The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How Deliberation Affects Policy Opinions
Abstract
Theorists argue that deliberation promotes enlightenment and consensus, but scholars do not know how deliberation affects policy opinions. Using the deliberative democracy and public opinion literatures as a guide, I develop a theory of opinion updating where citizens who deliberate revise their prior beliefs, particularly when they encounter consensual messages. A key aspect of this model is that opinion strength moderates the deliberative opinion change process. In two separate propensity score analyses using panel survey data from a deliberative forum and cross-sectional surveys, I show how deliberation and discussion both affect opinions toward Social Security reform. However, deliberation differs from ordinary discussion in that participants soften strongly held views, encounter different perspectives, and learn readily. Thus, deliberation increases knowledge and alters opinions, but it does so selectively based on the quality and diversity of the messages as well as the willingness of participants to keep an open mind.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“It improves decision quality and problem-solving by enabling comprehensive analysis and evaluation of options, fostering a deeper understanding of issues and outcomes [9, 71].”
From Towards Human-AI Deliberation: Design and Evaluation of LLM-Empowered Deliberative AI for AI-Assisted Decision-Making (2025) · cites this paper as [9]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion
Zaller, J. R. (1992) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511818691 · Cited by 7,785
The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere
(2006) · Habermas · doi:10.4324/9780203020166-5 · Cited by 4,779
Analyzing Incomplete Political Science Data: An Alternative Algorithm for Multiple Imputation
King, G., Honaker, J., Joseph, A., & Scheve, K. (2001) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055401000235 · Cited by 1,834
Cross-cutting Social Networks: Testing Democratic Theory in Practice
MUTZ, D. C. (2002) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055402004264 · Cited by 1,069
Facilitating Communication across Lines of Political Difference: The Role of Mass Media
Mutz, D. C. (2001) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055401000223 · Cited by 700
An affirmed self and an open mind: Self‐affirmation and sensitivity to argument strength
Correll, J., Spencer, S. J., & Zanna, M. P. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2003.07.001 · Cited by 225
Cited by
Are Survey Experiments Externally Valid?
BARABAS, J., & JERIT, J. (2010) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055410000092 · Cited by 481
Self-citationThe role of evidence in politics: Motivated reasoning and persuasion among politicians.
Baekgaard, M., Christensen, J., Dahlmann, C. M., Mathiasen, A., & Petersen, N. B. G. (2019) · British Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s0007123417000084 · Cited by 209
What Motivates Reasoning? A Theory of Goal‐Dependent Political Evaluation
Groenendyk, E., & Krupnikov, Y. (2021) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12562 · Cited by 85
Ma, S., Chen, Q., Wang, X., Zheng, C., Peng, Z., Yin, M., & Ma, X. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713423 · Cited by 48
Forecasting tournaments, epistemic humility and attitude depolarization
Mellers, B., Tetlock, P., & Arkes, H. R. (2019) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2018.10.021 · Cited by 46
Nordbrandt, M. (2022) · Frontiers in Political Science · doi:10.3389/fpos.2022.921188 · Cited by 5
“Results from a study by Barabas (2004) suggest that the risk of backlash is higher in colloquial, non-moderated, communicative settings compared to discussion settings where deliberative norms such as civility and respectfulness are encouraged, such as deliberative forums.”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- BARABAS, J.
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2004-11
- Volume
- 98
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 687-701
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W2115048421
- Cited by
- 487
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 55.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
