National Issues Convention

January 19

Gastil: Some of the basic findings of the study were that people became more likely to listen in political conversations as the result of participating. ... There were significantly significant differences in the degree to which people would express themselves in a more domineering or aggressive way in political conversations.

JB: And people who've participated in these forums do that less.

Gastil: That's right. Participate in a National Issues Forum, and the odds increase that you'll be a little more likely to listen in a political conversation, and less likely to try to dominate the conversation to force your own view on whoever happens to be listening.

Another finding we had which was really surprising to us was that on seven different issues that we studied, people had completed before-and-after ballots, much like this convention, except that these were usually right before the forum and then right after the forum, so there was only two or three hours separating the completion of them. We had expected to find no differences, just because of the short period of time. But what we found in fact was that people became more internally consistent in their views on these issues. For instance, if I came into a forum somewhat liberal and mixed on conservative questions, I would come out of it a little more clear in my liberal positions, and a little less likely to agree with conservative ones. So it's sort of an ideological consistency on a single issue as a result of the forum. I think that's a good thing, because it means that people are becoming a little more refined in their views. Granted, participation on average may not change your view, but at least you have a better idea of why you think what you do and what you don't agree with -- which is a problem in this country, that people tend to agree with conflicting positions.

JB: So it doesn't mean necessarily that people who go through these things will move toward some common ground.

Gastil: No, that isn't what we found at all. It may mean that they move to common ground at a more abstract level. Take an issue like energy options. Some people may become more convinced that we can rely on coal and nuclear, and some people may become more convinced that we need alternative energies. But they may find common ground in the sense that they recognize that there's a problem, they agree to disagree, and they both appreciate the process more as a result of participating. There was a slight increase in the sense to which people could identify with one another, for instance, and recognize themselves as part of the same political community. So that's some common ground, if not substantive, at least some sort of affinity with your fellow citizen or something. It'll be interesting to see what this forum does, because it's much more intensive. You're being flown in with a very clear purpose, and I'll be interested to see how focused people can be and whether or not their views do change.

John Gastil of the Institute for Public Policy at the University of New Mexico. For Democracy Place, I'm John Biewen in Austin, Texas.