Challenging the “deliberative ideal”? An experimental test of the effect of different political communication styles on different political evaluations

According to deliberative democratic theory, political decision-making processes should be based on a deliberative discourse, in which political actors listen to each other, reasonably justify their positions, and show mutual respect (e.g. Steenbergen et al., 2003). Theorists argue that this type of discourse leads to better-informed preferences (Fishkin, 1995) and more legitimate decision-making (Cohen, 1989). Yet both the increasing success of right-wing populist parties and the trend towards mediatization puts constraints on the deliberative quality of the political discourse. One of the consequences is a more simplified and polarizing political discourse. Given the success of populist parties and the increased use of a media logic in the discourse of politicians, the question arises whether a populist or mediatized political discourse is more convincing than a deliberative one. Therefore, this study investigates how citizens react to these radically different types of discourse. It might be the case that a populist or mediatized political discourse persuades and informs citizens in a less deliberative, but more convincing way. In order to tackle this vital question, an experimental design was developed in which three political discourses (deliberative, populist and mediatized) are manipulated. Its effects on three different political evaluations are evaluated: the legitimacy of the political system, the effectiveness of the political argument, and the effectiveness of the political candidate. This way, we investigate whether a deliberative discourse is perceived as more legitimate than a populist or mediatized discourse on the one hand, but less effective to persuade citizens on the other. Preliminary results from a pilot study suggest that this is not the case. While we do find some differences, overall, both the evaluations of legitimacy and effectiveness are better after exposure to a deliberative discourse.status: publishe