Mini-publics and Public Opinion: Two Survey-Based Experiments
| Published date | 01 February 2018 |
| Author | Shelley Boulianne |
| Date | 01 February 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032321717723507 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2017
Article
Political Studies
2018, Vol. 66(1) 119 –136
Mini-publics and Public
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
Opinion: Two Survey-Based
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321717723507
DOI: 10.1177/0032321717723507
journals.sagepub.com/home/psx
Experiments
Shelley Boulianne
Abstract
In intense forms of public consultations, select groups of citizens, called mini-publics, are given
a large amount of information and then asked to deliberate on policy directions and make
recommendations. Government officials may refuse to act upon these recommendations, unless
they are convinced that the recommendations have wider support in the populace. This article
presents the results of two survey-based experiments that assess the impact of mini-publics on
the opinions expressed by random digit dialing samples of the general public. The survey-based
experiments were conducted in 2013 (n = 400) and in 2014 (n = 400). Being informed about the
mini-publics affected support for some policies, but not others. In both studies, respondents who
were informed about the mini-publics reported higher levels of political efficacy compared to the
condition where respondents were not informed about the mini-public. Hearing about these mini-
publics helps to generate a sense of legitimacy in the political system.
Keywords
deliberation, experiment, public opinion, political trust, political efficacy
Accepted: 17 April 2017
Governments are facing a crisis of legitimacy as public confidence declines (Fournier
et al., 2011; Gastil, 2000). To address these trends, government officials host public con-
sultation initiatives around diverse topics. These initiatives demonstrate respect for the
democratic process and may increase the perceived legitimacy of the democratic system
and its outcomes. In some cases, these public consultations are used to guide public pol-
icy. The theory is that these policies will have greater legitimacy if they are derived from
citizens and/or are supported by citizen groups (see discussion in Nabatchi, 2012).
Beyond the legitimation of policy decisions, these citizen engagement initiatives are
expected to have broad pay-offs in terms of generating confidence in the political system
Department of Sociology, MacEwan University, Edmonton, AB, Canada
Corresponding author:
Shelley Boulianne, Department of Sociology, MacEwan University, Room 6-398, City Centre Campus, 10700
– 104 Avenue, Edmonton, AB T5J 4S2, Canada.
Email: sjboulianne@gmail.com
120
Political Studies 66(1)
(Gastil, 2000). However, little research has been done on how awareness of these initia-
tives affects the broader public’s policy views and political attitudes.
This article assesses whether a specific type of public consultation, a mini-public, has any
effects on the opinions expressed by a random digit dialing (RDD) sample of the general
public. The research draws upon the large body of research on information cues and endorse-
ment effects on voting and policy preferences (see reviews in Dewan et al., 2014 and Mutz,
2011). Like other studies of information cues (see Mutz, 2011), participants are randomly
assigned to hear or not hear a paragraph describing a mini-public. The two groups are com-
pared in terms of level of support for proposed policies, whether they render an opinion about
proposed policies, the degree to which they report trusting government decisions in the pol-
icy domain and the extent to which they feel they can influence government decisions. The
study is unique in presenting truthful descriptions of actual mini-publics, instead of fictitious
vignettes, reinforcing external validity (Mutz, 2011; Sniderman and Grob, 1996). Unlike
studies of endorsement effects, the endorsers are not political elites, but rather a select group
of citizens who have deliberated on the proposed policy initiatives. This project goes beyond
endorsement effects on policy views. This project examines the effects of hearing about
mini-publics on citizens’ sense of political efficacy and trust.
This project uses two survey-based experiments to examine the impact of mini-publics
on policy views: political trust and political efficacy. The replication of findings is important
in the current academic climate (Baker, 2015; Van Noorden, 2015). Some argue that ‘scien-
tific claims should not gain credence because of the status or authority of their originator but
by the replicability of their supporting evidence’ (Open Science Collaboration, 2015: 1).
The first study demonstrated that being informed about a mini-public had an impact on
some policy preferences, the likelihood of expressing a policy view (versus stating ‘don’t
know’) as well as political trust and efficacy. The study was repeated with some modifica-
tions to assess the robustness of the findings. The two experiments varied the information
about the mini-public, which produced differences in findings about political trust, support
for proposed policies and the likelihood of expressing a policy view. However, the two
experiments acquiesce on the finding that being informed about a mini-public increases
respondents’ sense of political efficacy. The replication of this finding demonstrates the reli-
ability of the findings, which is a condition of validity, as well as demonstrates the robust-
ness of the finding across different conditions, which also helps establish validity.
Literature Review
Effects of Mini-publics on Public Opinion
Mini-publics are select groups of citizens who are given a large amount of information
and then asked to deliberate on policy directions and make recommendations. Much of
the research on mini-publics focuses on how the participating citizens are transformed by
the experience (Fishkin and Luskin, 1999; Gastil et al., 2010; Grönlund et al., 2010;
Morrell, 2005; Strandberg and Grönlund, 2012). This article does not address the impact
of the deliberative process on participants. Instead, the article examines how mini-publics
influence the broader public. Gastil et al. (2012) suggest that the pay-off of mini-publics
could extend beyond the participating citizens. They write:
in the long term, deliberative civic engagement efforts could transform not only their participants
but also the larger public. Those participating in, engaged with, or captivated by such efforts
Boulianne
121
should report stable (or rising) levels of public trust and signs of reduced civic neglect (Gastil
et al., 2012: 214–215).
In short, mini-publics may be a ‘remedy’ for political distrust (Bächtiger et al., 2014).
However, there is little research examining the effects of mini-publics on public percep-
tions of political efficacy and trust.
The theory is that when citizens hear about other citizens engaged in public policy
decisions, they will internalise this experience and believe that they, themselves, could
influence public policy. In other words, those who are ‘captivated’ by such efforts may
feel a genuine increase in their own ability to affect the direction of government. In terms
of trust, the theory is that hearing about the mini-public could increase the perceived
legitimacy of the political system. The two ideas are related in that feeling as though the
government is listening to average citizens, that is, through mini-publics, may improve
perceptions of the governments’ trustworthiness. However, there is little research to sub-
stantiate this theory.
Another way that mini-publics might influence public opinion is through policy pref-
erences. Knowledge of mini-publics and their policy recommendations might serve as a
heuristic or information shortcut that citizens use to determine their opinion on policy
matters (Fournier et al., 2011; Warren, 2009). Many researchers have documented citi-
zens’ low levels of knowledge about different policy initiatives (see discussion in Bullock,
2011 and Delli Carpini and Keeter, 1996), which leads citizens to express non-opinions,
that is, say they don’t know their policy preferences, or to hold policy preferences that
contradict their own interests (Kuklinski et al., 2000). The information cues provided as
part of a survey interview or a political campaign could help respondents form opinions
on different policy initiatives, reducing the reporting of ‘don’t know’ (Dewan et al.,
2014). However, there is little research to confirm this expectation in relation to mini-
publics (Dewan et al., 2014).
A related stream of research discusses how impersonal influence, that is, the opinions
of an unknown collection of others, shapes people’s policy and voting preferences (Mutz,
1992). The research offers mixed support for impersonal influence as it relates to exper-
tise-related cues presented through endorsements by public officials, law enforcement
and scientists (Mutz, 1992). This article is distinctive in assessing whether a deliberating
body of citizens has influence on an individual’s policy preferences. Information about
these unknown others and their level of support for policies might provide a cue for citi-
zens in trying to determine their own policy preferences (Mutz, 1992).
Moreover, the information cues provided during a survey interview could influence
the level of support for a policy initiative (Sniderman and Grob, 1996). Specifically,
‘knowledge that a group of randomly selected ordinary citizens came up with the pro-
posal...
To continue reading
Request your trial