Deliberation and Attitude Change - 3
three issue domains discussed at this unusual event, which brought together a large
random sample of the American public to discuss pressing national and international
issues for three days. In an early accounting, Merkle (1996) found relatively little change
in aggregate opinions, but Fishkin and Luskin’s (1999) subsequent analysis of the pre-
and post-convention surveys found many noteworthy changes. To some extent, the
question on which these observers disagreed was, How much attitude change is enough to
warrant such deliberative events?
Gastil and Dillard (1999) have suggested a different way of looking at such pre-
and post-deliberation surveys. Their analysis of ballots distributed before and after
National Issues Forums looked not at aggregate change but at the changing sophistication
of individual participants’ views. Individual-level changes in attitudes that result from
deliberation might be important indicators of deliberation’s impact; however, if these
patterns of changes happen to cancel one another out, the stability of aggregate opinions
might obscure real and meaningful changes in the structure of participants’ individual
attitudes.
The present study attempts to complement Gastil and Dillard (1999) and continue
the exploration of how deliberation affects individual-level attitude change. In particular,
Gastil and Dillard used previously collected data, and they were unable to measure
variations in participants’ ideological leanings. Given the powerful organizing influence
of ideological orientation on public opinion (Kerlinger, 1984; Zaller, 1992), this study
will examine how ideological differences produce varied deliberative experiences.
In addition, the present study heeds Mendelberg’s (2002) reminder that not all
group discussions are the same. By looking at differences among a large set of discussion
Convention