Abstract

Deliberative public involvement processes have been advocated as ways to increase collective understanding and "coming to public judgment" about resource management dilemmas. Some argue that the deliberative process, as well as presenting relevant technical information that is clearly communicated, can help participants make more informed, well-reasoned, and carefully considered judgments about a management dilemma. To date, research has yet to examine the influences of presented technical information and values-based deliberations on participants' opinions about management policies during these processes. In May and June 2005, four stakeholder involvement meetings (n = 50) were held in different communities in Oregon that measured the attitudes of participants with different levels of involvement, or vested interest, in the management of a specific high-use wilderness. Participants' attitudes about wilderness management were measured three times during the meetings to assess the relationships of presented technical information and facilitated deliberations with their initial and evolving attitudes about wilderness management. To evaluate the relationship of deliberation with changes in participants' attitudes, all of the small-group discussions were tape-recorded and coded using a new technique---based on the heuristic-systematic model of information processing and the model of social influence---to explore differences in group-level information processing. Mean scores for attitudes did not dramatically change during the meetings. However, two-thirds of the participants changed their attitudes at some point during the meetings, varying in direction (more or less supportive of management policies) and magnitude of change. Patterns of attitude change related to the presentation of information and the deliberations were inconsistent. The relationship between vested interest and attitude change was typically negative, as expected. Groups differed on their depth of processing; however, the relationships between group-level processing and individual change were not statistically significant, perhaps due to low statistical power. The study illustrates that changes in participants' opinions are complex and highly idiosyncratic.