When Deliberation Produces Persuasion rather than Polarization: Measuring and modeling Small Group Dynamics in a Field Experiment

Kevin M Esterling,Taeku Lee,Archon Fung

doi:10.1017/s0007123419000243

Abstract

This article proposes a new statistical method to measure persuasion within small groups, and applies this approach to a large-scale randomized deliberative experiment. The authors define the construct of ‘persuasion’ as a change in the systematic component of an individual's preference, separate from measurement error, that results from exposure to interpersonal interaction. Their method separately measures persuasion in a latent (left–right) preference space and in a topic-specific preference space. The model's functional form accommodates tests of substantive hypotheses found in the small-group literature. The article illustrates the measurement method by examining changes in study participants' views on US fiscal policy resulting from the composition of the small discussion groups to which they were randomly assigned. The results are inconsistent with the ‘law of small-group polarization’, the typical result found in small-group research; instead, the authors observe patterns of latent and policy-specific persuasion consistent with the aspirations of deliberation.

Highlights

Persuasion is central to any conception of democratic political communication (Broockman and Kalla 2016; Kalla and Broockman 2018; Minozzi et al 2015; Mutz, Sniderman and Brody 1996)
We demonstrate this method by testing for the causal effects of exposure to small-group discussion at the ‘Our Budget, Our Economy’ nationwide town hall meetings organized by AmericaSpeaks, an event at which nearly 3,000 participants were randomly assigned to small-group discussion tables
The patterns of persuasion we observe are inconsistent with the ‘law of small-group polarization’ that is the typical finding in small-group research (Sunstein 2002), as well as with motivated reasoning observed in partisan contexts (Bolsen, Druckman and Cook 2014)

Summary

Introduction

Persuasion is central to any conception of democratic political communication (Broockman and Kalla 2016; Kalla and Broockman 2018; Minozzi et al 2015; Mutz, Sniderman and Brody 1996). Randomization is the key to identifying both of these components of persuasion; without randomization the model results are likely to be driven by confounding through self-selection processes We demonstrate this method by testing for the causal effects of exposure to small-group discussion at the ‘Our Budget, Our Economy’ nationwide town hall meetings organized by AmericaSpeaks, an event at which nearly 3,000 participants were randomly assigned to small-group discussion tables. Participants’ seating assignments were randomized among small-group discussion tables, and we administered opinion surveys both before and after the event We use this application to demonstrate our novel strategy to measure persuasion within small groups, and to assess the extent and nature of persuasion that occurred at this event. The standard approach to measuring persuasion in the small-group literature evaluates changes in a discussion participant’s self-reported preferences from before to after a discussion event (for example, Grönlund, Herne and Setälä 2015; Schkade, Sunstein and Hastie 2010; Westwood 2015)

Results

Discussion

Conclusion