FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Thesis, documentation, books

Pages:     | 1 | 2 || 4 | 5 |

«Does Enclave Deliberation Polarize Opinions? ¨ ¨¨ Kimmo Gronlund • Kaisa Herne • Maija Setala Published online: 8 February 2015 Ó The ...»

-- [ Page 3 ] --

First, we test the hypotheses on the effect of treatment on opinions. H1a states that a polarization of opinions occurs in like-minded groups, whereas H1b assumes that the opposite occurs in mixed groups. Table 4 demonstrates the development of opinions in the course of the experiment. The comparisons are made within enclaves and treatments, as well as in the control group. We compare opinions before (T1) the event, after deliberation (T4) and in the follow-up survey (T5) 3 weeks after the event. In the control group, the measurements were done before (T1) and after (T4) deliberation.

There were three statistically significant opinion changes among those participants who took part in the deliberation event. All of these are in the direction of a more liberal attitude toward immigration. The most prominent change occurred among the participants of the con enclave deliberating in mixed groups. Here, the initial mean on the sum variable was 4.33, which increased to 6.12 after the

–  –  –

Mean values for the sum variable measuring opinions on immigration The variable can vary between 0 (against) and 14 (in favor) * p \ 0.05; ** p \ 0.01; *** p \ 0.001

–  –  –

experiment. The increase of 1.8 units is significant at the 0.001 level and corroborates H1b. On average, the participants of the pro enclave deliberating in mixed groups did not, contrary to H1b, move toward the middle when deliberating with ‘‘the other side’’. Thus, depolarization in the mixed treatment was unilateral, only persons with anti-immigrant attitudes shifted toward the mean. Those initially permissive toward immigration did not alter their opinions.

Moving on to the like-minded treatment where polarization is most likely to occur, Table 4 shows that the con like-minded groups did not polarize in comparison with their initial opinions. On the contrary, participants in the con like-minded groups became more permissive toward immigration as a result of deliberation. The change of 0.67 units is not as large as among the con participants in the mixed groups, but still significant at the 0.01 level. This development works against H1a. In the pro enclave, the like-minded groups show a barely statistically significant (0.05) mean change of opinions. These groups polarized slightly, according to the assumption in H1a.8 Furthermore, the overall patterns found at the aggregate level were confirmed in a separate group-by-group analysis. None of the small groups behaved in a deviant manner. In 9 (out of 11) of the mixed groups, in 4 (out of 5) of the con like-minded groups, and in 7 (out of 10) of the pro like-minded groups, the change in opinions toward immigration was positive from T1 to T4. Looking at the follow-up survey T5, we can see that the only statistically significant change between deliberation and the follow-up survey was a continued tendency among the con like-minded groups to become more tolerant toward immigration. At T5, the participants of the con likeminded treatment had shifted from 5.05 before deliberation to 6.15. This change corresponds to a 1.1-unit increase on the 14-item scale (p \ 0.001).

Moving on to comparing the treatment groups with the control group, it can be seen that attitudes toward immigration changed also in the control group. Within the control group, the con enclave became slightly more permissive (change 0.49), whereas the pro enclave became slightly more critical (change -0.51). In other words, participation in a three wave (T1, T2, and T4) panel study on immigration seems to have led to a de-polarization of opinions among the control group. It may be the case that people who responded to the survey became more aware of the immigration issue even though they did not participate in the deliberation event.

They may, for example, have sought more information on their own and reflected on it. Another possible explanation is the statistical phenomenon known as ‘regression to the mean’. It occurs when the same sample is measured twice, especially when the used measurement is not accurate. In survey research, measurement errors are bound to occur and observations with the most extreme values tend to regress towards the mean at the second measurement (Torgerson and Torgerson 2008, 10–15). When designing the experiment, we tried to minimize measurement errors The non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test confirms the obtained results, T1–T4, in the four group types (for con participants in like-minded groups p = 0.005; for con in mixed groups p = 0.000; for pro in like-minded groups p = 0.032; and for pro in mixed groups p = 0.899). Likewise, the Mann–Whitney test confirms the overall pattern about the differences between treatments at T1 (for the difference between con participants in like-minded and mixed groups p = 0.021; between pro participants in likeminded and mixed groups p = 0.087), and at T4 (between con participants in like-minded and mixed groups p = 0.294; between pro participants in like-minded and mixed groups p = 0.002).

Polit Behav (2015) 37:995–1020 1007

by creating an index that consists of 14 items. Thus, it should be a more accurate measurement of opinions toward immigration than a single variable or an index consisting of only a few items. Still, survey questions with Likert scales do not provide an exact measure and the possibility of regression to the mean both in the control group and the treatment groups cannot be ruled out. However, the fact that the opinion changes in the control group did not follow the same patterns as the opinion changes in the experimental groups suggests that deliberation had a genuine effect on opinions. It is also important to note that both the experimental and the control group was formed randomly from those willing to participate in the deliberation event, indicating that a self-selection bias cannot account for the differences observed between the two groups.

Table 4 also shows a comparison within enclaves at T1, which helps to trace possible initial differences between the subjects who were randomly allocated into the two treatments within both enclaves. Despite random assignment, there were some differences between the participants in the like-minded and the mixed treatment in both enclaves. In the con enclave the participants of the like-minded treatment were somewhat more moderate than the participants in the mixed treatment. In the pro enclave, the opposite was the case, i.e. the like-minded treatment consisted of more liberal participants then the mixed treatment. It is hard to decipher whether this initial division had any influence on the outcome within the treatments. However, in order to understand how extremes and moderates behaved within both treatments, we have conducted additional analyses further below (Table 6).

Next, in order to test H2a and H2b we analyze knowledge change in the course of the experiment. H2a suggests that deliberation in like-minded groups amplifies cognitive errors, whereas H2b anticipates that deliberation in mixed groups corrects cognitive errors. The knowledge questions were grouped in three subsets. First, there were six questions pertaining to immigration where information was given in the beginning of the deliberation event. Second, there were four questions on immigration where information was not given by the organizers. Third, there were five questions measuring general political knowledge. In Fig. 3, we look at the learning effects by treatment and enclave. The figure only includes the ten items related to immigration knowledge (for a detailed development of all knowledge items, see Appendix 2).

The participants learned a lot during the experiment. The obtained learning effects were large and similar in all four types of groups and we can conclude that neither treatment nor initial attitudes toward immigration had an effect on the learning curve. We can also see that the pre-deliberation knowledge shares were quite similar across enclaves and treatments. For all participants, the mean share of correct answers increased from 43 to 63 %, and the information gains were recorded for those questions where information was given at the event (see Appendix 2). This indicates that knowledge gains occurred both in mixed and like-minded groups to a similar degree, working against H2a. Initially, there were small differences within enclaves between the subjects who were randomly assigned to the like-minded versus mixed treatments. These differences were not statistically significant, and neither were the differences within enclaves at T4.

1008 Polit Behav (2015) 37:995–1020 Fig. 3 Knowledge gains according to enclave and treatment. Shares of correct answers Within the set of questions relating to immigration where no information was provided by the organizers there were two open-ended questions (questions 9 and 10 in Appendix 2),9 which can be used to examine the hypotheses concerning cognitive errors. These questions pertained to the level of unemployment among immigrants (correct answer 27 %) and the level of social security benefits received by an unemployed immigrant (correct answer 757 Euros per month). It can be assumed that negative attitudes toward immigration are, especially, related to people’s perceptions of social problems and costs caused by immigration. Therefore, it may All other knowledge items were put forward as multiple choice questions with four alternatives.

Polit Behav (2015) 37:995–1020 1009

be assumed that those who have negative attitudes toward immigration might overestimate both the level of unemployment and social security benefits, and the opposite could be the case among supporters of immigration.

Whereas the coding of the open-ended questions in Appendix 3 follows the binary logic of ‘correct’ and ‘non-correct’10 answers, we have also examined the distance of each respondent’s answer from the correct answer. When looking at the responses to the open questions before deliberation (T3), it turns out that the pro enclave participants, in particular, tended to underestimate the unemployment rate and the level of social security (42.2 % of the participants in the con enclave and 53.3 % in the pro enclave underestimated the unemployment rate. The level of social security benefits for immigrants was underestimated by 67.5 % in the con enclave and 68.1 % in the pro enclave). There were clearer differences between enclaves when we look at overestimation, which gives some support to the assumption that attitudes toward immigration are related to the perceptions of the costs of immigration. Namely, 33.7 % of the participants in the con enclave overestimated the unemployment rate as opposed to 23.3 % in the pro enclave. The level of social benefits was overestimated by 21.7 % of the participants in the con enclave as opposed to 10.1 % in the pro enclave. However, the responses to the open-ended questions after deliberation (T4) do not support the hypotheses on the amplification of cognitive errors. The differences in the under- or overestimation of the unemployment rate and social security benefits are not statistically significant when comparing the enclaves and treatments with each other.

To sum up, none of our hypotheses has gained clear support so far. We do not trace polarization effects, with the partial exception of the pro participants in likeminded groups, and the differences between the like-minded and the mixed treatments are modest so far. Moreover, the obtained learning curves are similar in all four types of groups, and we cannot see any results supporting the assumption of increased cognitive errors in the like-minded treatment. The major conclusion is that as a result of deliberation most subjects became more tolerant toward immigration, and that at the group level no one became less tolerant. In the next part of the empirical analysis, we will try to disentangle the observed group level results by looking at individuals.

Further analyses on the impact of deliberation

In order to understand the scope of opinion changes at the individual level, Table 5 focuses on participants who changed sides as a result of deliberation. By changing sides we mean a shift from being initially against immigration to becoming proimmigration as a result of deliberation, or vice versa. The threshold for changing sides is set at 7.5 on the sum variable, i.e. in the middle of the original cutoff points for forming the con and pro enclaves. If a person in the con enclave moved above The intervals of acceptance for correct answers were defined as follow: 24–30 % for the unemployment rate, 700–800 EUR for the integration assistance. The intervals were chosen by taking into account the dispersion of answers and the nature of the question. These open questions proved to be difficult but we did not want to stretch the category of ‘correct answer’ too far from the correct numbers.

1010 Polit Behav (2015) 37:995–1020

7.5 after deliberation, (s)he is considered to have changed sides; a person in the pro enclave should have moved below 7.5 in order to have changed sides concerning opinions on immigration. Table 5 compares the participants’ pre and post deliberation attitudes. Moreover, the post deliberation attitudes are analyzed both at the end of the deliberation event (T4) and in the follow-up survey (T5).

Changing sides occurred almost exclusively among persons who were initially against immigration. This corroborates the earlier finding that the largest opinion changes took place among the participants with anti-immigration attitudes. At the end of the deliberation event (T4), 20 persons belonging to the con enclave had become permissive toward immigration; the sum variable for immigration attitudes had, for their part, exceeded the value of 7.5 on the 0–14 point scale. A majority of these, 14 people, were subject to the mixed treatment. When people with antiimmigrant attitudes faced counter-arguments, many of them became clearly more positive toward immigration. However, also six people in the con like-minded groups changed sides at T4. No one in the pro enclave became restrictive toward immigration as a result of deliberation.

Pages:     | 1 | 2 || 4 | 5 |

Similar works:

«GS108T and GS110TP Smart Switch Software Administration Manual NETGEAR, Inc. 350 E. Plumeria Drive San Jose CA 95134 USA 202-10603-02 April 2010 © 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 by NETGEAR, Inc. All rights reserved. FullManual. Technical Support Please refer to the support information card that shipped with your product. By registering your product at http://www.netgear.com/register, we can provide you with faster expert technical support and timely notices of product and software upgrades. NETGEAR,...»

«City of Sydney Kerb and Gutter Town Hall House 456 Kent Street Sydney NSW 2000 B4 Construction Sydney Streets Technical Specifications B4. Kerb and Gutter Table of Contents 4.1 Scope 4.2 Standards and Guidelines 4.3 Materials and Components 4.3.1 Stone Kerb Replacement of Stone Kerb Granite Kerbs (Austral ‘Black’ and ‘Verde’) Trachyte Kerbs Bluestone Kerbs Sandstone Kerbs 4.3.2 Concrete Kerbs and Gutters 4.3.3 Concrete Gutters 4.3.4 Stone Gutters...»

«A Guide to Basic Barcoding   www.barcoding.co.uk  WHY USE BAR CODES? Studies have shown that bar code solutions are implemented in over 70% of installed Auto ID applications. Bar codes provide virtually error free data collection. Studies have shown that a proficient data operator will make one error for every 300 characters manually entered. Compare this to 1 in 3 million utilising bar code technology. Almost everybody has seen bar codes on products in the supermarket and experienced...»

«Manuel d’utilisation Sommaire CONSIGNES DE SÉCURITÉ APPARENCE CARACTÉRISTIQUES TECHNIQUES PREMIERS PAS Chargement de la batterie 12 Gestion de l'alimentation 13 Chargement de fichiers 15 Gestes 16 Utilisation du clavier virtuel 17 Éclairage de façade 19 Connexion à Internet 19 INSÉRER UNE CARTE MICRO SD 23 Installation d'extensions 24 MENU PRINCIPAL Évènements récents 27 Bibliothèque 29 Librairie 33 Notes 33 Favoris 34 Dictionnaire 34 Applications 34 Recherche 52 Barre d'état 52...»

«WatchDog™ Data Loggers Operation Manual Model #’s 200, 225, 250, 400, 425, 450 Spectrum Technologies, Inc. CONTENTS General Overview 4 Specifications 5 External Sensors 6 Installation and Placement 8 Connecting to the Computer 9 SpecWare Software 10 Operation of Digital Display 11 Battery Replacement 12 Trouble Shooting 13 Service and Support 14 Warranty 15 This manual will familiarize you with the features and operation of your new WatchDog Data Logger. Please read this manual thoroughly...»

«HANDBOOK OF CIVIL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS Tyler G. Hicks, RE., Editor International Engineering Associates Member: American Society of Mechanical Engineers Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers United States Naval Institute MCGRAW-HILL New York San Francisco Washington, D.C. Auckland Bogota Caracas Lisbon London Madrid Mexico City Milan Montreal New Delhi San Juan Singapore Sydney Tokyo Toronto Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hicks, Tyler Gregory Handbook of...»

«Overview of Systemic Constellations Francesco Pimpinelli, Professional Certified Coach What are Systemic Constellations? ‘Constellation’ is a technical term used in human science to identify a system as a set of elements in relationship to each other, such that the word Constellation may refer to any set of related elements in a team, an organization, in relationship or with respect to key elements of a project. The Systemic approach enables one to see a situation or a problem within its...»

«Measuring the Flexibility of Urban Drainage Systems * Jochen Eckart, Seneshaw Tsegaye, Kala Vairavamoorthy University of South Florida, School of Global Sustainability, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, BEH 304, Tampa, FL 33620, USA Abstract Urban drainage systems are influenced by several future drivers, which affect the performance as well as the costs of the systems. To deal with these future uncertainties flexible urban drainage systems are required. Flexible urban drainage systems guarantee, that...»

«MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TO ENERGY CONVERSION PROCESSES ECONOMIC, TECHNICAL, AND RENEWABLE COMPARISONS Gary C. Young, PhD., P.E.MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TO ENERGY CONVERSION PROCESSES MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TO ENERGY CONVERSION PROCESSES ECONOMIC, TECHNICAL, AND RENEWABLE COMPARISONS Gary C. Young, PhD., P.E. Copyright Ó 2010 by John Wiley &Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey Published simultaneously in Canada No part of this publication may be...»

«September 4, 2010 J. G. “Jim” Dai James C. Edenfield Professor School of Industrial and Systems Engineering (ISyE) PERSONAL DATA Born in 1962 in Changshu, Jiangsu Province, China Married to Liqin Shi with one son, Kevin, born in 1995 Naturalized citizen of U.S.A.I. EARNED DEGREE Ph.D. 1990 Stanford University Mathematics M.S. 1985 Nanjing University, Nanjing Mathematics B.S. 1982 Nanjing University, Nanjing Mathematics II. EMPLOYMENT James Riady Distinguished Visiting National University...»

«PCB Design Guidelines For Reduced EMI SZZA009 November 1999 IMPORTANT NOTICE Texas Instruments and its subsidiaries (TI) reserve the right to make changes to their products or to discontinue any product or service without notice, and advise customers to obtain the latest version of relevant information to verify, before placing orders, that information being relied on is current and complete. All products are sold subject to the terms and conditions of sale supplied at the time of order...»

«LAMINAR FLAMELFIS, CONSERVED SCALARS,AND NON-UNITY LEWIS NUMBERS: WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WlTH CHEMISTRY? J. Houston Miller and Michael A.T. Marro Department of Chemistry The George Washington University Washington, DC 20052 and Mitchell Smooke Department of Mechanical Engineering Yale University, New Haven, CN conserved scalar, flamelet, combustion model Keywonls: Absbaet In general, computation of laminar flame structure involves the simultaneous solution of the conservation equations for...»

<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.thesis.xlibx.info - Thesis, documentation, books

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.