Knowledge, Trust or Perspectives? A Causal Mediation Analysis of How a Citizens’ Jury Affected Voting Intentions in the General Public

One of the purported advantages of arranging deliberative mini-public is that the deliberative output can influence public opinion and behaviour, thereby helping even those who did not take part reach a more enlightened understanding and act accordingly. However, while both theoretical and empirical studies suggest this to be the vase, the causal mechanisms remain unclear. It is therefore still unclear what attitudinal changes are more likely to induce changes in behaviour. In this paper, we examine three causal mechanisms for how a citizens’ jury affected the voting behaviour of the general population in a referendum: 1) by enhancing factual knowledge, 2) by providing a trusted information proxy, or 3) by inducing perspective-taking of the opinions of others. We use a case study of a citizens’ jury arranged in connection to a referendum on a municipal merger in Korsholm, Finland. We use causal mediation analysis to examine which of the three causal mechanisms best explain how the jury’s statement affected voting intentions in the general public. The results suggest that statement of the citizens’ jury mainly influenced voting behaviour by enhancing factual knowledge.