In response to Jurg Steiner's concept stretching: The case of deliberation

David Austen-Smith*, Timothy J. Feddersen

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Scopus citations


Steiner's principal objection to our paper is that deliberators in a committee are permitted to speak strategically whereas deliberative theory requires that actors do not lie but are truthful and authentic in their statements. In this response we observe that such a prescription is relevant only to the extent that individuals might be expected to behave otherwise. Our paper explores conditions under which deliberators' strategic (descriptive) incentives are aligned with the (prescriptive) advice to tell the truth.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)191-193
Number of pages3
JournalEuropean Political Science
Issue number2
StatePublished - Jun 2008


  • Deliberation
  • Strategic incentives
  • Truth telling

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Political Science and International Relations


Dive into the research topics of 'In response to Jurg Steiner's concept stretching: The case of deliberation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this