Care to share? Public information-sharing behavior in response to the Citizens’ Initiative Review

Sharing political information is at the heart of democracy. Previous research has shown that the information people receive from various sources can make or break their voting decisions. Less is known, however, about what people do to actively share information with their peers. In this article, we investigate this question in a novel modern context wherein voters read a statement from an advisory minipublic made up of their peers. Using data from three US states’ ballot initiatives during general elections (Oregon N = 963, Arizona N = 1138, and Massachusetts N = 1139), we find sharing information from a Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR) is associated with talking politics, perceiving claims as more accurate, the usefulness of the CIR’s Summary Statement, a claim’s average ideological polarization between liberals and conservatives, and more faith in deliberation. The results of the study reveal the descriptive patterns and covariates associated with information-sharing behavior. Deliberation is expected to be contingent, with varying degrees of previous involvement in formal and informal deliberation processes. The study highlights the importance of understanding the transition from formal to kitchen deliberation and the potential patterns of information distortion. Overall, the findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the factors that drive willingness to share information from the CIR's summary statement and shed light on the role of minipublics in shaping public discourse and decision-making processes.