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.
