Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T00:21:49.955Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discussion's Impact on Political Allocations: An Experimental Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Adam F. Simon  and
Tracy Sulkin
Adam F. Simon
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-3530. e-mail: asimon@u.washington.edu
Tracy Sulkin
Affiliation:
Departments of Political Science and Speech Communication, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Lincoln Hall 361, 702 South Wright Street, Urbana, IL 61801. e-mail: tsulkin@uiuc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this study, we unite two experimental traditions to examine the impact of discursive processes on political decision making. We directly manipulate the presence and timing of discussion in the “divide-the-dollar” game to assess the effects of discussion on participants' allocations and perceptions of the game's legitimacy. To investigate the influence of structure, we also manipulate the presence of a majority/minority cleavage among participants. The dependent measures in all instances are the players' allocations, the outcome of the game, and psychometric indicators of legitimacy perceptions. Results indicate that the presence of discussion can generate outcomes that are perceived as more equitable and fair in some circumstances—namely, when a cleavage is present. These findings establish the utility of this paradigm, as well as an important baseline for assessing the probable impacts of proposals to integrate deliberation into political decision making.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 10 , Issue 4: Special Issue on Experimental Methods in Political Science , Autumn 2002 , pp. 403 - 412
Copyright
Copyright © Political Methodology Section of the American Political Science Association 2002 

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.)

References

Baron, David, and Ferejohn, John. 1989. “Bargaining in ‘Legislatures.’ ” American Political Science Review 83:1181–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohman, James. 1996. Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bornstein, Gary, and Ben-Yossef, Meyrev. 1994. “Cooperation in Intergroup and Single-Group Social Dilemmas.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 30:52–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornstein, Gary, Erev, Ido, and Rosen, O. 1990. “Intergroup Competition as a Structural Solution to Social Dilemmas.” Social Behaviour 5:247–260.Google Scholar
Chambers, Simone. 1996. Reasonable Democracy: Jürgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Joshua. 1989. “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy.” In The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State, eds. Hamlin, A. and Pettit, P. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Press.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John. 1990. Discursive Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1998. Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, James. 1998. “The Basis for Discussion.” In Deliberative Democracy, ed. Elster, Jon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fishkin, James. 1991. Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Frohlich, Norman, and Oppenheimer, Joe. 1992. Choosing Justice: An Experimental Approach to Ethical Theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frohlich, Norman, and Oppenheimer, Joe. 1998. “Some Consequences of E-mail vs. Face-to-Face Communication in Experiments.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 35:389–403.Google Scholar
Groseclose, Tim, and Snyder, James. 1996. “Buying Supermajorities.” American Political Science Review 90:303–315.Google Scholar
Gutmann, Amy, and Thompson, Dennis. 1996. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action: Vol. 1. Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Hackett, Steven, Schlager, Edella, and Walker, James. 1994. “The Role of Communication in Resolving Commons Dilemmas: Experimental Evidence with Heterogeneous Appropriators.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 27:99–127.Google Scholar
Hibbing, John, and Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth. 2000. “Deliberation as a Source of System Delegitimation and Popular Disharmony.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Kagel, John, and Roth, Alvin. 1995. Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, Norbert, and Kaufman-Gilliland, Cynthia. 1994. “Communication, Commitment, and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66:513–529.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 1981. Beyond Adversary Democracy. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Mendelberg, Tali, and Oleske, John. 2000. “Race and Public Deliberation.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.Google Scholar
O'Neill, Shane. 1997. Impartiality in Context: Grounding Justice in a Pluralist World. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Orbell, John, van de Kragt, Alfons, and Dawes, Robyn. 1988. “Explaining Discussion-Induced Cooperation.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54:811–819.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor, Walker, James, and Gardner, Roy. 1992. “Covenants with and without a Sword: Self-Governance Is Possible.” American Political Science Review 86:404–417.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor, Walker, James, and Gardner, Roy. 1994. Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin. 1996. Who Deliberates? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sanders, Lynn. 1997. “Against Deliberation.” Political Theory 25:347–376.Google Scholar
Schauer, Frederick. 1997. “Discourse and Its Discontents.” Notre Dame Law Review 72:1309–1334.Google Scholar
Sened, Itai. 1996. “A Model of Coalition Formation: Theory and Evidence.” Journal of Politics 58:350–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sulkin, Tracy, and Simon, Adam. 2001. “Habermas in the Lab: A Study of Deliberation in an Experimental Setting.” Political Psychology 22:809–826.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom and Degoey, Peter. 1995. “Collective Restraint in Social Dilemmas.” Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 69:482–497.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 1996. “Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy.” In Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, ed. Benhabib, Seyla. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar