A Case Study Investigating the Influence of Deliberative Discussion on Environmental Preferences

Abstract

Three small discussion groups (30 participants) were convened in the Capital District of New York the summer of 2005 to discuss the proposal to open the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil development. Q methodology was used to test the hypotheses that deliberative discussion encourages prosocial and pro-environmental preferences and influences participants to be more willing to forego the economic and energy security benefits of development in favor of wilderness protection. The findings supported the study hypotheses; however the participants’ strong preexisting environmental bias made it difficult to separate the social influence of deliberation from majority influence. The findings also revealed that deliberation created new questions and uncertainties for many of the participants, resulting in postdiscussion preferences that may not be stable. The results complement the theoretical arguments for deliberative decision making and help bridge the gap between theory and empirical research.

Keywords:

• coastal plain
• deliberative discussion
• environmental decision making
• environmental preferences
• existence values
• inter-generational sovereignty
• Q methodology
• wilderness values

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges her anonymous reviewers and John Gowdy and David Meek for their helpful comments on early drafts, and especially Troy Hall for her constructive criticisms and suggestions. The research is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under grant 0406912. Any opinions, findings, or conclusions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the reviewers or of the NSF.

Notes

Note. n refers to the number of participants holding the respective degree.

Note. Significant loadings at the .05 level (≥30) are highlighted with primary factor loadings underlined.

Note. n refers to the number of participants loading significantly on each pretest:posttest factor shift (n totals to more than 30 due to some participants loading significantly on more than one pretest:posttest factor shift); % refers to the percentage of the total number of participants (30) represented by the pretest:posttest factor shift.

Although the video was not independently tested for bias, one study participant was employed as a television program producer and he wrote in his exit survey, “[The] video did a good job of providing both sides of the issue without bias.”