Doctoral Dissertation Research in Political Science: Processes of Democratic Choice: An Experimental Study

许多政治学家认为人们可以通过讨论来解决他们的政治分歧。然而，他们担心，如果人们不遵守某些规则，比如不打断对方，讨论只会使现状永垂不朽。同时，关于小组讨论的文献表明，遵循这些规则将使人们更难解决群体整体利益与个体成员利益冲突的政治问题。本研究解决了以下问题：当个人利益与群体利益之间存在冲突时，使用政治学理论推荐的讨论规则讨论这种冲突的群体是否比不使用这些规则讨论冲突的群体更好地解决了这种冲突？为了回答这个问题，研究人员进行了一项对照实验。首先，五人一组投资于一个旨在制造个人和群体利益冲突的市场。然后小组成员彼此讨论这个冲突，一些小组使用理论推荐的讨论规则，其余小组不使用这些规则。经过讨论，各组再次投资市场。通过考察群体成员的投资决策，研究人员确定参与者是否能够解决个人利益与群体利益之间的冲突。每个受试者回答几个关于小组讨论效果的问题。通过检查这些答案，研究人员确定了为什么一些群体未能解决冲突。这项研究对政治学具有根本性的重要性。首先，它通过实验测试讨论规则是否总是导致政治冲突的解决，从而提供了重要的新知识。这是许多政治学家的观点；然而，这项研究是第一次以受控的方式对其进行测试。其次，本研究整合了政治学的几个子领域，采用社会心理学指导的对照实验来检验政治理论家的主张。如果政治学家要了解小组讨论的好处和复杂性，这些子领域必须相互沟通。这项研究也具有广泛的社会重要性，因为在所有社会的政治生活中都可以发现群体和个人利益之间的冲突。国家卫生保健、社会保障和社会福利是个人和群体利益经常发生冲突的政策例子。了解讨论规则是否有助于或阻碍解决这一冲突，告诉我们它们是否值得为实施付出代价。此外，对发展中国家的研究表明，人们必须相互信任，民主才能扎根。建立机制来调解群体和个人利益之间的冲突，对于培养这种信任感至关重要。这项研究还提供了关于群体如何在精心控制的环境中调解这种冲突的见解。这些知识可以用来在发展中国家建立足够强大的制度，以支持民主，同时维护对民主繁荣至关重要的个人自由。

Many political scientists believe that people can resolve their political differences through discussion. However, they fear that if people do not follow certain rules, such as not interrupting one another, discussion will only perpetuate the status quo. At the same time, the literature on small group discussion suggests that following these rules will make it harder for people to resolve political problems where the interests of the group as a whole conflicts with the interests of the individual members. This research addresses the following question: when there is a conflict between individual and group interests, do groups that discuss this conflict using the discussion rules recommended by political science theory resolve this conflict better than groups that discuss the conflict without these rules?To answer this question, the researcher conducted a controlled experiment. First, groups of five people invested in a market designed to create a conflict between individual and group interests. Group members then discussed this conflict with one another, with some groups using discussion rules recommended by theory, and the remaining groups using no such rules. Following discussion, each group again invested in the market. By examining the investment decisions of group members, the researcher determines whether the participants were able to resolve the conflict between individual and group interests. Each subject answers several questions about the efficacy of their group's discussion. By examining these answers, the researcher determines why some groups failed to resolve the conflict.This research is of fundamental importance to political science. First, it provides vital new knowledge by experimentally testing whether discussion rules always lead to the resolution of political conflict. This claim is made by many political scientists; yet this research is the first to test it in a controlled fashion. Second, this research integrates several sub-fields of political science by using a controlled experiment directed by social psychology to test a claim made by political theorists. These sub-fields must communicate with one another if political scientists are to understand the benefits and complexities of group discussion.This research is also of broad social importance, because conflicts between group and individual interests are found in the political life of all societies. National health care, social security, and social welfare are examples of policies where individual and group interests are often in conflict. Learning whether discussion rules help or hinder the resolution of this conflict tells us whether they are worth the cost of implementation. In addition, research on developing nations shows that people must trust one another for democracy to take hold. Developing institutions to mediate the conflict between group and individual interests is crucial to developing this sense of trust. This research also provides insight into how groups mediate this conflict in a carefully controlled setting. This knowledge can be used to establish institutions in developing nations that are strong enough to support democracy while maintaining the individual freedom crucial to its flourishing.