Facilitation effects may partly reflect experimenter demand characteristics.

Evidence

On the other hand, a less positive interpretation is that these findings might point to some experimenter bias. The mere presence of the researchers or their associate facilitators might convey the experimenters’ expectations, and arguably be sufficient to cause groups to depolarize more strongly. — Didier Caluwaerts et al., Deliberation and Polarization, 122

Categorization

• QUESTION: The facilitation finding is the crux—does it reflect real deliberative norms or just researchers signaling the desired depolarized outcome? Worth chasing the darker interpretation.
• XREF: connects to: Facilitation is a decisive condition for deliberation-induced depolarization. — Didier Caluwaerts et al., Deliberation and Polarization: A…, 121; Experimenter-demand explanations must assume discrimination is induced far more easily than other behaviors — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2710; Attitude changes in experiments are genuine, not mere compliance — Bob Altemeyer, The Authoritarian Specter, 3256

Related

• Experimenter-demand explanations must assume discrimination is induced far more easily than other behaviors (similarity 0.88)
• Facilitation is a decisive condition for deliberation-induced depolarization. (similarity 0.88)
• Attitude changes in experiments are genuine, not mere compliance (similarity 0.85)
• Facilitated deliberation depolarizes participants while unfacilitated deliberation polarizes them. (similarity 0.81)

Broader Connections

• Attitude changes in experiments are genuine, not mere compliance #contradicts (0.82) — Bob Altemeyer, The Authoritarian Specter, 3256
• Experimenter-demand explanations must assume discrimination is induced far more easily than other behaviors #qualifies (0.75) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2710