We also examined the direct and moderating impacts of individual differences in need for cognition and gender. Findings indicated little impact of information (organized by topic or by pro-con relevance). Instructions (prompts to think critically) decreased engagement in Study 1, and increased it in Study 2, but did not impact post-knowledge. Group discussion had strong positive benefits for self-reported cognitive-affective engagement across studies. Also, for some types of engagement, effects were more positive for women than men. When predicting knowledge, there also was some evidence that discussion was more positive for women than men. Finally, need for cognition positively predicted engagement and knowledge gains, but rarely moderated the experimental effects. Given these mixed results, future research should continue to test theoretical assumptions about the effects of specific deliberative design features.

Highlights

  • There are many desirable potential outcomes of participating in public engagements

  • There are a large number of ways that individuals might “engage” during public engagement activities (PytlikZillig, Hutchens, Muhlberger, Wang, Harris, Neiman, & Tomkins, 2013), but one type—deep cognitive engagement—defines deliberation (Mercier & Landemore, 2012; Morrell, 2005)

  • Muhlberger and Weber (2006), for example, carefully separated the effects of reading from discussion and found learning occurred during reading, but no significant additional learning gains occurred during discussion

Read more

Summary

Introduction

There are many desirable potential outcomes of participating in public engagements. Learning outcomes are especially important because knowledge is a prerequisite to offering informed policy input, which may make the input more useful and influential (Guston, 2014; Muhlberger & Weber, 2006). Prior research suggests deliberative public engagements, in particular, may improve public understanding of science and technology by providing participants with opportunities to study relevant information as they form their preferences (e.g., Farrar et al, 2010). There are a large number of ways that individuals might “engage” during public engagement activities (PytlikZillig, Hutchens, Muhlberger, Wang, Harris, Neiman, & Tomkins, 2013), but one type—deep cognitive engagement—defines deliberation (Mercier & Landemore, 2012; Morrell, 2005). Prior research suggests deep cognitive processing can create larger and longer-lasting knowledge gains (Dinsmore & Alexander, 2012; Dunlosky, Rawson, Marsh, Nathan, & Willingham, 2013), providing support for encouraging deep processing during public engagements. Critics of the “deliberative ideal” argue against emphasizing or https://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol13/iss2/art

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call