Public Discussion in the Deliberative System: Does It Make Better Citizens?

In democratic theory, the practice of discussing public affairs has been associated with desirable consequences for citizenship and democracy. We use Anglo-American survey data to examine twelve hypotheses about psychological foundations for four general conditions that such discussions might promot...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:British journal of political science 2007-10, Vol.37 (4), p.587-618
Main Authors: SEARING, DONALD D., SOLT, FREDERICK, CONOVER, PAMELA JOHNSTON, CREWE, IVOR
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Causal inference
Citizen participation
Citizenship
Civil service
Communities
Deliberative Democracy
Democracy
Democratic theory
Departments
Discourse
Hypotheses
Interest groups
Investigations
Legitimacy
Liberalism
Parliaments
Political activism
Political analysis
Political freedom
Political legitimacy
Political parties
Political psychology
Political representation
Political science
Politics
Psychological Factors
Public knowledge
Statistical significance
Survey data
U.S.A
United Kingdom
United States of America
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c437t-41a52da200521f407c477b59a84bfa7b78c969ae462bb3c9852c22a14dfb36c33
cites
container_end_page 618
container_issue 4
container_start_page 587
container_title British journal of political science
container_volume 37
creator SEARING, DONALD D.
SOLT, FREDERICK
CONOVER, PAMELA JOHNSTON
CREWE, IVOR
description In democratic theory, the practice of discussing public affairs has been associated with desirable consequences for citizenship and democracy. We use Anglo-American survey data to examine twelve hypotheses about psychological foundations for four general conditions that such discussions might promote: autonomous citizens, political legitimacy, good representation and democratic communities. Our data combine detailed measures of public discussion with measures of more of its hypothesized civic consequences than have heretofore been available. They also enable us to probe, using specialized samples, causal inferences suggested by our analyses of random samples in our British and American communities. Six of the hypotheses are supported, including at least one regarding each of the four general liberal democratic conditions we investigate.
doi_str_mv 10.1017/S0007123407000336
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_59758955</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S0007123407000336</cupid><jstor_id>4497314</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>4497314</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c437t-41a52da200521f407c477b59a84bfa7b78c969ae462bb3c9852c22a14dfb36c33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU1vEzEQhi1EJULLD0DiYHHgtuBvr7kgmtAPWgSoQRwt25kFp5vdYnsR7a-vo1QVAiFOHut93tE7Mwg9peQlJVS_uiCEaMq4ILpWnKsHaEaFMg2jlD1Es63cbPVH6HHO6_pteUtn6OzT5PsY8CLmMOUcxwHHAZfvgBfQRw_JlfgT8MV1LrB5jRcjZHxa8Ad3CfgQSoGE57HEGxjymwO017k-w5O7dx99OXq3nJ805x-PT-dvz5sguC6NoE6ylWOESEa7GjgIrb00rhW-c9rrNhhlHAjFvOfBtJIFxhwVq85zFTjfRy92fa_S-GOCXOympoe-dwOMU7bSaNkaKf8LcqUFZ8pU8Pkf4Hqc0lCHsNRIXtdmVIXoDgppzDlBZ69S3Lh0bSmx2yPYv45QPc92nnUuY7o3CGE0p6LKzU6Odb2_7mWXLq3SXEurjj_bk6_Lo_ecn9ll5fldBLfxKa6-wW9B_xniFr_dnr8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>195323496</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Public Discussion in the Deliberative System: Does It Make Better Citizens?</title><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>Cambridge Journals Online</source><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection【Remote access available】</source><source>Social Science Premium Collection</source><source>ABI/INFORM Global</source><source>Politics Collection</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><creator>SEARING, DONALD D. ; SOLT, FREDERICK ; CONOVER, PAMELA JOHNSTON ; CREWE, IVOR</creator><creatorcontrib>SEARING, DONALD D. ; SOLT, FREDERICK ; CONOVER, PAMELA JOHNSTON ; CREWE, IVOR</creatorcontrib><description>In democratic theory, the practice of discussing public affairs has been associated with desirable consequences for citizenship and democracy. We use Anglo-American survey data to examine twelve hypotheses about psychological foundations for four general conditions that such discussions might promote: autonomous citizens, political legitimacy, good representation and democratic communities. Our data combine detailed measures of public discussion with measures of more of its hypothesized civic consequences than have heretofore been available. They also enable us to probe, using specialized samples, causal inferences suggested by our analyses of random samples in our British and American communities. Six of the hypotheses are supported, including at least one regarding each of the four general liberal democratic conditions we investigate.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0007-1234</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-2112</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0007123407000336</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BPLSBO</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Causal inference ; Citizen participation ; Citizenship ; Civil service ; Communities ; Deliberative Democracy ; Democracy ; Democratic theory ; Departments ; Discourse ; Hypotheses ; Interest groups ; Investigations ; Legitimacy ; Liberalism ; Parliaments ; Political activism ; Political analysis ; Political freedom ; Political legitimacy ; Political parties ; Political psychology ; Political representation ; Political science ; Politics ; Psychological Factors ; Public knowledge ; Statistical significance ; Survey data ; U.S.A ; United Kingdom ; United States of America</subject><ispartof>British journal of political science, 2007-10, Vol.37 (4), p.587-618</ispartof><rights>2007 Cambridge University Press</rights><rights>Copyright 2007 Cambridge University Press</rights><rights>Copyright Cambridge University Press Oct 2007</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c437t-41a52da200521f407c477b59a84bfa7b78c969ae462bb3c9852c22a14dfb36c33</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/195323496/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/195323496?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,11687,12844,12846,21386,21393,27923,27924,33222,33223,33610,33611,33984,33985,36059,36060,43732,43947,44362,58237,58470,72731,73992,74239,74666</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>SEARING, DONALD D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SOLT, FREDERICK</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CONOVER, PAMELA JOHNSTON</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CREWE, IVOR</creatorcontrib><title>Public Discussion in the Deliberative System: Does It Make Better Citizens?</title><title>British journal of political science</title><addtitle>Brit. J. Polit. Sci</addtitle><description>In democratic theory, the practice of discussing public affairs has been associated with desirable consequences for citizenship and democracy. We use Anglo-American survey data to examine twelve hypotheses about psychological foundations for four general conditions that such discussions might promote: autonomous citizens, political legitimacy, good representation and democratic communities. Our data combine detailed measures of public discussion with measures of more of its hypothesized civic consequences than have heretofore been available. They also enable us to probe, using specialized samples, causal inferences suggested by our analyses of random samples in our British and American communities. Six of the hypotheses are supported, including at least one regarding each of the four general liberal democratic conditions we investigate.</description><subject>Causal inference</subject><subject>Citizen participation</subject><subject>Citizenship</subject><subject>Civil service</subject><subject>Communities</subject><subject>Deliberative Democracy</subject><subject>Democracy</subject><subject>Democratic theory</subject><subject>Departments</subject><subject>Discourse</subject><subject>Hypotheses</subject><subject>Interest groups</subject><subject>Investigations</subject><subject>Legitimacy</subject><subject>Liberalism</subject><subject>Parliaments</subject><subject>Political activism</subject><subject>Political analysis</subject><subject>Political freedom</subject><subject>Political legitimacy</subject><subject>Political parties</subject><subject>Political psychology</subject><subject>Political representation</subject><subject>Political science</subject><subject>Politics</subject><subject>Psychological Factors</subject><subject>Public knowledge</subject><subject>Statistical significance</subject><subject>Survey data</subject><subject>U.S.A</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><subject>United States of America</subject><issn>0007-1234</issn><issn>1469-2112</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>DPSOV</sourceid><sourceid>M0C</sourceid><sourceid>M2L</sourceid><sourceid>M2R</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU1vEzEQhi1EJULLD0DiYHHgtuBvr7kgmtAPWgSoQRwt25kFp5vdYnsR7a-vo1QVAiFOHut93tE7Mwg9peQlJVS_uiCEaMq4ILpWnKsHaEaFMg2jlD1Es63cbPVH6HHO6_pteUtn6OzT5PsY8CLmMOUcxwHHAZfvgBfQRw_JlfgT8MV1LrB5jRcjZHxa8Ad3CfgQSoGE57HEGxjymwO017k-w5O7dx99OXq3nJ805x-PT-dvz5sguC6NoE6ylWOESEa7GjgIrb00rhW-c9rrNhhlHAjFvOfBtJIFxhwVq85zFTjfRy92fa_S-GOCXOympoe-dwOMU7bSaNkaKf8LcqUFZ8pU8Pkf4Hqc0lCHsNRIXtdmVIXoDgppzDlBZ69S3Lh0bSmx2yPYv45QPc92nnUuY7o3CGE0p6LKzU6Odb2_7mWXLq3SXEurjj_bk6_Lo_ecn9ll5fldBLfxKa6-wW9B_xniFr_dnr8</recordid><startdate>20071001</startdate><enddate>20071001</enddate><creator>SEARING, DONALD D.</creator><creator>SOLT, FREDERICK</creator><creator>CONOVER, PAMELA JOHNSTON</creator><creator>CREWE, IVOR</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88F</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M1Q</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQHSC</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20071001</creationdate><title>Public Discussion in the Deliberative System: Does It Make Better Citizens?</title><author>SEARING, DONALD D. ; SOLT, FREDERICK ; CONOVER, PAMELA JOHNSTON ; CREWE, IVOR</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c437t-41a52da200521f407c477b59a84bfa7b78c969ae462bb3c9852c22a14dfb36c33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Causal inference</topic><topic>Citizen participation</topic><topic>Citizenship</topic><topic>Civil service</topic><topic>Communities</topic><topic>Deliberative Democracy</topic><topic>Democracy</topic><topic>Democratic theory</topic><topic>Departments</topic><topic>Discourse</topic><topic>Hypotheses</topic><topic>Interest groups</topic><topic>Investigations</topic><topic>Legitimacy</topic><topic>Liberalism</topic><topic>Parliaments</topic><topic>Political activism</topic><topic>Political analysis</topic><topic>Political freedom</topic><topic>Political legitimacy</topic><topic>Political parties</topic><topic>Political psychology</topic><topic>Political representation</topic><topic>Political science</topic><topic>Politics</topic><topic>Psychological Factors</topic><topic>Public knowledge</topic><topic>Statistical significance</topic><topic>Survey data</topic><topic>U.S.A</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><topic>United States of America</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>SEARING, DONALD D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SOLT, FREDERICK</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CONOVER, PAMELA JOHNSTON</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CREWE, IVOR</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection【Remote access available】</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Military Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Military Database</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Science Journals</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>History Study Center</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>British journal of political science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>SEARING, DONALD D.</au><au>SOLT, FREDERICK</au><au>CONOVER, PAMELA JOHNSTON</au><au>CREWE, IVOR</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Public Discussion in the Deliberative System: Does It Make Better Citizens?</atitle><jtitle>British journal of political science</jtitle><addtitle>Brit. J. Polit. Sci</addtitle><date>2007-10-01</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>37</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>587</spage><epage>618</epage><pages>587-618</pages><issn>0007-1234</issn><eissn>1469-2112</eissn><coden>BPLSBO</coden><abstract>In democratic theory, the practice of discussing public affairs has been associated with desirable consequences for citizenship and democracy. We use Anglo-American survey data to examine twelve hypotheses about psychological foundations for four general conditions that such discussions might promote: autonomous citizens, political legitimacy, good representation and democratic communities. Our data combine detailed measures of public discussion with measures of more of its hypothesized civic consequences than have heretofore been available. They also enable us to probe, using specialized samples, causal inferences suggested by our analyses of random samples in our British and American communities. Six of the hypotheses are supported, including at least one regarding each of the four general liberal democratic conditions we investigate.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S0007123407000336</doi><tpages>32</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0007-1234
ispartof British journal of political science, 2007-10, Vol.37 (4), p.587-618
issn 0007-1234
1469-2112
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_59758955
source International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); Cambridge Journals Online; JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection【Remote access available】; Social Science Premium Collection; ABI/INFORM Global; Politics Collection; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts
subjects Causal inference
Citizen participation
Citizenship
Civil service
Communities
Deliberative Democracy
Democracy
Democratic theory
Departments
Discourse
Hypotheses
Interest groups
Investigations
Legitimacy
Liberalism
Parliaments
Political activism
Political analysis
Political freedom
Political legitimacy
Political parties
Political psychology
Political representation
Political science
Politics
Psychological Factors
Public knowledge
Statistical significance
Survey data
U.S.A
United Kingdom
United States of America
title Public Discussion in the Deliberative System: Does It Make Better Citizens?
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-09T08%3A06%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Public%20Discussion%20in%20the%20Deliberative%20System:%20Does%20It%20Make%20Better%20Citizens?&rft.jtitle=British%20journal%20of%20political%20science&rft.au=SEARING,%20DONALD%20D.&rft.date=2007-10-01&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=587&rft.epage=618&rft.pages=587-618&rft.issn=0007-1234&rft.eissn=1469-2112&rft.coden=BPLSBO&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0007123407000336&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E4497314%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c437t-41a52da200521f407c477b59a84bfa7b78c969ae462bb3c9852c22a14dfb36c33%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=195323496&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S0007123407000336&rft_jstor_id=4497314&rfr_iscdi=true