Does Disagreement Contribute to More Deliberative Opinion?

TLDR

Discussion and disagreement are theorized to be essential for sound public opinion and democracy, yet their benefits remain under‑tested. The study investigates whether exposure to disagreement in political conversation improves opinion quality by expanding understanding of others’ perspectives. Using a 2000 survey of 1,684 Americans, the authors measured participants’ argument repertoires—reasons for their own and opposing views—and examined how conversation frequency and disagreement exposure predict repertoire breadth. Results confirm that exposure to disagreement enhances individuals’ ability to generate reasons, particularly for understanding why others might disagree with their own views. Keywords: disagreement, opinion quality, political discussion, public opinion.

Abstract

Abstract Theorists have argued that discussion and disagreement are essential components of sound public opinion, and indeed that both are necessary for effective democracy. But their putative benefits have not been well tested. Consequently, this article examines whether disagreement in political conversation contributes to opinion quality--specifically, whether it expands one's understanding of others' perspectives. Data are drawn from a survey of the American public ( N = 1,684) conducted in February and March 2000. Open-ended survey measures of "argument repertoire"--reasons people can give in support of their own opinions, as well as reasons they can offer to support opposing points of view--are examined in light of numerous explanatory variables, including the frequency of political conversation and exposure to disagreement. Results confirm the hypothesis that exposure to disagreement does indeed contribute to people's ability to generate reasons, and in particular reasons why others might disagree with their own views. Keywords: Disagreement Opinion Quality Political Discussion Public Opinion