Deliberative Polling and the inevitability of consensus: the evidence

Also relevant to Bannister’s claim of inevitable consensus is the well-documented "Groupthink" phenomenon – the classic example of group decision-making gone array because of consensus. Irving Janis’s exposure of the Kennedy Administration’s handling of the Bay of Pigs first exposed the ‘agreement at any cost’ mentality. Groups under the influence of groupthink are defined by: an illusion of invulnerability, collective rationalizations, unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality, stereotyped views of rivals and enemies, direct pressure on members to conform, self censorship on deviation from norms, a shared illusion of unanimity, and emergence of self-appointed mind guards. Thus, the group’s decision making is flawed due to poor information search, incomplete survey of alternatives, selective bias in information processing and failure to appraise the pros and cons of all alternatives.

Effective counters to groupthink - deliberate examination of assumptions, comprehensive search for all relevant information, brainstorming to ensure diversity of information being considered, thorough analysis of the pros and cons of competing arguments and deliberate posing of devil’s advocate questions, are all built into the Deliberative Polling process. Participants in a Deliberative Poll systematically consider the full spectrum of opinion on an issue to which they would otherwise not be exposed.

Bannister also argues that a loud intra-group minority can influence the group and lead to biased conclusions. This is possible, but the presence of a "loud minority" in a group does not necessarily lead to inevitable consensus in line with the minority. Consider Nemeth’s (1986) seminal work on the differential contribution of minority and majority influence on group decision-making. Nemeth shows that majorities foster convergence of attention and thought, and may constrain the number of alternatives considered by the group. Alternatively, minorities stimulate divergent attention and thought, thus facilitating the detection of more novel solutions and creative decisions.

If a group is managed effectively, with deliberate orchestration of the voicing of both minority and majority opinions, the result is a more comprehensive, diverse assessment of a range of competing arguments than may otherwise have been considered. The result: more effective decision-making. For all Deliberative Polls conducted thus far, group work (large and small) is specifically designed to facilitate exploration of BOTH minority and majority opinion. All participants are encouraged to voice their ideas. No ideas are sanctioned. The culture is deliberately managed to facilitate respect for others' opinions, listening to others' ideas, not denigrating, and not interrupting. Observation of any single group provides clear evidence that all participants are empowered.

Any number of other decision-making tendencies – for example "The Status Quo Tendency" (Silver and Mitchell, 1990), "The Abalene Paradox", (Harvey, 1990), or selective perception (Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Klayman & Ha, 1987), can all influence what and how citizens process information on an issue. Take selective perception, the tendency to perceive issues in ways related to specific experience or expectations (Hogarth & Makridakis, 1981). Incoming information may be processed in ways which confirm or match evolving beliefs, even when the evidence is ambiguous (Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Klayman & Ha, 1987). Similarly, new information may be discredited, even if it conflicts with evolving beliefs (O'Reilly & Caldwell, 1982). At a typical forum, these tendencies might lead to inevitable consensus, but not so Deliberative Polling.

The Deliberative Polling methodology avoids these biases in decision-making by: establishing a culture in which a diverse and extensive range of competing arguments about a specific public policy issue are systematically explored, and encouraging an overt assessment by individual citizens of those competing arguments prior to drawing conclusions. The lessons learned from one hundred years of research in a range of disciplines are key components of the Deliberative Polling methodology. The problem for lobby groups with a vested interest in the outcomes of a Deliberative Poll is that when results are contrary to their own lobby agenda, they may experience classic cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957). They either face the dissonance and accept the results of the informed representative citizens, or disparage the process.