Mikael Gilljam

The effects of direct voting and deliberation on legitimacy beliefs: an experimental study of small group decision-making

In democratic theory, two frequently occurring ideas are that deliberation and direct voting in referendums can increase perceived legitimacy of democratic procedures. To evaluate this claim, we conducted a controlled field experiment in which 215 high school students participated by being subject to a decision on a collective issue. The decision was made either by direct voting or as a non-voting procedure (decision made by the teacher). Additionally, we manipulated the opportunities for deliberation prior to the decision. Our primary finding is that both voting and deliberation significantly increase perceived legitimacy compared with a procedure in which these components are absent. However, applying both voting and deliberation does not yield significantly higher perceived legitimacy than applying voting without deliberation. We also found that perceived influence in the decision-making process mediates the effect of both voting and deliberation, whereas the epistemic quality of the decision, which is heavily emphasized in deliberative democratic theory, gained no support as a mediator.

Implausible hypotheses in the directional theory of issue voting

Two implausible hypotheses implied by the directional theory of issue voting were tested using six Swedish national election studies, 1979–1994. The hypotheses that (a) centrists are indifferent toward parties, and that (b) people leaning slightly in one direction prefer an extremely intense party on the same side were not supported. However, alternative hypotheses from proximity theory were also not supported consistently. Self-placement on the left-right dimension and liking for a party form a logistic function. Party set and latitudes of acceptance, rejection, and noncommitment are concepts that may prove useful in understanding this relationship. ‘...brute fact must always win over beautiful hypothesis’. (Beck 1957: 54)

Responsiveness Beyond Policy Satisfaction: Does It Matter to Citizens?

Can politicians facilitate citizen acceptance of unwelcome policy decisions by acting responsively during the decision-making process? We suggest a framework to analyze the responsiveness–acceptance connection and report findings from two studies designed for that purpose. First, we ran a survey experiment to examine how exogenously induced responsiveness actions affect reactions to a policy decision. Second, we conducted a case study to see how results hold up in a real-world setting. We find that responsiveness actions are rewarded provided that citizens are convinced that politicians have paid attention to their wishes and views. Responsiveness actions that signal willingness to communicate (“to listen” and “to explain”) are more effective than the action to follow majority opinion (“to adapt”). However, the responsiveness–acceptance connection is sensitive to perceptual bias; policy losers are hard pressed to accept that politicians have indeed acted responsively.

Reconsidering the Role of Procedures for Decision Acceptance

Procedural fairness theory posits that the way in which authoritative decisions are made strongly impacts people’s willingness to accept them. This article challenges this claim by contending that democratic governments can achieve little in terms of acceptance of policy decisions by the procedural means at their disposal. Instead, outcome favorability is the dominant determinant of decision acceptance. The article explicates that while central parts of procedural fairness theory are true, outcome favorability is still overwhelmingly the strongest determinant of individuals’ willingness to accept authoritative decisions. It improves on previous research by locating all key variables into one causal model and testing this model using appropriate data. Findings from a large number of experiments (both vignette and field) reproduce the expected relationships from previous research and support the additional predictions.

Migration-based Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust: A Multilevel Analysis of How Country, Neighbourhood and Workplace Diversity Affects Social Trust in 22 Countries

How does ethnic diversity affect social trust? The Conflict and the Contact hypotheses represent the main competing views. This paper argues that the “true” answer to the question is contingent upon the social unit under study. More specifically, we argue that the former hypothesis is favored by a focus on social units where intergroup contacts can be avoided, whereas the latter hypothesis is supported by a focus on social units where intergroup contacts are unavoidable and supported by higher authorities. Studies that fail to acknowledge this fact by neglecting to take both types of social units into account risk biasing their results. Departing from this argument, the paper presents simultaneous estimates of diversity-effects in social units where people can avoid intergroup contacts (countries and neighborhoods) and social units where intergroup contacts cannot be avoided (workplaces). The results, which are based on the first round of the European Social Survey, covering 30000 individuals from 22 countries, show support for the Conflict hypothesis when the social unit under study is countries and neighborhoods and support for the Contact hypothesis when the social unit is workplaces. We also show that failure to take the latter positive effect into account leads to that the negative country diversity effect is underestimated.

Post-decision consolidation in large group decision-making

Decision-makers tend to change the psychological attractiveness of decision alternatives in favor of their own preferred alternative after the decision is made. In two experiments, the present research examined whether such decision consolidation occurs also among individual group members in a large group decision-making situation. High-school students were presented with a decision scenario on an important issue in their school. The final decision was made by in-group authority, out-group authority or by majority after a ballot voting. Results showed that individual members of large groups changed the attractiveness of their preferred alternative from a pre- to a post-decision phase, that these consolidation effects increased when decisions were made by in-group members, and when participants identified strongly with their school. Implications of the findings for understanding of group behavior and subgroup relations are discussed.

Determinants of polling accuracy: the effect of opt-in Internet surveys

ABSTRACT With the changing polling environment and the difficulties in correctly measuring public opinion, it is crucial to study the effects of polling practices. Elections provide an opportunity to examine how well polls measure support for political parties and how polling practices influence the accuracy of polls. Based on 110 pre-election polls conducted in Sweden, a multiparty system, we find that probability-based samples yield more accurate polls compared to opt-in Internet samples. Thus, our results point to a tradeoff between inexpensive online polls and accuracy.

Contact in context: does intergroup contact function (better) in high-threat contexts?

ABSTRACT Are interpersonal contacts effective in reducing group threat and prejudice in all contexts? Studies have found that the contact effect is stronger in regions and countries where large immigrant populations contribute to high levels of contextual group threat This paper tests the robustness of the observed positive association between contextual-level group threat and contact effects by identifying three methodological reasons for why the association might be spurious: (1) a potential omitted variable bias; (2) a potential self-selection effect; and (3) a potential ceiling effect. Using the 2002 European Social Survey, we find that the positive association is indeed robust. We interpret this as evidence that contact effects are strongest in those European contexts where the need for improved intergroup relations between immigrants and natives is most dire.