Deliberation reduces polarization by meeting Allport’s contact conditions and fostering common ingroup identity.

Evidence

Even though the argument is most often invoked that the deliberative process is in some way exceptionally well suited to moderation and mutual understanding, two additional theoretically founded mechanisms are mentioned. Allport’s intergroup contact hypothesis is mentioned, which claims that individuals will reduce conflict (and polarization) if they are put in a situation of equal status, physical contact, supportive group norms and overarching goals (see e.g., Caluwaerts and Reuchamps, 2014). Deliberation, in which everyone ideally has equal speaking time and influence, in which there are explicit group norms enforced by a facilitator, and in which the goal is to come to a collective decision, therefore meets the conditions for conflict-reduction set out by the contact hypothesis. … A final explanation for the conflict reducing potential of deliberation is inspired by the psychological common ingroup identity model. This explanation claims that polarization within the group will diminish as participants tend to develop a common identity as group members. Through deliberation, group members will come to identify with the deliberating group and overcome their differences, thereby reducing polarization within the group (Myers, 2021). — Didier Caluwaerts et al., Deliberation and Polarization, 131

Categorization

• DEFINE: Names and explains Allport’s intergroup contact hypothesis and the common ingroup identity model as the mechanisms said to make deliberation depolarizing.
• XREF: Connects to the reader’s interest in whether independent judgment can coexist with belonging-based conformity — these are the hypothesized mechanisms (equal standing, common identity) that would bind the deliberating group together. — connects to: Mediated rather than face-to-face deliberation tends to polarize groups — Didier Caluwaerts et al., Deliberation and Polarization: A…, 123; Deliberation reduces affective polarization but often increases idea-based polarization. — Didier Caluwaerts et al., Deliberation and Polarization: A…, 107; Deliberation reduces polarization mainly in political science studies — Didier Caluwaerts et al., Deliberation and Polarization: A…, 108 (+11 more)

Broader Connections

• A common group identity mediates contact’s bias reduction rather than merely aiding it #expands (0.90) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 572
• Allport’s contact hypothesis requires four specific conditions to reduce prejudice #expands (0.88)
• Depolarization requires deliberation framed by deliberative-democracy conditions. #corroborates (0.88) — Didier Caluwaerts et al., Deliberation and Polarization, 136
• Deliberation depolarizes groups only when sufficient disagreement is present. #qualifies (0.87) — Didier Caluwaerts et al., Deliberation and Polarization, 117
• Deliberation reduces affective polarization but often increases idea-based polarization. #qualifies (0.85) — Didier Caluwaerts et al., Deliberation and Polarization, 107
• Deliberation reduces polarization only under specific deliberative frameworks #qualifies (0.85) — Didier Caluwaerts et al., Deliberation and Polarization, 16
• Deliberation among like-minded peers pushes groups to more extreme positions. #contradicts (0.85) — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof, 437
• Unprepared intergroup contact can backfire and worsen polarization. #complicates (0.83)
• Mediated rather than face-to-face deliberation tends to polarize groups #qualifies (0.82) — Didier Caluwaerts et al., Deliberation and Polarization, 123
• Allport’s optimal contact conditions facilitate but are not necessary for prejudice reduction #complicates (0.82) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1700
• Intergroup contact reduces prejudice best when group categories stay salient. #complicates (0.80) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 556
• Allport’s contact conditions boost prejudice reduction more for nonracial than racial intergroup contexts #qualifies (0.80) — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 162
• Positive contact reduces prejudice most when group membership stays salient #complicates (0.79) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1844
• Deliberation reduces polarization mainly in political science studies #complicates (0.76) — Didier Caluwaerts et al., Deliberation and Polarization, 108