A roundup of the latest research on psychological phenomena in democratic deliberation.

Nonetheless, much of what happens to participants during deliberation remains a mystery, which deserves our attention. To this end, the Journal of Deliberative Democracy has published a special issue presenting recent research findings about the psychological part of the deliberative process. This Special Issue on Psychological Phenomena in Democratic Deliberation contributes to our understanding of recent research concerning reasoning, feeling, and identity in citizens’ discussions of public matters.

Much of what happens to participants during deliberation remains a mystery.

Deliberation and Reasoning

One of the key areas to which the special issue contributes is our understanding of how citizens reason when deliberating. To gain a better grasp of people’s deliberative reasoning, Ken Fischer, Justin Reedy, Cameron Piercy and Rashmi Thapaliya analyzed qualitative data from participants in a minipublic discussion on whether to legalize medical marijuana. The results revealed that the participants’ process of thinking and arguing about the issue could be organized into categories of inductive, deductive, causal and analogical reasoning, as well as posing questions and expressing uncertainty. Fischer and colleagues also learned that people used four main approaches to voice their disagreements: questioning, repackaging, agreeing-to-disagree and discrediting others.

Robert C. Richards Jr. and Michael Neblo proposed an explanation of how the setting in which people talk about public issues affects people’s goals for those conversations, and how those goals then influence whether people give reasons during those discussions. These essays give us a roadmap for further studies of citizens’ reasoning during deliberation, the arguments available to citizens when discussing controversial topics, how citizens disagree with one another and the role of goals and plans in citizens’ conversations about public problems.

When deliberating in a minipublic, people experience a range of emotions: from enthusiasm and happiness to anxiety, anger and sympathy.

Deliberation and Feeling

The special issue also shows that emotions—while not necessarily distinct from reasoning—play a foundational role in the deliberative process. Confirming findings from an earlier study, Michael E. Morrell, Genevieve Fuji Johnson and Laura W. Black revealed that, when deliberating in a minipublic, people experience a range of emotions: from enthusiasm and happiness to anxiety, anger, and sympathy. In addition, Morrell and colleagues showed that the procedures used in the discussion influence which emotions the participants experience in different stages of the deliberative process. Offering the views of practitioners on the same topic, Robert R. Stains Jr. and John Sarrouf explain how the experience of powerful emotions—especially those arising from sharply divided social identities—can discourage deliberation. They also found that the procedures of the discussion play a crucial role. According to Stains and Sarrouf, structured forms of dialogue help citizens control their strong emotions and feel more empowered as they prepare to participate in deliberative decision making. Both of these articles highlight how the use of skilled facilitators and the careful design of discussion procedures are vital to the success of deliberation in minipublics.

These studies have implications for the practice of public deliberations about conventional issues, as well as emotionally charged topics. Regarding deliberations on ordinary public problems, Morrell and colleagues’ research suggests the use of discussion procedures affording participants ample opportunities to express themselves and encouraging participants to carefully consider views that differ from their own. With respect to organizing a deliberation about a topic likely to evoke powerful emotions, Stains and Sarrouf recommend preceding that deliberation with a facilitated, structured dialogue, which participants would be invited to help design. The dialogue procedures should aim at accomplishing clear, non-adversarial goals, and should involve the use of relatively formal discussion patterns (e.g., a set speaking order and specific durations for talking) and ground rules aimed at preventing stereotyping and personal attacks.

Deliberation and Identity

The role of identity in deliberation is the third topic covered by the special issue. Zohreh Khoban explored whether becoming aware of social differences between participants in an upcoming deliberative discussion would influence people’s expectations about what would happen during that discussion. Using a survey experiment about hypothetical deliberative minipublics concerning issues of immigration control and the use of gender quotas on corporate boards, Khoban found that people who were made highly aware of the social differences between minipublic participants were more likely to expect that the discussions during minipublics would involve acknowledging those social differences. Graham Wright argued that persuasion, which many theorists insist is central to deliberative discussion, may not be effective when participants deliberate about a conflict involving their social identities. Drawing on Mary Parker Follett’s idea of “integration,” Wright contends that, instead of persuasion, a deliberative approach focused on the co-creation of mutually acceptable solutions may be more productive. Wright demonstrates how this approach might work by looking at the contemporary debate between vaccine advocates and members of the “vaccine hesitancy and refusal” community.

In terms of the practice implications of Khoban’s study, deliberative practitioners should be mindful of how their recruiting statements about social groups that are relevant to the topic of the deliberation (e.g., descriptions of sampling methods) may influence participants’ expectations about the deliberative event or discussions during the event. Further, Wright’s research indicates that, when designing a deliberation about a divisive topic that evokes strong group identities, practitioners should build opportunities into the agenda for participants to collectively explore mutually beneficial solutions using brainstorming or similar methods.

Instead of persuasion, a deliberative approach focused on the co-creation of mutually acceptable solutions may be more productive.

Conclusion

Considered together, these six essays expand our understanding of how people’s reasoning, emotions and identities affect the process of deliberating about contentious public issues. By presenting new theoretical models and empirical evidence, these articles also sketch out promising paths for future research into the psychological dimensions of democratic deliberation.

About the Authors

Robert C. Richards, Jr. is an Assistant Professor at the University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service, where he teaches courses in communication, civic engagement, and law and ethics. He conducts research on democratic deliberation and participatory governance. His current research examines communication goals, sensemaking, and empowerment in citizens’ deliberations about public issues. He tweets at @rrichard09.

Michael E. Morrell is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Connecticut. His research examines deliberative democracy, the connections between empathy and democracy, and emotions in politics. His current research projects examine these in democratic mini-publics and online news comment platforms; he also continues to defend the role of empathy in democracy. He teaches a range of political theory and research methods courses, including the recently developed Political Theory and Popular Music.

Justin Reedy is an interdisciplinary social scientist who studies environmental and risk communication, health communication, and community deliberation and dialogue, with a strong focus on promoting justice and equity. Dr. Reedy is an associate professor in the Department of Communication and a faculty affiliate in the Institute for Public Policy Research & Analysis at the University of Oklahoma. His current research focuses on the use of deliberative forums to address environmental topics, health disparities, and biomedical ethics. He tweets at @justinsreedy.

David L. Brinker, Jr. is a political communication researcher specializing in deliberative democracy. He focuses on understanding how deliberation interventions help citizens self-govern together more effectively.