Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-z4vvc Total loading time: 0.279 Render date: 2021-03-06T12:19:24.524Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Learning from Debate: Institutions and Information

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2015

Abstract

We present a model and a laboratory experiment on the informativeness of debate, varying both informational and institutional variables. The informational variable we focus on is a novel factor affecting the extent to which audience members can learn from exposure to unpersuasive arguments. The more easily a listener can learn from an argument she finds unpersuasive, the greater the risk that the speaker will alienate this listener when she fails to persuade her. We find a strong interaction between speakers’ responsiveness to that risk and the institutions of debate. When listeners can learn from unpersuasive arguments, many speakers are discouraged from attempting persuasion, irrespective of the debate rules we consider. In contrast, when listeners cannot learn from unpersuasive arguments, debate rules affect speakers’ willingness to engage in persuasion.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

*

Eric S. Dickson (eric.dickson@nyu.edu), Catherine Hafer (catherine.hafer@nyu.edu), and Dimitri Landa (dimitri.landa@nyu.edu) are Associate Professors in the Department of Politics, New York University, 19 West 4th Street, New York, NY 10012. The authors benefitted from comments from Sandy Gordon, Rebecca Morton, seminar participants at the UC Berkeley, Paris School of Economics, University of Virginia, and Vanderbilt University, and audiences and discussants at the meetings of APSA, MPSA, The Public Choice Society, and SAET. We thank Dominik Duell and Marlene Guraieb for excellent research assistance. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2015.6

References

Austen-Smith, David. 1993. ‘Interested Experts and Policy Advice: Multiple Referrals Under Open Rule’. Games and Economic Behavior 5:343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austen-Smith, David, and Feddersen, Timothy. 2006. ‘Deliberation, Preference Uncertainty, and Voting Rules’. American Political Science Review 100(2):209217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, Vincent, and Sobel, Joel. 1982. ‘Strategic Information Transmission’. Econometrica 50:14311451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, Eric S., Hafer, Catherine, and Landa, Dimitri. 2008. ‘Cognition and Strategy: A Deliberation Experiment’. Journal of Politics 70(4):974989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, Urs. 2007. ‘z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments’. Experimental Economics 10(2):171178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forsythe, Robert, Horowitz, Joel L., Savin, N. E., and Sefton, Martin. 1994. ‘Fairness in Simple Bargaining Experiments’. Games and Economic Behavior 6:347369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerardi, Dino, and Yariv, Leeat. 2007. ‘Deliberative Voting’. Journal of Economic Theory 134(1):317338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glazer, Jacob, and Rubinstein, Ariel. 2001. ‘Debates and Decisions: On a Rationale for Argumentation Rules’. Games and Economic Behavior 36:158173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glazer, Jacob, and Rubinstein, Ariel. 2006. ‘A Study in the Pragmatics of Persuasion: A Game Theoretical Approach’. Theoretical Economics 1(4):395410.Google Scholar
Guarnaschelli, Serena, McKelvey, Richard C., and Palfrey, Thomas R. 2000. ‘An Experimental Study of Jury Decision Rules’. American Political Science Review 94:407423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafer, Catherine, and Landa, Dimitri. 2007. ‘Deliberation as Self-Discovery and Institutions for Political Speech’. Journal of Theoretical Politics 19(3):301327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafer, Catherine, and Landa, Dimitri. 2013. ‘Issue Advocacy and Mass Political Sophistication’. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 169(1):139152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landa, Dimitri and Meirowitz, Adam. 2009. ‘Game Theory, Information, and Deliberative Democracy’. American Journal of Political Science 53(2):427444.Google Scholar
Lanzi, Thomas, and Mathis, Jerome. 2004. ‘Argumentation in Sender–Receiver Games’. THEMA Working Papers 2004-19, Université de Cergy-Pontoise. Mimeographed.Google Scholar
Lipman, Barton, and Seppi, Duane J. 1995. ‘Robust Inference in Communication Games with Partial Provability’. Journal of Economic Theory 66(2):370405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur. 2002. ‘Deliberation Disconnected: What it Takes to Improve Civic Competence’. Law and Contemporary Problems 65(3):133150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, and McCubbins, Mathew D. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCubbins, Mathew D. and Rodriguez, Daniel B.. 2006. ‘When Does Deliberating Improve Decisionmaking?Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues 15:950.Google Scholar
Meirowitz, Adam. 2007. ‘In Defense of Exclusionary Deliberation: Communication and Voting with Private Beliefs and Values’. Journal of Theoretical Politics 19(3):301327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minozzi, William. 2011. ‘A Jamming Theory of Politics’. Journal of Politics 73(2):301315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
----Minozzi, William, and Woon, Jonathan. 2013. ‘Lying Aversion, Lobbying, and Context in a Strategic Communication Experiment’. Journal of Theoretical Politics 25(3):309337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, C. Daniel, and Mendelberg, Tali. 2013. ‘Political Deliberation’. In Leonie Huddy, David O. Sears, and Jack S. Levy (eds), 2nd edition of Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Patty, John. 2008. ‘Arguments-Based Collective Choice’. Journal of Theoretical Politics 20(4):379414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dickson supplementary material

Dickson supplementary material 1

PDF 373 KB

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 8
Total number of PDF views: 117 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 6th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Learning from Debate: Institutions and Information
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Learning from Debate: Institutions and Information
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Learning from Debate: Institutions and Information
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *