Mediated rather than face-to-face deliberation tends to polarize groups

Evidence

Even though we should be careful when interpreting the results, they do show a pattern: studies in which the participants are not physically confronted with each other more often report polarization (42.9%) than depolarization (35.7%). Among the face-to-face studies, these numbers are the inverse (41.2% reports depolarization vs. 31.3% reports polarization). Non-physical contact thus seems to increase, rather than decrease, conflict and polarization, which lends support to the humanization theory and the intergroup contact theory. It is easier to dehumanize your discussion partners and to devalue their arguments when you are not confronted with them, and there is very little incentive to give in to their ideas or arguments. — Didier Caluwaerts et al., Deliberation and Polarization, 123

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Deliberation reduces polarization only under specific deliberative frameworks — Didier Caluwaerts et al., Deliberation and Polarization: A…, 16; Deliberation depolarizes only when structured by deliberative-democracy design features, otherwise discussion polarizes. — Didier Caluwaerts et al., Deliberation and Polarization: A…, 18; Deliberation reduces polarization mainly in political science studies — Didier Caluwaerts et al., Deliberation and Polarization: A…, 108 (+10 more)

Broader Connections

• Deliberation among like-minded peers pushes groups to more extreme positions. #expands (0.85) — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof, 437
• Discussing prejudiced views with likeminded peers intensifies rather than moderates them. #exemplifies (0.82)
• Deliberation reduces affective polarization but often increases idea-based polarization. #complicates (0.80) — Didier Caluwaerts et al., Deliberation and Polarization, 107
• Discussion with likeminded peers pushes group attitudes further in their initial direction #corroborates (0.80) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2369
• Exposing people to opposing viewpoints increases rather than reduces polarization #corroborates (0.78) — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof, 453
• Social media amplifies polarization by reinforcing group identity and preconceptions #qualifies (0.75) — Muhammad Asad Latif, The Identity of Religion Always Comes Up, 28
• Echo chambers convert the social-corrective group effect into conformity pressure #expands (0.74) — Lee McIntyre, Post-Truth, 120
• Shared information dominates group discussions, amplifying consensus stereotypes #expands (0.72) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2368