Tag Archives | Deliberation

Who Learns from Deliberative Minipublics? Identity-Based Differences in Knowledge Gains across Thirteen Citizens' Initiative Review Experiments

Kristinn Már Ársælsson, John Gastil

Sociological Science June 30, 2025
10.15195/v12.a17


Voters often show low levels of accurate policy information owing to misinformation and directional motivated reasoning. Extant research shows that participants in randomly selected deliberative groups—commonly called “minipublics”—can update their beliefs and deliver reasoned policy analysis and recommendations. When distributed to a wider public, such information can bypass motivated reasoning heuristics to improve policy knowledge across the electorate. However, critics posit that these benefits may spread unevenly across demographic, political, and other social subgroups. To investigate that claim, we analyzed survey experiments conducted across 13 realworld minipublics with more than 10,000 respondents and more than 60,000 knowledge scores. Results showed that advisory minipublics boosted policy knowledge evenly across many voter groups, but gains were slightly diminished for racial/ethnic minorities and some income brackets. Further analysis indicates that these differences did not stem from variations in deliberative faith or preexisting levels of policy knowledge.
Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Kristinn Már Ársælsson: Social Sciences, Duke Kunshan University
E-mail:kristinn.mar@dukekunshan.edu.cn

John Gastil: Communication Arts and Sciences, Public Policy, and Political Science, Pennsylvania State University
E-mail: jwg22@psu.edu

Acknowledgments: The authors thank all of those who have made possible this ongoing program of research, including our wider team of collaborators noted at the Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR) Research Project site (https://sites.psu.edu/citizensinitiativereview) and Healthy Democracy, which provided open access to the CIR process itself. Funding was made possible by The Democracy Fund (contract “2015-2016 Citizens’ Initiative Review Study and Reporting”), the National Science Foundation (Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences: Decision, Risk and Management Sciences, Award # 1357276/1357444 and Award #0961774), a Kettering Foundation joint learning agreement (“Examining deliberation and the cultivation of public engagement at the 2012 Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review”), and a University of Washington Royalty Research Fund grant (“Panel Survey Investigation of the Oregon Citizen Initiative Review”).

Supplemental Materials

Reproducibility Package: Stata replication code and data are available on the Open Science Framework (OSF), https://osf.io/rnpcq/.

  • Citation: Ársælsson, Kristinn Már, John Gastil. 2025. “Who Learns from Deliberative Minipublics? Identity-Based Differences in Knowledge Gains across Thirteen Citizens’ Initiative Review Experiments” Sociological Science 12: 388-408.
  • Received: April 18, 2025
  • Accepted: May 15, 2025
  • Editors: Arnout van de Rijt, Maria Abascal
  • DOI: 10.15195/v12.a17

0

What Are You Talking about? Discussion Frequency of Issues Captured in Common Survey Questions

Turgut Keskintürk, Kevin Kiley, Stephen Vaisey

Sociological Science May 2, 2025
10.15195/v12.a12


Social science surveys regularly ask respondents to generate opinions or positions on issues deemed to be of political and social importance, such as confidence in government officials or federal spending priorities. Many theories assume that interpersonal deliberation is a primary mechanism through which people develop positions on such issues, but it is unclear how often the issues captured by such questions become a topic of conversation. Using an original survey of 2,117 American adults, we quantify how often people report discussing the issues tapped by 88 questions in the General Social Survey’s core questionnaire, as well as how often respondents say they individually reflect on these issues, how important they believe them to be, and how sensitive they believe it would be to discuss those issues. We find that the majority of respondents report discussing the majority of issues fewer than once or twice a year, with the modal response that respondents have never discussed an issue in the past year. At the same time, some topics—such as religious beliefs and generic appraisals of political leaders—come up quite frequently, and a small number of respondents report frequently discussing most items. We consider the implications of these findings for theories of belief formation.
Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Turgut Keskintürk: Contributed equally. Department of Sociology, Duke University
E-mail: turgut.keskinturk@duke.edu

Kevin Kiley: Contributed equally. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, North Carolina State University
E-mail: kkiley@ncsu.edu

Stephen Vaisey: Department of Sociology and Political Science, Duke University
E-mail: stephen.vaisey@duke.edu

Supplemental Materials

Reproducibility Package: The data and code to reproduce the full set of analyses are provided at https://osf.io/u8b7v.

  • Citation: Keskintürk, Turgut, Kevin Kiley, Stephen Vaisey. 2025. “What Are You Talking about? Discussion Frequency of Issues Captured in Common Survey Questions” Sociological Science 12: 256-276.
  • Received: January 2, 2025
  • Accepted: March 26, 2025
  • Editors: Ari Adut, Peter Bearman
  • DOI: 10.15195/v12.a12

0
SiteLock