Kaisa Herne
Biographic Data
| ID | 3471005 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Kaisa Herne |
| GIVEN NAMES | Kaisa |
| FAMILY NAME | Herne |
| SIGNATURE | HERNE K |
| AFFILIATIONS | Tampere University |
| ORCID | 0000-0001-9616-7670 |
| VERIFIED | Yes |
| TOTAL WORKS | 22 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 277 |
| AUTHOR COUNT | 22 |
| EDITOR COUNT | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 1993 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2026 |
| H-INDEX | 7 |
The Influence of Justification Content and Argument Source on Perceived Argument Quality
Argumentation is at the core of political communication. We study what criteria people use when they evaluate argument quality. We ask how justification content and argument source – who presents the argument – influence perceived argument quality, as well as how these two interact. Regarding justification content, we rely on criteria derived from deliberative democracy, and separate appeals to common or private interests. Regarding argument sour…
Can Organized Deliberation Reduce Confirmation Bias
This is an accepted article with a DOI pre-assigned that is not yet published.This article explores the potentialof deliberative mini-publics (DMP) for reducing confirmation bias, that is, thetendency to seek out information that confirms existing views over informationthat contradicts them. A deliberative mini-public exposes participants todiverse opinions in a constructive environment, which could potentially hinderbiased information searches. …
In Online and Laboratory We Trust: Comparing Trust Game Behavior in Three Environments
We compared trust game behavior in three environments: (1) The standard laboratory with physically present participants ( Laboratory ); (2) An online environment with an online meeting before playing the trust game ( Online plus a meeting ); and (3) An online environment without a meeting ( Online without a meeting ). In Laboratory , participants convened in a classroom and interacted via computers. In Online plus a meeting , participants could s…
Are we what parties we support? Personality traits and party support in a multi‐party system
There is relatively little evidence about the association of personality to political behavior in multi‐party systems. We analyze the association of two personality traits to party support in a multi‐party system, where parties are differently aligned along the economic left‐right axis and the GAL‐TAN axis, that extends from green, alternative and libertarian to traditional, authoritarian and nationalist values. Machiavellianism refers to a manip…
Disagreement and Deliberation: Evidence from Three Deliberative Mini-Publics
This article is based on three experiments in citizen deliberation. We ask whether disagreement at group level as well as at individual level influence participants’ experiences of deliberation. In all three experiments, participants discussed in small groups and answered surveys before and after deliberations. The experiments were population-based with random selection. The topic of the first deliberation was nuclear power, the second dealt with…
Experimental Methods
This chapter provides the reader with the skills to assess and design experimental research on deliberation. First, it introduces the logic and methodology of experimentation and presents the different types of experiments that are used in social science research. Second, it provides an overview of experimentation on citizen deliberation, and discusses the problems related to experimentation, as well as considers the future of the method. Third, …
The Force of the Argument Source: The Partiality of the Source Influences the Evaluation of Political Arguments
We study the influence of argument sources on argument quality evaluations. Argument source refers to the person who present the argument. We ask whether partial, impartial and reluctant sources generate different evaluations of argument quality. We explore the source effect via a survey experiment where participants are asked to evaluate the quality of political arguments. Previous research on source partiality mainly concerns persuasion. The re…
Accountability as a Warrant for Trust: An Experiment on Sanctions and Justifications in a Trust Game
Accountability is present in many types of social relations; for example, the accountability of elected representatives to voters is the key characteristic of representative democracy. We distinguish between two institutional mechanisms of accountability, i.e., opportunity to punish and requirement of a justification, and examine the separate and combined effects of these mechanisms on individual behavior. For this purpose, we designed a decision…
Effects of fear on donations to climate change mitigation
Despite 70 years of research, there is no consensus about the effects of threat messages on behavior, partly because of publication bias. The lack of consensus concerns situations such as climate change where people tend to believe that they cannot easily make a major difference. Using a 2 × 2, (threat, neutral) × (efficacy, no efficacy) between-subjects design, we tested four hypotheses: the effect of threat stimuli on (1) mitigation of climate …
Can politicians and citizens deliberate together? Evidence from a local deliberative mini‐public
In a deliberative mini‐public, a representative number of citizens receive information and discuss given policy topics in facilitated small groups. Typically, mini‐publics are most effective politically and can have the most impact on policy‐making when they are connected to democratic decision‐making processes. Theorists have put forward possible mechanisms that may enhance this linkage, one of which is involving politicians within mini‐publics …
Research Methods in Deliberative Democracy
Research Methods in Deliberative Democracy is the first book that brings together a wide range of methods used in the study of deliberative democracy. It offers thirty-one different methods that scholars use for theorizing, measuring, exploring, or applying deliberative democracy. Each chapter presents one method by explaining its utility in deliberative democracy research and providing guidance on its application by drawing on examples from prev…
The influence of political knowledge on opinion polarization in citizen deliberation
Empirical studies show that people with high political knowledge tend to polarize more than others. Polarization refers to a process where one becomes more extreme in the direction of her or his original views. While some evidence supports this view, there is also contrasting evidence, rendering ambiguous conclusions. Discussing in a deliberative setting might alleviate polarization among participants independent of whether they are knowledgeable…
Empathy in a Citizen Deliberation Experiment
Despite increased scholarly attention, there is still limited knowledge on how empathy works in democratic deliberation. This article examines the role of empathy in citizen deliberation with the help of a deliberative experiment on immigration. First, a random sample of citizens was surveyed regarding their opinions on immigration. Based on their opinions, they were then divided into a permissive or a non‐permissive enclave, and randomly assigne…
What drives the polarisation and moderation of opinions? Evidence from a Finnish citizen deliberation experiment on immigration
In the study of deliberation, a largely under‐explored area is why some participants polarise their opinion after deliberation and why others moderate them. Opinion polarisation is usually considered a suspicious outcome of deliberation, while moderation is seen as a desirable one. This article takes issue with this view. Results from a Finnish deliberative experiment on immigration show that polarisers and moderators were not different in socioe…
Does Enclave Deliberation Polarize Opinions
When like-minded people discuss with each other, i.e. engage in 'enclave deliberation', their opinions tend to become more extreme. This is called group polarization. A population-based experiment with a pre-test post-test design was conducted to analyze whether the norms and procedures of deliberation interfere with the mechanisms of group polarization. Based on a survey, people with either permissive or restrictive attitudes toward immigration …
Citizen Deliberation on Nuclear Power: A Comparison of Two Decision-Making Methods
This article analyses the impact of decision-making methods on democratic deliberation. An experiment was designed to study the effects of two distinct decision-making methods. This citizen deliberation experiment took place in November 2006. The topic was: ‘Should a sixth nuclear power plant be built in Finland?’ A random sample of 2,500 people was first polled and invited to take part in the deliberation experiment. Eventually, 135 people took …
Deliberation and civic virtue: Lessons From a Citizen Deliberation Experiment
This article analyzes whether democratic deliberation enhances ‘civic virtues’ such as political knowledge, efficacy, trust, and preparedness for political and other collective action. The empirical analysis is based on an experiment held in November 2006 in Finland. The topic of this citizen deliberation experiment was nuclear power. Two treatments were enforced; half of the small groups made a decision through secret ballot, whereas the other h…
Sophisticated Behavior under Majoritarian and Non-Majoritarian Voting Procedures
The Role of Information in Choices Over Income Distributions
How people distribute income is investigated, using participants in two experimental treatments—one with and the other without a veil of ignorance. The experiment tests two major hypotheses: (1) the veil of ignorance generates Rawlsian choices, and (2) equal bargaining power and the veto rule generate Rawlsian choices, even though there is no veil of ignorance. Rawlsian choices are defined as those that maximize the income of the lowest income gr…
Testing the reference-dependent model: An experiment on asymmetrically dominated reference points
Standard choice theory assumes choice to be independent of the point of reference. Based on a number of studies which challenge this assumption, Tversky and Kahneman have proposed a reference-dependent model which captures the influence of reference points on individual choice. If choice is reference-dependent, switching the reference point so that it is first dominated by x and then by y increases the likelihood of choosing y. Switching the loca…
Testing the reference‐dependent model: An experiment on asymmetrically dominated reference points
Standard choice theory assumes choice to be independent of the point of reference. Based on a number of studies which challenge this assumption, Tversky and Kahneman have proposed a reference-dependent model which captures the influence of reference points on individual choice. If choice is reference-dependent, switching the reference point so that it is first dominated by x and then by y increases the likelihood of choosing y. Switching the loca…
The Distribution of A Priori Voting Power in the EC Council of Ministers and the European Parliament
One of the most important decision making bodies in the EC is the Council of Ministers. In that voting body the member states have different voting weights roughly in proportion to the size of their populations. This article focuses on the voting power of current and prospective member states (Finland, Norway and Sweden) utililizing the Shapley‐Shubik and Banzhaf indices of voting power. As the decision rules play a crucial role in the computatio…
Deliberation and civic virtue: Lessons From a Citizen Deliberation Experiment
This article analyzes whether democratic deliberation enhances ‘civic virtues’ such as political knowledge, efficacy, trust, and preparedness for political and other collective action. The empirical analysis is based on an experiment held in November 2006 in Finland. The topic of this citizen deliberation experiment was nuclear power. Two treatments were enforced; half of the small groups made a decision through secret ballot, whereas the other h…
Does Enclave Deliberation Polarize Opinions
When like-minded people discuss with each other, i.e. engage in 'enclave deliberation', their opinions tend to become more extreme. This is called group polarization. A population-based experiment with a pre-test post-test design was conducted to analyze whether the norms and procedures of deliberation interfere with the mechanisms of group polarization. Based on a survey, people with either permissive or restrictive attitudes toward immigration …
Citizen Deliberation on Nuclear Power: A Comparison of Two Decision-Making Methods
This article analyses the impact of decision-making methods on democratic deliberation. An experiment was designed to study the effects of two distinct decision-making methods. This citizen deliberation experiment took place in November 2006. The topic was: ‘Should a sixth nuclear power plant be built in Finland?’ A random sample of 2,500 people was first polled and invited to take part in the deliberation experiment. Eventually, 135 people took …
Research Methods in Deliberative Democracy
Research Methods in Deliberative Democracy is the first book that brings together a wide range of methods used in the study of deliberative democracy. It offers thirty-one different methods that scholars use for theorizing, measuring, exploring, or applying deliberative democracy. Each chapter presents one method by explaining its utility in deliberative democracy research and providing guidance on its application by drawing on examples from prev…
What drives the polarisation and moderation of opinions? Evidence from a Finnish citizen deliberation experiment on immigration
In the study of deliberation, a largely under‐explored area is why some participants polarise their opinion after deliberation and why others moderate them. Opinion polarisation is usually considered a suspicious outcome of deliberation, while moderation is seen as a desirable one. This article takes issue with this view. Results from a Finnish deliberative experiment on immigration show that polarisers and moderators were not different in socioe…
Empathy in a Citizen Deliberation Experiment
Despite increased scholarly attention, there is still limited knowledge on how empathy works in democratic deliberation. This article examines the role of empathy in citizen deliberation with the help of a deliberative experiment on immigration. First, a random sample of citizens was surveyed regarding their opinions on immigration. Based on their opinions, they were then divided into a permissive or a non‐permissive enclave, and randomly assigne…
The Distribution of A Priori Voting Power in the EC Council of Ministers and the European Parliament
One of the most important decision making bodies in the EC is the Council of Ministers. In that voting body the member states have different voting weights roughly in proportion to the size of their populations. This article focuses on the voting power of current and prospective member states (Finland, Norway and Sweden) utililizing the Shapley‐Shubik and Banzhaf indices of voting power. As the decision rules play a crucial role in the computatio…
Can politicians and citizens deliberate together? Evidence from a local deliberative mini‐public
In a deliberative mini‐public, a representative number of citizens receive information and discuss given policy topics in facilitated small groups. Typically, mini‐publics are most effective politically and can have the most impact on policy‐making when they are connected to democratic decision‐making processes. Theorists have put forward possible mechanisms that may enhance this linkage, one of which is involving politicians within mini‐publics …
The influence of political knowledge on opinion polarization in citizen deliberation
Empirical studies show that people with high political knowledge tend to polarize more than others. Polarization refers to a process where one becomes more extreme in the direction of her or his original views. While some evidence supports this view, there is also contrasting evidence, rendering ambiguous conclusions. Discussing in a deliberative setting might alleviate polarization among participants independent of whether they are knowledgeable…
The Role of Information in Choices Over Income Distributions
How people distribute income is investigated, using participants in two experimental treatments—one with and the other without a veil of ignorance. The experiment tests two major hypotheses: (1) the veil of ignorance generates Rawlsian choices, and (2) equal bargaining power and the veto rule generate Rawlsian choices, even though there is no veil of ignorance. Rawlsian choices are defined as those that maximize the income of the lowest income gr…
Disagreement and Deliberation: Evidence from Three Deliberative Mini-Publics
This article is based on three experiments in citizen deliberation. We ask whether disagreement at group level as well as at individual level influence participants’ experiences of deliberation. In all three experiments, participants discussed in small groups and answered surveys before and after deliberations. The experiments were population-based with random selection. The topic of the first deliberation was nuclear power, the second dealt with…
Effects of fear on donations to climate change mitigation
Despite 70 years of research, there is no consensus about the effects of threat messages on behavior, partly because of publication bias. The lack of consensus concerns situations such as climate change where people tend to believe that they cannot easily make a major difference. Using a 2 × 2, (threat, neutral) × (efficacy, no efficacy) between-subjects design, we tested four hypotheses: the effect of threat stimuli on (1) mitigation of climate …
Sophisticated Behavior under Majoritarian and Non-Majoritarian Voting Procedures
The Distribution of A Priori Voting Power in the EC Council of Ministers and the European Parliament
One of the most important decision making bodies in the EC is the Council of Ministers. In that voting body the member states have different voting weights roughly in proportion to the size of their populations. This article focuses on the voting power of current and prospective member states (Finland, Norway and Sweden) utililizing the Shapley‐Shubik and Banzhaf indices of voting power. As the decision rules play a crucial role in the computatio…
Testing the reference-dependent model: An experiment on asymmetrically dominated reference points
Standard choice theory assumes choice to be independent of the point of reference. Based on a number of studies which challenge this assumption, Tversky and Kahneman have proposed a reference-dependent model which captures the influence of reference points on individual choice. If choice is reference-dependent, switching the reference point so that it is first dominated by x and then by y increases the likelihood of choosing y. Switching the loca…
Testing the reference‐dependent model: An experiment on asymmetrically dominated reference points
Standard choice theory assumes choice to be independent of the point of reference. Based on a number of studies which challenge this assumption, Tversky and Kahneman have proposed a reference-dependent model which captures the influence of reference points on individual choice. If choice is reference-dependent, switching the reference point so that it is first dominated by x and then by y increases the likelihood of choosing y. Switching the loca…
The Role of Information in Choices Over Income Distributions
How people distribute income is investigated, using participants in two experimental treatments—one with and the other without a veil of ignorance. The experiment tests two major hypotheses: (1) the veil of ignorance generates Rawlsian choices, and (2) equal bargaining power and the veto rule generate Rawlsian choices, even though there is no veil of ignorance. Rawlsian choices are defined as those that maximize the income of the lowest income gr…
Sophisticated Behavior under Majoritarian and Non-Majoritarian Voting Procedures
Citizen Deliberation on Nuclear Power: A Comparison of Two Decision-Making Methods
This article analyses the impact of decision-making methods on democratic deliberation. An experiment was designed to study the effects of two distinct decision-making methods. This citizen deliberation experiment took place in November 2006. The topic was: ‘Should a sixth nuclear power plant be built in Finland?’ A random sample of 2,500 people was first polled and invited to take part in the deliberation experiment. Eventually, 135 people took …
Deliberation and civic virtue: Lessons From a Citizen Deliberation Experiment
This article analyzes whether democratic deliberation enhances ‘civic virtues’ such as political knowledge, efficacy, trust, and preparedness for political and other collective action. The empirical analysis is based on an experiment held in November 2006 in Finland. The topic of this citizen deliberation experiment was nuclear power. Two treatments were enforced; half of the small groups made a decision through secret ballot, whereas the other h…
Does Enclave Deliberation Polarize Opinions
When like-minded people discuss with each other, i.e. engage in 'enclave deliberation', their opinions tend to become more extreme. This is called group polarization. A population-based experiment with a pre-test post-test design was conducted to analyze whether the norms and procedures of deliberation interfere with the mechanisms of group polarization. Based on a survey, people with either permissive or restrictive attitudes toward immigration …
Empathy in a Citizen Deliberation Experiment
Despite increased scholarly attention, there is still limited knowledge on how empathy works in democratic deliberation. This article examines the role of empathy in citizen deliberation with the help of a deliberative experiment on immigration. First, a random sample of citizens was surveyed regarding their opinions on immigration. Based on their opinions, they were then divided into a permissive or a non‐permissive enclave, and randomly assigne…
What drives the polarisation and moderation of opinions? Evidence from a Finnish citizen deliberation experiment on immigration
In the study of deliberation, a largely under‐explored area is why some participants polarise their opinion after deliberation and why others moderate them. Opinion polarisation is usually considered a suspicious outcome of deliberation, while moderation is seen as a desirable one. This article takes issue with this view. Results from a Finnish deliberative experiment on immigration show that polarisers and moderators were not different in socioe…
The influence of political knowledge on opinion polarization in citizen deliberation
Empirical studies show that people with high political knowledge tend to polarize more than others. Polarization refers to a process where one becomes more extreme in the direction of her or his original views. While some evidence supports this view, there is also contrasting evidence, rendering ambiguous conclusions. Discussing in a deliberative setting might alleviate polarization among participants independent of whether they are knowledgeable…
Experimental Methods
This chapter provides the reader with the skills to assess and design experimental research on deliberation. First, it introduces the logic and methodology of experimentation and presents the different types of experiments that are used in social science research. Second, it provides an overview of experimentation on citizen deliberation, and discusses the problems related to experimentation, as well as considers the future of the method. Third, …
The Force of the Argument Source: The Partiality of the Source Influences the Evaluation of Political Arguments
We study the influence of argument sources on argument quality evaluations. Argument source refers to the person who present the argument. We ask whether partial, impartial and reluctant sources generate different evaluations of argument quality. We explore the source effect via a survey experiment where participants are asked to evaluate the quality of political arguments. Previous research on source partiality mainly concerns persuasion. The re…
Accountability as a Warrant for Trust: An Experiment on Sanctions and Justifications in a Trust Game
Accountability is present in many types of social relations; for example, the accountability of elected representatives to voters is the key characteristic of representative democracy. We distinguish between two institutional mechanisms of accountability, i.e., opportunity to punish and requirement of a justification, and examine the separate and combined effects of these mechanisms on individual behavior. For this purpose, we designed a decision…
Effects of fear on donations to climate change mitigation
Despite 70 years of research, there is no consensus about the effects of threat messages on behavior, partly because of publication bias. The lack of consensus concerns situations such as climate change where people tend to believe that they cannot easily make a major difference. Using a 2 × 2, (threat, neutral) × (efficacy, no efficacy) between-subjects design, we tested four hypotheses: the effect of threat stimuli on (1) mitigation of climate …
Can politicians and citizens deliberate together? Evidence from a local deliberative mini‐public
In a deliberative mini‐public, a representative number of citizens receive information and discuss given policy topics in facilitated small groups. Typically, mini‐publics are most effective politically and can have the most impact on policy‐making when they are connected to democratic decision‐making processes. Theorists have put forward possible mechanisms that may enhance this linkage, one of which is involving politicians within mini‐publics …
Research Methods in Deliberative Democracy
Research Methods in Deliberative Democracy is the first book that brings together a wide range of methods used in the study of deliberative democracy. It offers thirty-one different methods that scholars use for theorizing, measuring, exploring, or applying deliberative democracy. Each chapter presents one method by explaining its utility in deliberative democracy research and providing guidance on its application by drawing on examples from prev…
Are we what parties we support? Personality traits and party support in a multi‐party system
There is relatively little evidence about the association of personality to political behavior in multi‐party systems. We analyze the association of two personality traits to party support in a multi‐party system, where parties are differently aligned along the economic left‐right axis and the GAL‐TAN axis, that extends from green, alternative and libertarian to traditional, authoritarian and nationalist values. Machiavellianism refers to a manip…
Disagreement and Deliberation: Evidence from Three Deliberative Mini-Publics
This article is based on three experiments in citizen deliberation. We ask whether disagreement at group level as well as at individual level influence participants’ experiences of deliberation. In all three experiments, participants discussed in small groups and answered surveys before and after deliberations. The experiments were population-based with random selection. The topic of the first deliberation was nuclear power, the second dealt with…
Can Organized Deliberation Reduce Confirmation Bias
This is an accepted article with a DOI pre-assigned that is not yet published.This article explores the potentialof deliberative mini-publics (DMP) for reducing confirmation bias, that is, thetendency to seek out information that confirms existing views over informationthat contradicts them. A deliberative mini-public exposes participants todiverse opinions in a constructive environment, which could potentially hinderbiased information searches. …
In Online and Laboratory We Trust: Comparing Trust Game Behavior in Three Environments
We compared trust game behavior in three environments: (1) The standard laboratory with physically present participants ( Laboratory ); (2) An online environment with an online meeting before playing the trust game ( Online plus a meeting ); and (3) An online environment without a meeting ( Online without a meeting ). In Laboratory , participants convened in a classroom and interacted via computers. In Online plus a meeting , participants could s…
The Influence of Justification Content and Argument Source on Perceived Argument Quality
Argumentation is at the core of political communication. We study what criteria people use when they evaluate argument quality. We ask how justification content and argument source – who presents the argument – influence perceived argument quality, as well as how these two interact. Regarding justification content, we rely on criteria derived from deliberative democracy, and separate appeals to common or private interests. Regarding argument sour…
Political science (16 works) · Law (13 works) · Social Media and Politics (12 works) · Law (10 works) · Politics (10 works) · Psychology (10 works) · Social Psychology (10 works) · Deliberation (9 works) · Electoral Systems and Political Participation (8 works) · Computer Science (7 works)