Jason Barabas

How Deliberation Affects Policy Opinions

Theorists argue that deliberation promotes enlightenment and consensus, but scholars do not know how deliberation affects policy opinions. Using the deliberative democracy and public opinion literatures as a guide, I develop a theory of opinion updating where citizens who deliberate revise their prior beliefs, particularly when they encounter consensual messages. A key aspect of this model is that opinion strength moderates the deliberative opinion change process. In two separate propensity score analyses using panel survey data from a deliberative forum and cross-sectional surveys, I show how deliberation and discussion both affect opinions toward Social Security reform. However, deliberation differs from ordinary discussion in that participants soften strongly held views, encounter different perspectives, and learn readily. Thus, deliberation increases knowledge and alters opinions, but it does so selectively based on the quality and diversity of the messages as well as the willingness of participants to keep an open mind.

Are Survey Experiments Externally Valid

Researchers use survey experiments to establish causal effects in descriptively representative samples, but concerns remain regarding the strength of the stimuli and the lack of realism in experimental settings. We explore these issues by comparing three national survey experiments on Medicare and immigration with contemporaneous natural experiments on the same topics. The survey experiments reveal that providing information increases political knowledge and alters attitudes. In contrast, two real-world government announcements had no discernable effects, except among people who were exposed to the same facts publicized in the mass media. Even among this exposed subsample, treatment effects were smaller and sometimes pointed in the opposite direction. Methodologically, our results suggest the need for caution when extrapolating from survey experiments. Substantively, we find that many citizens are able to recall factual information appearing in the news but may not adjust their beliefs and opinions in response to this information.

Rational Exuberance: The Stock Market and Public Support for Social Security Privatization

Some pundits argue that public support for Social Security privatization is unaffected by stock market downturns. Others worry that majorities might flip with each major market swing. Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses support a third perspective, consistent with theories of a rational public, where citizens update their opinions in reasonable ways in response to changes in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the Standard & Poors 500 index, and an average of the major markets. Therefore, the stock market affects Social Security privatization attitudes, particularly when movements in the markets remind citizens of the risks inherent in investing. These findings open new possibilities and create new challenges for including the public in policy debates.

Social Security Knowledge

Knowledge is an important resource for citizens in a democracy, but it is often in short supply when it comes to aspects of public policy. This chapter explores what Americans know about Social Security, a large federal social insurance program in the United States. Statistical analyses reveal that individual characteristics are strongly related to knowledge about Social Security and knowing program facts predicts preferences toward reform options.