What drives the polarisation and moderation of opinions? Evidence from a Finnish citizen deliberation experiment on immigration

Abstract

In the study of deliberation, a largely under‐explored area is why some participants polarise their opinion after deliberation and why others moderate them. Opinion polarisation is usually considered a suspicious outcome of deliberation, while moderation is seen as a desirable one. This article takes issue with this view. Results from a Finnish deliberative experiment on immigration show that polarisers and moderators were not different in socioeconomic, cognitive or affective profiles. Moreover, both polarisation and moderation can entail deliberatively desired pathways: in the experiment, both polarisers and moderators learned during deliberation, levels of empathy were fairly high on both sides, and group pressures barely mattered. Finally, the low physical presence of immigrants in some discussion groups was associated with polarisation in the anti‐immigrant direction, bolstering longstanding claims regarding the importance of presence for democratic politics.

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

“…Likewise Lazer et al (2015) have shown that participation in a deliberative event induces individuals to discuss the topic with those who hold different opinions in society, thus undercutting polarization. Finally Lindell et al (2017) have begun analysing not just group shifts in terms of polarization or moderation, but individual changes. These scholars find that ideological factors (a left-right orientation) are good predictors for the polarisation or the moderation of opinions.…”

Behind the Screens: E-Government in American State Election Administration

“…Scholars have paid attention to these trends with research agendas spanning from issues of access (Gao and Lee 2017), to the impact of e-government on citizen engagement and participation in government decision-making (Grönlund, Strandberg, and Himmelroos 2009;Lindell et al 2017;Medaglia and Zhu 2017), and the promises of transparency and accountability using open data initiatives (Danneels, Viaene, and Van den Bergh 2017;Fan and Zhao 2017).…”

Political Justificationism: A Casuistic Epistemology of Political Disagreement

“…What should we make of political disagreements that seem more un reasonable? One example to consider is the Finnish deliberative poll discussed by Marina Lindell et al (2017). The researchers wanted to compare the differences between those who deliberate in like-minded groups and those who are in more heterogeneous groups.…”