Does Enclave Deliberation Polarize Opinions?

Kimmo Grönlund, Kaisa Herne, Maija Setälä

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

46 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

When like-minded people discuss with each other, i.e. engage in ‘enclave deliberation’, their opinions tend to become more extreme. This is called group polarization. A population-based experiment with a pre-test post-test design was conducted to analyze whether the norms and procedures of deliberation interfere with the mechanisms of group polarization. Based on a survey, people with either permissive or restrictive attitudes toward immigration were first identified and then invited to the experiment. The participants were randomly assigned to like-minded and mixed small-n groups. Each like-minded group consisted of only permissive or restrictive participants, whereas each mixed group consisted of four permissive and four restrictive participants. The like-minded treatment represents enclave deliberation, and the mixed treatment a ‘standard’ deliberative mini-public design. The main finding of our experiment is that people with anti-immigrant attitudes become more tolerant even when they deliberate in like-minded groups. Moreover, similar learning curves are observed in both treatments. Based on the results, we conclude that deliberative norms can alleviate the negative consequences of discussion in like-minded groups.
Original languageUndefined/Unknown
Pages (from-to)995–1020
JournalPolitical Behavior
Volume37
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015
MoE publication typeA1 Journal article-refereed

Keywords

  • Deliberative democracy
  • Polarization
  • experiment design
  • experiment
  • Experimental research
  • Attitudes
  • Deliberation

Cite this