Deliberation, Voting, and Collective Truth Judgments

• In Event: Participation in Politics

Abstract

Will groups make more accurate determinations about the truth of political statements when they discuss and deliberate than individuals or groups that vote without deliberating? To test the ability of groups relative to individuals and the importance of discussion in group decision making, I conduct a laboratory experiment that incentivizes participants for correctly identifying the truth of the statements they evaluate. I compare truth judgments in three conditions. In the Individual Condition, subjects will rate the truthfulness of statements independently as individuals, without any social interaction. In the Voting Condition, participants will be randomly assigned to groups and, without communicating, will cast a vote concerning the truthfulness of each statement they rate. Each member of the group will be paid a bonus if a majority of the group correctly identifies whether the statement is true or false. In the Deliberation Condition (discussion and voting), participants will be assigned to groups to vote in the same way as in the Voting Condition except that they will communicate via electronic messages prior to voting. Communication will be via interactive electronic chat, which will offer group members an opportunity to share information, challenge opposing views, and to engage in deliberation and team reasoning.

Author

• Jonathan Woon, University of Pittsburgh