IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/psewpa/halshs-04725697.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Deliberation Among Informed Citizens - The Value of Exploring Alternative Thinking Frames -

Author

Listed:
  • Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky

    (PSE - Paris School of Economics - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École nationale des ponts et chaussées - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement, PJSE - Paris Jourdan Sciences Economiques - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École nationale des ponts et chaussées - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

  • Irénée Frérot

    (LKB (Jussieu) - Laboratoire Kastler Brossel - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - SU - Sorbonne Université - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

In this paper we investigate the potential of deliberation to create consensus among fully informed citizens. Our approach relies on a two cognitive assumptions i. citizens need a thinking frame (perspective) to consider an issue; ii. citizens cannot consider all relevant perspectives simultaneously only sequentially. Together this implies that citizens' opinions are intrinsically contextual i.e., they have quantum-like characteristics.We capture contextuality in a simple quantum cognitive model. We find that in a binary voting problem, letting two citizens with alternative thinking frames and opposite voting intentions deliberate under the guidance of a benevolent facilitator allows reaching consensus. Opinion change occurs as the result of citizens' action in terms of "putting themselves in another citizen's shoes". The probability for reaching consensus depends on the correlation between perspectives and on their sophistication (dimensionality). Maximally uncorrelated sophisticated perspectives give the best chance for opinion change. With more than two citizens, multiple deliberation rounds with experts allow reaching consensus with significant probability.A first central lesson is that with contextual opinions, the diversity of perspectives is beneficial and necessary to overcome initial disagreement. We also learn that well-design procedures managed by a facilitator are needed to increase the probability for consensus. An additional finding is that the richness of a thinking frame helps convergence toward a joint position. The optimal facilitator's strategy entails focusing deliberation on a properly reduced problem.

Suggested Citation

  • Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky & Irénée Frérot, 2024. "Deliberation Among Informed Citizens - The Value of Exploring Alternative Thinking Frames -," PSE Working Papers halshs-04725697, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:psewpa:halshs-04725697
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-04725697v2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-04725697v2/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Danilov, V.I. & Lambert-Mogiliansky, A., 2018. "Targeting in quantum persuasion problem," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 142-149.
    2. Ding, Huihui & Pivato, Marcus, 2021. "Deliberation and epistemic democracy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 138-167.
    3. V. I. Danilov & A. Lambert-Mogiliansky & V. Vergopoulos, 2018. "Dynamic consistency of expected utility under non-classical (quantum) uncertainty," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(4), pages 645-670, June.
    4. Niemeyer, Simon & Veri, Francesco & Dryzek, John S. & Bächtiger, André, 2024. "How Deliberation Happens: Enabling Deliberative Reason," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 118(1), pages 345-362, February.
    5. Ariane Lambert Mogiliansky & Shmuel Zamir & Herve Zwirn, 2003. "Type Indeterminacy: A Model of the KT(Kahneman-Tversky)-man," Discussion Paper Series dp343, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    6. Dryzek, John S. & List, Christian, 2003. "Social Choice Theory and Deliberative Democracy: A Reconciliation," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(1), pages 1-28, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Franz Dietrich & Kai Spiekermann, 2025. "Deliberation and the wisdom of crowds," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 79(2), pages 603-655, March.
    2. Chaim Fershtman & Uzi Segal, 2024. "Social influence in committee deliberation," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 96(2), pages 185-207, March.
    3. Dietrich, Franz & List, Christian, 2007. "Strategy-Proof Judgment Aggregation," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(3), pages 269-300, November.
    4. Ismaël Rafaï & Sébastien Duchêne & Eric Guerci & Irina Basieva & Andrei Khrennikov, 2022. "The triple-store experiment: a first simultaneous test of classical and quantum probabilities in choice over menus," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(2), pages 387-406, March.
    5. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2020. "Arrow’s decisive coalitions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(2), pages 463-505, March.
    6. Siegfried K. Berninghaus & Lora R. Todorova & Bodo Vogt, 2012. "How Sensitive is Strategy Selection in Coordination Games?," FEMM Working Papers 120020, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    7. V. I. Danilov & A. Lambert-Mogiliansky, 2005. "Non-classical Measurement Theory: a Framework for Behavioral Sciences," Levine's Working Paper Archive 122247000000000899, David K. Levine.
    8. Boyer-Kassem, Thomas & Duchêne, Sébastien & Guerci, Eric, 2016. "Testing quantum-like models of judgment for question order effect," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 33-46.
    9. David J. Cooper & Jordi Brandts, 2020. "Managerial Leadership, Truth-Telling, and Efficient Coordination," Working Papers 1211, Barcelona School of Economics.
    10. Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky & Jerome Busemeyer, 2012. "Quantum Type Indeterminacy in Dynamic Decision-Making: Self-Control through Identity Management," Games, MDPI, vol. 3(2), pages 1-22, May.
    11. Sangbum Shin & Taedong Lee, 2021. "Credible Empowerment and Deliberative Participation: A Comparative Study of Two Nuclear Energy Policy Deliberation Cases in Korea," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(1), pages 97-112, January.
    12. Diane Coyle & Mark Fabian & Eric Beinhocker & Tim Besley & Margaret Stevens, 2023. "Is it time to reboot welfare economics? Overview," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(2), pages 109-121, June.
    13. Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2013. "Where do preferences come from?," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 42(3), pages 613-637, August.
    14. John S. Dryzek & Simon J. Niemeyer, 2024. "How to constitute global citizens' forums: Key selection principles," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 15(4), pages 604-614, September.
    15. Jordi Brandts & Leonie Gerhards & Lydia Mechtenberg, 2022. "Deliberative structures and their impact on voting under economic conflict," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(2), pages 680-705, April.
    16. Adam Brandenburger, 2008. "The Relationship Between Classical and Quantum Correlation in Games," Levine's Working Paper Archive 122247000000002312, David K. Levine.
    17. Sean Ingham, 2016. "Social choice and popular control," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(2), pages 331-349, April.
    18. Danilov, V.I. & Lambert-Mogiliansky, A., 2018. "Targeting in quantum persuasion problem," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 142-149.
    19. Manisha Verma & Anurag Priyadarshee, 2015. "Improving Service Delivery through State–Citizen Partnership: The Case of the Ahmedabad Urban Transport System," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 321-336, June.
    20. Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky & Adrian Calmettes, 2019. ""Phishing For (quantum-like) Phools" Theory and experimental evidence," PSE Working Papers halshs-02146862, HAL.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:psewpa:halshs-04725697. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.