Does intergroup deliberation foster intergroup appreciation? Evidence from two deliberative experiments in deeply divided Belgium

Abstract

In this paper, we set out to determine whether the link between deliberation and transformation (or between process and outcome) is as straightforward as deliberative democracy assumes. More specifically, our research question is threefold: (1) whether a high quality of deliberation does indeed lead to changes in attitudes, (2) whether a high quality of deliberation can lead to a higher appreciation of the members of the outgroup, and above all (3) whether group composition matters. We thus want to push the research on the transformative effects a little further, into political psychology grounds, and see whether these effects can also take place in deliberation between diametrically opposed groups. Our aim is thus not only to test the link between deliberation and transformation, but also to see whether deliberation can have its transformative effects in high conflict settings, i.e. in more real-life settings. Based on findings from two deliberative experiments organized in deeply divided Belgium, we argue that the quality of deliberation (and the perceived quality of deliberation) are only weakly linked to changes in outgroup attitudes, and that the main variable explaining shifts towards more positive outgroup feelings is actually the group composition. Participants who are confronted with the other side are less likely to hold more negative views of the outgroup after the deliberation