Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

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

  • Mikael Persson (a1), Peter Esaiasson (a1) and Mikael Gilljam (a1)

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.

Copyright

Corresponding author

References

Hide All
Anderson, C.J., Blais, A., Bowler, S., Donovan, T.Listhaug, O. (2005), Losers’ Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy, New York: Oxford University Press.
Bohman, J. (2009), ‘Epistemic value and deliberative democracy’, The Good Society 18: 2834.
Bovens, L.Rabinowicz, W. (2004), ‘Voting procedures for complex collective decisions – an epistemic perspective’, Ratio Juris 17: 241258.
Bovens, L.Rabinowicz, W. (2006), ‘Democratic answers to complex questions – an epistemic perspective’, Synthese 150: 131153.
Bowler, S., Donovan, S.Karp, J. (2007), ‘Enraged or engaged? Preferences for direct citizen participation in affluent democracies’, Political Research Quarterly 60: 351377.
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: 394407.
Chambers, S. (2003), ‘Deliberative democratic theory’, Annual Review of Political Science 6: 307326.
Cohen, J. (1997), ‘Deliberation and democratic legitimacy’, in J. Bohman and W. Rehg (eds), Deliberative Democracy, Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 6791.
Cooke, M. (2000), ‘Five arguments for deliberative democracy’, Political Studies 48: 947969.
Dahl, R.A. (1989), Democracy and Its Critics, New Haven: Yale University Press.
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: 315344.
Dryzek, J.S. (2000), Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, and Contestations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dryzek, J.S.List, C. (2003), ‘Social choice theory and deliberative democracy: a reconciliation’, British Journal of Political Science 33: 128.
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, 38963962.
Esaiasson, P. (2010), ‘Will citizens take no for an answer? What government officials can do to enhance decision acceptance’, European Political Science Review 2: 351371.
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.x
Estlund, D. (2008), Democratic Authority, Princeton: University Press.
Fearon, J.D. (1998), ‘Deliberation as discussion’, in J. Elster (ed.), Deliberative Democracy, Cambridge: University Press, pp. 4468.
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: 22532261.
Fishkin, J.S.Luskin, C. (2005), ‘Experiment with a democratic ideal: deliberative polling and public opinion’, Acta Politica 40: 284298.
Gerber, A., Huber, G.Washington, E. (2010), ‘Party affiliation, partisanship, and political beliefs: a field experiment’, American Political Science Review 104: 720744.
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: 7388.
Goodin, R.E. (2008), Innovating Democracy: Democratic Theory and Practice After the Deliberative Turn, Oxford: University Press.
Grimes, M. (2008), ‘Consent, political trust and compliance: rejoinder to Kaina's remarks on “Organizing Consent” ’, European Journal of Political Research 47: 522535.
Grönlund, K., Setälä, M.Herne, K. (2010), ‘Deliberation and civic virtue – lessons from a citizen deliberation experiment’, European Political Science Review 2: 95117.
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: 96109.
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. 258272.
Knight, J.Johnson, J. (1994), ‘Aggregation and deliberation: on the possibility of democratic legitimacy’, Political Theory 22.
Lind, E.A.Tyler, T.R. (1988), The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, New York: Plenum.
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: 952959.
List, C.Goodin, R.E. (2001), ‘Epistemic democracy: generalizing the Condorcet jury theorem’, Journal of Political Philosophy 9(3): 277306.
Luskin, R.C., Fishkin, J.S.Jowell, R. (2002), ‘Considered opinions: deliberative polling Britain’, British Journal of Political Science 32: 455487.
Manin, B. (1987), ‘On legitimacy and political deliberation’, Political Theory 15: 338368.
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: 64100.
Morrell, M.E. (1999), ‘Citizen's evaluations of participatory democratic procedures: normative theory meets empirical science’, Political Research Quarterly 52: 293322.
Morrell, M.E. (2005), ‘Deliberation, democratic decision-making and internal political efficacy’, Political Behavior 27: 4969.
Mutz, D.C. (2006), Hearing the Other Side, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Mutz, D.C. (2008), ‘Is deliberative democracy a falsifiable theory?’, Annual Review of Political Science 11: 521538.
Palfrey, T.R. (2009), ‘Laboratory experiment in political economy’, Annual Review of Political Science 12: 379388.
Pateman, C. (1970), Participation and Democratic Theory, London: Cambridge University Press.
Przeworski, A. (1998), ‘Deliberation and ideological domination’, in Elster J. (ed.), Deliberative Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 140160.
Raudenbush, S.W. (1997), ‘Statistical analysis and optimal design for cluster randomized trials’, Psychological Methods 2: 173185.
Rosenberg, S.W. (2007), ‘Introduction’, in Rosenberg S.W. (ed.), Deliberation, Participation and Democracy: Can the People Govern?. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 122.
Sanders, L.M. (1997), ‘Against deliberation’, Political Theory 25: 347376.
Simon, A.F.Sulkin, T. (2002), ‘Discussion's impact on political allocations: an experimental approach’, Political Analysis 10: 403412.
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.
Scharpf, F.W. (2009), ‘Legitimacy in the multilevel European polity’, European Political Science Review 1: 173204.
Sulkin, T.Simon, A.F. (2001), ‘Habermas in the lab: a study of deliberation in an experimental setting’, Political Psychology 22: 809826.
Setälä, M., Grönlund, K.Herne, K. (2010), ‘Citizen deliberation on nuclear power: a comparison of two decision-making methods’, Political Studies 58: 688714.
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: 309341.
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. 277296.
Thompson, D.F. (2008), ‘Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science’, The Annual Review of Political Science 11: 497520.
Tyler, T.R. (1990), Why People Obey the Law: Procedural Justice, Legitimacy and Compliance, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Tyler, T.R. (2006), ‘Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation’, Annual Review of Psychology 57: 375400.
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: 560577.
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: 10341046.
Warren, M. (1992), ‘Democratic theory and self-transformation’, American Political Science Review 86: 823.
Young, I.M. (2000), Inclusion and Democracy, New York: Oxford University Press.

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed