Skip Navigation

Public Opinion Quarterly 2005 69(1):30-65; doi:10.1093/poq/nfi005
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (6)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sturgis, P.
Right arrow Articles by Allum, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org.

A Different Take on the Deliberative Poll

Information, Deliberation, and Attitude Constraint

Patrick Sturgis, Caroline Roberts and Nick Allum

PATRICK STURGIS and NICK ALLUM are lecturers in the Department of Sociology, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK. CAROLINE ROBERTS is senior research fellow at the Centre for Comparative Social Surveys, City University, London, UK. The authors wish to thank the funders of the data collection, Channel 4 Television, Granada Television, and the Independent newspaper, and the National Centre for Social Research for providing access to the data.

Opinion pollsters, political scientists, and democratic theorists have long been concerned with the normative and methodological implications of nonattitudes (Converse 1964). Of the proposed remedies to the weak and labile attitudinal responses proffered by an uninformed and disinterested public, perhaps the most ambitious to date has been Fishkin’s concept of the deliberative poll (Fishkin 1991, 1995, 1997). Combining probability sampling with information intervention and increased deliberation affords a unique insight into what might be considered the true "voice of the people." Yet, while deliberative polling draws heavily on the general notion of political sophistication (Luskin 1987), empirical analyses have tended to focus almost entirely on how the process of deliberation impacts on marginal totals of attitude items at both the individual and aggregate level (Fishkin 1997; Luskin, Fishkin, and Jowell 2002; Sturgis 2003). Little attention, in contrast, has been paid to outcomes that relate to other dimensions of opinion quality, such as attitude constraint. Constraint refers to the level of consistency between attitudes within an individual belief system that arises from a combination of logical, social, and psychological factors (Converse 1964). In this article we analyze data from five deliberative polls conducted in the United Kingdom in the 1990s in order to investigate the impact of political information and deliberation on attitude constraint. Across a broad range of issue areas we evaluate the extent to which the deliberative process impacts on statistical associations among attitude items between the first and subsequent waves of the polls. We conclude by discussing the implications of our results for the validity and reliability of survey measures of the attitude and the broader utility of the deliberative polling method as a tool of social scientific inquiry.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Int J Public Opin ResHome page
K. M. Hansen
Changing Patterns in the Impact of Information on Party Choice in a Multiparty System
Int. J. Public Opin. Res., November 3, 2009; (2009) edp042v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Public Opin QHome page
R. K. Goidel, C. M. Freeman, S. Procopio, and C. F. Zewe
Who Participates in the "Public Square" and Does It Matter?
Public Opin Q, December 1, 2008; 72(4): 792 - 803.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.