Purpose

Wanting to discover more about the opinions and understandings of youth from across the United States, the Bank of America Charitable Foundation and the Close Up Foundation worked together to conduct an online deliberative experiment. Given the prominence of COVID-19 at the time of deliberation, many topics discussed focused on current economic and healthcare policies, ranging from tax rates to unemployment to vaccinations.

Background History and Context

Deliberative polling is a form of polling that addresses how the public would view issues if they could learn about these issues under ideal conditions, which include exposure to balanced briefing materials, participation in a discussion group with peers, and the opportunity to hear from experts regarding the issue.

Representative samples are drawn during deliberative polling experiments to reflect the views of the whole population. This allows statistical inferences to be made reflecting the larger population based on the selected samples.

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

Close Up Foundation: Launched in 1971, the Close Up Foundation works closely with students and educators to help students find their voice and develop them to become engaged citizens. Learn more about the Close Up Foundation here: closeup.org.

Bank of America Charitable Foundation: The Bank of America Charitable Foundation partners with teams, especially nonprofit organizations, to focus on issues relating to low to moderate-income communities. Bank of America identifies one of their primary goals to be making financial lives better. Read more about the Bank of American Charitable Foundation philanthropic strategy here: https://about.bankofamerica.com/en/making-an-impact/charitable-foundation-funding.

Stanford Deliberative Democracy Lab: The project utilizes the Stanford Online Deliberation Platform to help facilitate discussions between delegates and an automated moderator. Learn more about other Stanford Deliberative Democracy Lab projects here: https://deliberation.stanford.edu/.

Participant Recruitment and Selection

Over the course of two days (July 14th and 15th, 2020) 292 high school students from across the nation participated in the Young Democracy at Home event. This sample was collected by the Close Up Foundation.

Methods and Tools Used

The students who took part in the Young Democracy at Home event conducted the deliberation through the Stanford Online Deliberation Platform. This platform was designed by the Stanford Deliberative Democracy Lab (previously known as Stanford’s Center for Deliberative Democracy) and the Crowdsourced Democracy Team.

The platform allows mass deliberations to take place efficiently and effectively. Features include an automated moderator, timed small group discussions, and tools to ensure that participants get equitable speaking time.

Read more about the Stanford Online Deliberation Platform here: https://deliberation.stanford.edu/tools-and-resources/online-deliberation-platform

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

Prior to the event, participating students received both the briefing materials alongside a survey. The survey gathered insights on the students' current perspectives and how they perceived a wide variety of economic or healthcare-related issues. The briefing materials were carefully designed to include balanced argument for both the for and against side.

Here are the briefing materials for the economy: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YYR5NDf3ppzABekbCTXIjZsP75O28DKV/view?usp=sharing

Here are the briefing materials for healthcare: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LoIp6_nxeQ1q6Oi8G1wHPaWbUAA-_N_q/view?usp=sharing

During the two days of the event, students deliberated with one another in small groups, sharing opinions and differing perspectives on numerous policy proposals. Additionally, a panel of experts were invited to help answer or clarify any questions that students had regarding the issues.

Following the first day of deliberation, students were surveyed for a midpoint survey. After the second (and final) day of deliberations, participants were surveyed for a final time.

For the event and process of deliberation, a split-half design was utilized in an attempt to isolate the effects of experience of the small group deliberations and plenary sessions. The design consisted of two treatment groups: the deliberation of economics first ("E-first") and the deliberation of healthcare first ("H-first"). The E-first group had a sample size of 101 participants while the H-first group had a total of 105 participants. Both groups showed statistically significant shifts in opinion that mirror the opinion of all participants (including non-participants).

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

See the Final Report and Statistical Analysis of the deliberation in depth here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/16gYUcnXUkWJshDrkKTo5Qb05jNBpRfpp/view?usp=sharing

Analysis and Lessons Learned

Political Efficacy: Post-deliberation, participants became relatively more optimistic regarding the state of American democracy and their place within it. Prior to the deliberation, about half (44%) of the participants thought the system worked poorly prior to deliberation but that proportion declined significantly to less than a third (29%) after the deliberation. However, other aspects of participant opinion stayed in a similar range and did not change significantly. For example, mean agreement with the statement that "People like me don't have any say about what the government does" did not change significantly and still remained low.

Mutual Respect: Overall, a sense of mutual respect emerged based on the differences seen in the surveys prior, during, and post-deliberation. For example, the mean agreement that people who disagree with one on an issue "just don't know enough", "believe some things that are untrue", or "are looking out for their own interests" as opposed to the interests of others dropped significantly. This is also seen in the increase in agreement with the statement that "they have good reasons; there just are better ones on the other side," where participants acknowledged the reasoning for opposing arguments.

However, while changes in perception were significant, negative views of those with whom a participant disagreed still persisted. A majority of participants post-deliberation (73.7%) still believed that others are "looking out for their own interests," and the mean agreement that others "are not thinking clearly" did not change significantly.

Additionally, the perceptions of participants held of those with whom they disagreed changed significantly after the first day of deliberation, but not as much after the second.

External Links

Young Democracy at Home: Final Report and Statistical Analysis

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16gYUcnXUkWJshDrkKTo5Qb05jNBpRfpp/view?usp=sharing

Young Democracy at Home: Report Appendix

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hqURepB-QLv_AQIYT23dPYHHBq7h5sMZ/view?usp=sharing