Abstract Policy interventions to address global warming have been politically controversial despite the scientific consensus that action is needed. Many environmental groups have thus demanded the use of deliberative mini‐publics (DMPs) or “climate assemblies” to give citizens direct influence over policymaking. However, if these assemblies are to be effective at overcoming political gridlock, then their recommendations must affect policy. We investigate the conditions under which the public would support assemblies with this type of power. Our focus lies on how information about the selection procedures used by an assembly, and hence the identity of participants, affects public perceptions of mini‐publics. While DMPs sometimes use random samples from the population, they also frequently use samples created by purposively sampling from sub‐groups that may be particularly impacted by the policy in question. What effect does purposive sampling have on support for DMPs and their recommendations? We use data from two pre‐registered survey experiments in the United Kingdom to examine this question. Contrary to expectations derived from theories of procedural fairness, we find that DMPs that involve targeted recruitment are associated with heightened public support relative to DMPs that utilize pure random sampling.
Kevins et al. (Fri,) studied this question.