What Kind of Disagreement Favors Reason-Giving? Analyzing Online Political Discussions across the Broader Public Sphere
| Author | Neylson JB Crepalde,Rousiley CM Maia,Thais Choucair,Gabriella Hauber |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032321719894708 |
| Date | 01 February 2021 |
| Published date | 01 February 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Special Issue Articles |
research-article2019
Special Issue Article
Political Studies
2021, Vol. 69(1) 108 –128
What Kind of Disagreement
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
Favors Reason-Giving?
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719894708
DOI: 10.1177/0032321719894708
journals.sagepub.com/home/psx
Analyzing Online Political
Discussions across the
Broader Public Sphere
Rousiley CM Maia1 , Gabriella Hauber1,
Thais Choucair1 and Neylson JB Crepalde2
Abstract
This study adopts a systemic approach, focusing on real-world online discussions in legislative-,
media-, and activist-based forums, to explore a set of factors that affects reasoned disagreement
in digital environments. While conventional analysis investigates the effects of disagreement on
civic and political participation, this study unpacks forms of disagreement that retain a principled
link with reason-giving. Our findings demonstrate that context matters for shaping online
communication, but that other variables have even stronger correlations. Specifically, moderating
disagreement—conceptualized as a way of disagreeing that nevertheless signals a background of
agreement in the conversation—strongly increases the likelihood of justificatory behavior, and
it does so in more categories than bold disagreement. In conclusion, we argue that forms of
disagreement and their respective consequences deserve more empirical and normative attention,
not only to advance debates on deliberation but also to critically understand the communicative
complexities in a new media landscape.
Keywords
disagreement, reason-giving, online political discussion, deliberation, deliberative system, public
sphere
Accepted: 12 November 2019
In the complex network of digital connectivity, citizens have unprecedented opportunities
to engage in discussions beyond those located in formal political institutions and civic
arenas, whether they seek to support or undermine democratic policy. To a large extent,
1 Department of Communication, Faculty of Philosophy and Social Sciences, Federal University of Minas
Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
2 Department of Sociology, Faculty of Philosophy and Social Sciences, Federal University of Minas Gerais,
Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Corresponding author:
Rousiley CM Maia, Department of Communication, Faculty of Philosophy and Social Sciences, Federal
University of Minas Gerais, Av. Antônio Carlos, 6627, Belo Horizonte, MG CEP 31270-901, Brazil.
Emails: rousiley@fafich.ufmg.br; rousiley@gmail.com
Maia et al.
109
the growing fragmentation and polarization of ideological political groups is supported
by these diverse digital settings (Bakshy et al., 2015; Maia and Rezende, 2016; Nikolov
et al., 2015; Pariser, 2011; Sunstein, 2017), and social media platforms enable hate speech
and attacks on human rights to spread (Chambers, 2017; Curato et al., 2019; Mansbridge
and Fishkin, 2017). This study systematically analyzes the relationships between disa-
greement and reason-giving in online discussions about a controversial issue—specifi-
cally, a bill proposing that the age of criminal responsibility in Brazil be lowered—in
arenas that serve distinct functions in the political system (legislative public hearings,
news websites, and an activist social media page (Facebook), and traces the implications
of these practices for public reasoning.
Given this adversarial scenario for deliberative democracy and different settings
within this new media landscape, this article argues that it is more important than ever to
understand citizens’ expressions of disagreement beyond those identified in controlled
experiments. By focusing on various contexts of relatively spontaneous online communi-
cation, our research does not generalize from the capacities of everyday communication
to efficacious deliberation as a means to produce recommendations for political decision-
making and policy. Instead, we understand that deliberation is a rare, demanding, and
difficult practice, and that incentives for discursive engagement and strategies are usually
required to compensate for less-than-ideal conditions (Habermas, 1996, 2009; Neblo,
2015; Steiner et al., 2017).
This article advances three related claims. First, we posit that citizens’ informal polit-
ical discussions constitute an important component of the deliberative system, and that
investigating disagreement requires attending to different scales of the broader public
sphere (Chambers, 2017; Dryzek, 2016; Ercan et al., 2017; Maia, 2017a, 2017b;
Mansbridge et al., 2012; Parkinson, 2018). Whereas a large body of research has inves-
tigated elements that shape online discussion in specific spaces, research on variations
across digital settings is nascent (Esau et al., 2017; Halpern and Gibbs, 2013; Maia and
Rezende, 2016; Strandberg and Grönlund, 2014, 2018; Stromer-Galley et al., 2015). Our
research, by focusing on a news media space, a legislative forum, and an activist
Facebook page, taps into settings that serve to distinct functions in deliberative systems
(Maia, 2012; Mansbridge et al., 2012). This is an important question to investigate
because one cannot generalize prematurely the significance of exposure to opposing
information and in advocating public reflection and discursive engagement. This role
may very well depend on the context, and here the distinction between types of digital
settings is salient.
Second, the analytic framework offered in this article sheds light on reasoned disa-
greement. The literatures on political communication and deliberation have theorized and
studied extensively expressions of agreement and disagreement (Huckfeldt et al., 2004;
Mutz, 2002, 2006; Wojcieszak and Mutz, 2009; Wojcieszak and Price, 2010). We have
witnessed a serious ongoing effort to disentangle the effects of dis/agreement on informa-
tion seeking, attitude changes, and various types of civic practice and political participa-
tion (Esterling et al., 2015; Hong and Rojas, 2016; Klofstad et al., 2012; Mutz, 2006).
Current studies have focused on the frequency and intensity of disagreement (Lee et al.,
2015; Mutz, 2002; Strickler, 2018; Wojcieszak and Price, 2010) or the contrast between
perceived and actually expressed differences during discussions (Stromer-Galley et al.,
2015; Wojcieszak and Price, 2012). Given this interest in disagreement, surprisingly little
work has analyzed systematically the relationship between expressions of disagreement
and reason-giving. Since justification is a core normative requirement for deliberation,
110
Political Studies 69(1)
this gap is a missed opportunity to understand the relationship between disagreement and
provision of reasons. This study operationalizes variables such as online discussion con-
text, one’s stance on the majority opinion in the debate, and the message target.
Third, and finally, this study argues that moderating ways of expressing disagreement
matter for reasoned argumentation. Our analysis corroborates the view that context is a
relevant factor for shaping online communication, but other variables may have impor-
tant effects on the expressions of disagreement. We build on the concept of “bold” and
“soft” disagreements as forms of articulating difference that signal a background of
agreement in the conversation (Laden, 2012). A clear distinction emerges between such
forms across digital settings, and soft disagreement varies depending on a large number
of factors. Though it does not guarantee discursive engagement, only soft disagreement is
statistically associated with reason-giving in spontaneous communication. In conclusion,
we argue that the differential consequences between these forms of expressing disagree-
ment deserve more empirical and normative attention.
Disagreement and Reason-Giving in the Unstructured
Public Sphere
Theories of deliberative democracy place disagreement at their core, and divergent views
are necessary to pinpoint the problem that deliberation is expected to solve (Esterling
et al., 2015; Gastil, 2018; Gutmann and Thompson, 1996; Habermas, 1996, 2009;
Landemore and Page, 2015; Thompson, 2008). However, how individuals react when
they encounter challenging information and opposing views or claims is far less certain.
While encountering disagreeable information likely generates contestation, this does not
mean that people are willing or motivated to move toward argumentation as a means to
resolve conflicts about their views and recommendations, including those values and
beliefs underlying their preferences and judgments. Citizens may prefer to use other
means such as fighting, trading insults, or avoiding stressful argumentation (Bakshy
et al., 2015; Maia and Rezende, 2016; Nikolov et al., 2015; Pariser, 2011; Sunstein, 2017).
Theories of deliberative democracy and political communication contain many
assumptions regarding disagreement and willingness to engage in reasoned discussion.
Disagreement may be more productive when individuals reflect more carefully about
other considerations, gain knowledge, and engage in constructive dialogue (Gutmann
and Thompson, 1996; Habermas, 1987, 1996; Thompson, 2008). Conversely, disagree-
ment can be counterproductive when individuals ignore opposing views, feel uncom-
fortable with conflict, retreat from conversation, or resent or insult those who challenge
their preferences (Bächtiger and Gerber, 2014; Esterling et...
To continue reading
Request your trial