14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Can the use of minipublics backfire? Examining how policy adoption shapes the effect of minipublics on political support among the general public

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Academics and practitioners are increasingly interested in deliberative minipublics and whether these can address widespread dissatisfaction with contemporary politics. While optimism seems to prevail, there is also talk that the use of minipublics may backfire. When the government disregards a minipublic's recommendations, this could lead to more dissatisfaction than not asking for its advice in the first place. Using an online survey experiment in Belgium (n = 3,102), we find that, compared to a representative decision‐making process, a minipublic tends to bring about higher political support when its recommendations are fully adopted by the government, whereas it generates lower political support when its recommendations are not adopted. This study presents novel insights into whether and when the use of minipublics may alleviate or aggravate political dissatisfaction among the public at large.

          Related collections

          Most cited references77

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          A Re-assessment of the Concept of Political Support

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            An Agenda for Purely Confirmatory Research.

            The veracity of substantive research claims hinges on the way experimental data are collected and analyzed. In this article, we discuss an uncomfortable fact that threatens the core of psychology's academic enterprise: almost without exception, psychologists do not commit themselves to a method of data analysis before they see the actual data. It then becomes tempting to fine tune the analysis to the data in order to obtain a desired result-a procedure that invalidates the interpretation of the common statistical tests. The extent of the fine tuning varies widely across experiments and experimenters but is almost impossible for reviewers and readers to gauge. To remedy the situation, we propose that researchers preregister their studies and indicate in advance the analyses they intend to conduct. Only these analyses deserve the label "confirmatory," and only for these analyses are the common statistical tests valid. Other analyses can be carried out but these should be labeled "exploratory." We illustrate our proposal with a confirmatory replication attempt of a study on extrasensory perception.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              Democratic Deficit

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                lisa.vandijk@kuleuven.be
                Journal
                Eur J Polit Res
                Eur J Polit Res
                10.1111/(ISSN)1475-6765
                EJPR
                European Journal of Political Research
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0304-4130
                1475-6765
                31 March 2022
                February 2023
                : 62
                : 1 ( doiID: 10.1111/ejpr.v62.1 )
                : 135-155
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Centre for Political Science Research KU Leuven Belgium
                [ 2 ] Brussels School of Governance Vrije Universiteit Brussel Belgium
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Address for correspondence: Lisa van Dijk, Centre for Political Science Research, Faculty of Social Sciences, KU Leuven, Parkstraat 45, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. Email: lisa.vandijk@ 123456kuleuven.be

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0909-2584
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4428-3570
                Article
                EJPR12523
                10.1111/1475-6765.12523
                10084071
                139af3ba-1627-4869-bb81-d987b1de497c
                © 2022 The Authors. European Journal of Political Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Consortium for Political Research.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 1, Pages: 21, Words: 10107
                Funding
                Funded by: ERC. H2020 European Research Council
                Award ID: 759736
                Funded by: FWO and F.R.S.-FNRS
                Award ID: G0F0218N
                Categories
                Research Article
                Research Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                February 2023
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.2.7 mode:remove_FC converted:10.04.2023

                deliberative minipublics,political support,political decision making,procedural fairness theory,survey experiment

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content288

                Cited by5

                Most referenced authors475