We define public deliberation as talking civilly and constructively with others who have diverse views about important issues. It is a crucial complement to voting, volunteering, and activism, because it informs our judgment and exposes us to alternative perspectives.

There is increasing interest today in public deliberation. On the one hand, studies show that Americans generally do not engage in diverse and civil voluntary conversations about public issues, a trend that has provoked much research and discussion. On the other hand, numerous promising programs have developed since the 1970s to encourage deliberation: for example, National Issues Forums, Study Circles, Deliberative PollsTM, AmericaSpeaks' Twenty-First Century Town MeetingsTM, Choices for the 21st Century Education Project, and the American Democracy Project of the American Association of State Colleges & Universities.

In our survey, we ask two questions to identify "deliberators" by a fairly stringent definition. We first ask whether, "within the last year," respondents have "been involved in a meeting (either face-to-face or online) to determine ideas and solutions for problems" in their communities. Of those who say yes, we ask whether the discussion included people who held views different from the respondent's own. The combination of these two questions yields a group—18 percent of the whole sample, or 41 million Americans—who have been involved in open- ended, practical discussions with people of diverse views.

People who are involved in "citizen-centered" work (i.e., discussing and acting on issues) are most likely to have experienced conversations with people who hold views different from their own. Netizens are more likely than non-netizens to have experienced such diverse conversations, but a majority of netizens do not have such conversations.

Those who have deliberated have distinctive beliefs about politics and civil society. Compared to other Americans, they are much more likely to say that:

• The best way to address issues is for citizens to work together with other groups (65 percent of deliberators versus 50 percent of other people).

• They like to address problems by attending meetings sponsored by citizens' groups (60 percent of deliberators versus 36 percent of other people).

• It is important to help those in need (88 percent of deliberators versus 76 percent of other people). This finding suggests that deliberation either requires or engenders empathy.

In order to deliberate, one needs appropriate opportunities and venues. Seventy-nine percent of deliberators say there is a place in their community where they can go to discuss issues, versus just 34 percent of other people. Either having a place to go to talk encourages deliberation, or people who are committed to deliberation know about or create such places.

In general, deliberators are more trusting than non-deliberators. Presumably, we are more likely to participate in diverse conversations if we trust our fellow citizens; and participation engenders trust.