Watching participatory budgeting events or attending them produce different distributive outcomes Azi Lev-On Communication, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel Abstract Purpose – The study examines the impact of presence, synchronicity of exposure and other variables on allocative decisions reached following a participatory budgeting event. Design/methodology/approach – The study analyzes the distributive decisions reached following a participatory budgeting event, which took place in an academic institution, and students were asked to determine the distribution of a portion of the student union budget. Some students viewed the event live (physically or remotely), while others watched it in delay. Findings – The main variable affecting allocative decisions was whether decision-makers were exposed to the event physically or remotely. There was a significant and large difference between allocation decisions of participants who were physically present at the event and those who were exposed to it remotely. Practical implications – The discussion elaborates on the implications of the findings for the importance of presence and media selection in public engagement events. Originality/value – Public engagement events are becoming widespread, with the Internet being a major tool in their administration. This study demonstrates that using the Internet to make such events accessible to the non-physically present can create significant changes in decisions reached by participants. Keywords Internet, Participation, Deliberation, Presence Paper type Research paper Introduction The paper examines the impact of media and other variables on allocative decisions made in a deliberative event and demonstrates the importance of co-presence (presence in the same physical space with the discussants) over and above synchronicity (being exposed to an event live or in delay) and other variables. Implication for online decision-making processes is discussed. Democratic governments enable public engagement in decision-making processes through various institutions: voting, referenda, petitions and more. In recent years, there has been a trend in many countries to involve citizens in participatory and deliberative processes on more complex issues than in the past (Coleman and Gotze, 2001; Chambers, 2003; Barker et al., 2012; Richards and Gastil, 2015). In such processes, citizens are asked not only to decide for or against a particular proposal, but to participate in a process that involves exposure to information, clarification of the various options and arguments for and against them, and reaching a decision through procedures such as “citizen-based consensus conferences”, “deliberative polls”, “deliberative jurors” and more (Nabatchi, 2012; Richards and Gastil, 2015). Processes of deliberative public engagement can be distinguished from non-deliberative forms of engagement (such as voting in elections), or deliberative processes that occur inside the political establishment, and do not involve large groups (such as discussions in parliamentary committees). Processes of deliberative public engagement differ from one another in many aspects (Nabatchi, 2012; Towne and Herbsleb, 2012): Participatory budgeting events The author thanks Yair Tsadok, Shirat Shahar, Inbal Lacks-Freund, and Arava Rotman for their assistance. The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1468-4527.htm Received 27 January 2020 Revised 16 November 2020 3 April 2021 Accepted 30 May 2021 Online Information Review © Emerald Publishing Limited 1468-4527 DOI 10.1108/OIR-01-2020-0033