Social Processes of Antagonism and Synergy in Deliberating Groups

Wesołowska, Elżbieta

doi:10.1002/j.1662-6370.2007.tb00093.x

Cited by 13 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding, they argue, is evidence that meta-consensus can emerge when groups need to work on constructing a joint position. In slightly more demanding way, Wesolowska (2007) shows that the structural conditions needed to reach meta- 12 The former because consensus risks silencing voices that do not conform to expectations of rational reason-giving, and the latter because of contestation over the nature of language. consensus include previous common ground, positive evaluation of others' claims, and reciprocity.…”

Section: Meso-changes: Social Learning Polarization and Consensusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deliberative Abilities and Influence in a Transnational Deliberative Poll (EuroPolis)

Gerber¹,

Bächtiger²,

Shikano³

et al. 2016

Brit. J. Polit. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Though commanding a prominent role in political theory, deliberative democracy has also become a mainstay of myriad other research traditions in recent years. This diffusion has been propelled along by the notion that deliberation, properly conceived and enacted, generates many beneficial outcomes. This article has three goals geared toward understanding whether these instrumental benefits provide us with good reasons -beyond intrinsic ones -to be deliberative democrats. First, the proclaimed instrumental benefits are systematized in terms of micro, meso, and macro outcomes. Second, relevant literatures are canvassed to critically assess what we know -and what we do not know -about deliberation's effects. Finally, the instrumental benefits of deliberation are recast in light of the ongoing systemic turn in deliberative theory. This article adds to our theoretical understanding of deliberation's promises and pitfalls, and helps practitioners identify gaps in our knowledge concerning how deliberation works and what its wider societal implications might be.

show abstract

Section: Meso-changes: Social Learning Polarization and Consensusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deliberative Abilities and Influence in a Transnational Deliberative Poll (EuroPolis)

Gerber¹,

Bächtiger²,

Shikano³

et al. 2016

Brit. J. Polit. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, addressing concerns about the lack of explanation of the psychological mechanisms underlying the effects of conditions of deliberation (Mutz, 2008; Wesolowska, 2007), this study also attempts to theorize a linkage among discussion incivility, cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors based on theories and empirical studies on social psychology by looking at the mediating role of “moral indignation.” We believe that research efforts testing normative deliberative theory with empirical studies and theories in other fields such as group dynamics, persuasion, and information processing will broaden our knowledge and understanding of social and psychological mechanisms for explaining individuals’ cognitive, attitudinal, and behavioral reactions to fellow citizens’ views during discussion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That is, both deliberative and hostile reactions to disagreement may lead to increased awareness of different opinions, but deliberative reactions are likely to result in open-mindedness to opposing views and favorable attitudes toward fellow citizens, while hostile reactions are likely to result in worsening inter-group antagonism and increased closed-mindedness. Unfortunately, however, the psychological processes underlying these two different reactions to disagreement have been a “black box” in deliberation studies (Mutz, 2008; Wesolowska, 2007). Although the research contexts have been quite different, theories and studies on social psychology provide valuable descriptions and explanations of the deliberative and hostile processes that might occur during discussion.…”

Section: Positive Versus Negative Consequences Of Exposure To Disagrementioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Discussion Incivility on Deliberation: An Examination of the Mediating Role of Moral Indignation

Hwang

Kim

2016

Communication Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Isolating causal relationships is very difficult in natural discussion because discussion is, by nature, a causally complex interactive process. This study provides a novel approach to this problem by using simulated online discussion to experimentally manipulate message characteristics in a timed script that participants believed to be a discussion with other participants. In particular, we manipulated whether simulated online discussion partners expressed disagreement civilly or uncivilly. With this unique design, we examined how individuals differently react to opposing views in an online discussion setting depending on tone of disagreement expression. Our results showed that exposure to uncivil discussion results in increased negative emotions toward the other side, which in turn led to more closed-mindedness and more expression of disagreement with the discussion partner on the other side of the issue, although uncivil discussion and negative emotions are positively related to recall of the other side's reasons.

show abstract

“…This finding, they argue, is evidence that meta-consensus can emerge when groups need to work on constructing a joint position. In slightly more demanding way, Wesolowska (2007) shows that the structural conditions needed to reach meta-consensus include previous common ground, positive evaluation of others' claims, and reciprocity.…”

Section: Meso-changes: Social Learning Polarization and Consensusmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Instrumental Value of Deliberative Democracy – Or, do we have Good Reasons to be Deliberative Democrats?

Kuyper

2018

Regular Issue

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Though commanding a prominent role in political theory, deliberative democracy has also become a mainstay of myriad other research traditions in recent years. This diffusion has been propelled along by the notion that deliberation, properly conceived and enacted, generates many beneficial outcomes. This article has three goals geared toward understanding whether these instrumental benefits provide us with good reasons-beyond intrinsic ones-to be deliberative democrats. First, the proclaimed instrumental benefits are systematized in terms of micro, meso, and macro outcomes. Second, relevant literatures are canvassed to critically assess what we know-and what we do not know-about deliberation's effects. Finally, the instrumental benefits of deliberation are recast in light of the ongoing systemic turn in deliberative theory. This article adds to our theoretical understanding of deliberation's promises and pitfalls, and helps practitioners identify gaps in our knowledge concerning how deliberation works and what its wider societal implications might be.

show abstract

Social Processes of Antagonism and Synergy in Deliberating Groups

Abstract: The first goal of this article is to explain the social and psychological mechanisms in

Cited by 13 publications

References 14 publications

Deliberative Abilities and Influence in a Transnational Deliberative Poll (EuroPolis)

Deliberative Abilities and Influence in a Transnational Deliberative Poll (EuroPolis)

Influence of Discussion Incivility on Deliberation: An Examination of the Mediating Role of Moral Indignation

The Instrumental Value of Deliberative Democracy – Or, do we have Good Reasons to be Deliberative Democrats?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About