Do discussions in like-minded groups necessarily lead to more extreme opinions? Deliberative democracy and group polarization

AuthorKim Strandberg,Kimmo Grönlund,Staffan Himmelroos
Published date01 January 2019
DOI10.1177/0192512117692136
Date01 January 2019
Subject MatterArticles
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512117692136
International Political Science Review
2019, Vol. 40(1) 41 –57
© The Author(s) 2017
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0192512117692136
journals.sagepub.com/home/ips
Do discussions in like-minded
groups necessarily lead to
more extreme opinions?
Deliberative democracy and
group polarization
Kim Strandberg
Åbo Akademi University, Finland
Staffan Himmelroos
Åbo Akademi University, Finland
Kimmo Grönlund
Åbo Akademi University, Finland
Abstract
In today’s society, we can easily connect with people who share our ideas and interests. A problem with
this development is that political reasoning in like-minded groups easily becomes lop-sided since there
is little reason to critically examine information that everyone seems to agree with. Hence, there is a
tendency for groups to become more extreme than the initial inclination of its members. We designed
an experiment to test whether introducing deliberative norms in like-minded discussions can alleviate
such group polarization. Based on their attitudes toward a linguistic minority, participants were divided
into a positive and a negative opinion enclave. Within the two enclaves, the participants were randomly
assigned to group discussions either with or without deliberative norms. Both face-to-face and online
discussions were arranged. We found that free discussion without rules led to group polarization in
like-minded groups, whereas polarization could be avoided in groups with deliberative norms.
Keywords
Opinion polarization, deliberative democracy, online deliberation, enclave deliberation, facilitation,
experiment
Corresponding author:
Kim Strandberg, Social Science Research Institute, Åbo Akademi University, Strandgatan 2, 65100 Vasa, Finland.
Email: kim.strandberg@abo.fi
692136IPS0010.1177/0192512117692136International Political Science ReviewStrandberg et al.
research-article2017
Article
42 International Political Science Review 40(1)
Introduction
Many Western democracies are currently affected by a negative, and even aggressive, discussion
climate. According to Sunstein (2002, 2009), opinion polarization, in the sense of opinions becom-
ing more extreme through discussion than they initially were, is a consequence of the fact that most
people tend to discuss politics among like-minded individuals, nowadays often in online contexts.
A fundamental problem with political discussion in groups of like-minded individuals is that the
ideas and opinions that thrive within this context escape reasonable criticism based on other points
of view. Hence, such groups may end up with extreme, or at least very narrow, views. On the other
hand, many democratic theorists (Bohman, 1996; Gutmann and Thompson, 2004) put the meeting
and exchange of ideas and arguments at the heart of a working democracy and evidence from
deliberative mini-publics indicates that opinions depolarize, or at least do not polarize in the first
place, as result of taking part in deliberative group discussions (e.g. Farrar et al., 2009; Himmelroos
and Christensen, 2014; Luskin et al., 2002).
Free discussion in like-minded groups differs from deliberative mini-publics in two key aspects.
First, a typical deliberative mini-public consists of people with diverse opinions whereas group polar-
ization is most likely to occur in like-minded settings as a result of information biases and an adjust-
ment to group norms (e.g. Brauer et al., 1995; Mercier and Landemore, 2012: 251; Vinokur and
Burnstein, 1978: 873). Second, in deliberative mini-publics, discussion takes place under specific
discussion rules and in the presence of a trained facilitator (Moore, 2012). According to Smith (2009:
169, 198), active facilitation plays a fundamental role in shaping the conditions for deliberation and
is crucial for ‘ensuring that marginalized voices are heard’. Hence, it remains unclear whether group
polarization is a problem for discussions where deliberative norms are in place. Our research question
reads: ‘Can deliberative norms alleviate group polarization in like-minded groups?’
Findings from a previous deliberative experiment indicate that using discussion rules and facili-
tation to aid the implementation of deliberative norms – such as inclusion, equality of discussion,
reciprocity, reasoned justifications, reflection, sincerity and respect – can indeed alleviate opinion
polarization even in like-minded groups (Grönlund et al., 2015). Similar findings have also been
presented by Farrar et al. (2009). On the other hand, Smets and Isernia (2014) find that predisposi-
tions can shape attitude formation even when deliberative arrangements are in place.
Thus, we designed an experiment where discussion groups consisted of participants who shared
similar baseline views on the issue at hand. In this experiment, we intentionally let the setting of
discussion vary: half of the participants discussed freely, and half of them discussed according to
specific deliberative rules and facilitation. Moreover, given the high relevance of the online context
regarding discussions among like-minded citizens (Sunstein, 2009) and in order to empirically test
the importance of modality for group polarization, we implemented two discussion modes: some
participants discussed face-to-face, others online.
The article is organized in the following manner. First, we review earlier research on like-
minded groups, discuss how deliberative norms with facilitation may alleviate a polarization of
opinions in like-minded groups, discuss the online context as an arena for deliberation and formu-
late hypotheses. Second, we describe the experiment in detail. Thereafter, the empirical testing is
carried out. Finally, we provide conclusions based on the findings.
Group polarization in like-minded groups
Democratic theorists have emphasized the importance of giving voice to different viewpoints in dem-
ocratic decision-making (Bohman, 1996; Habermas, 1996). Furthermore, deliberative democrats
argue that in order to reach a decision everyone can accept, a democratic decision-making process

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT