What Drives the Polarization and Moderation of Opinions? Evidence from a Finnish Citizen Experiment on Immigration

The expectation on democratic innovations to involve citizens in political decision-making is to a large extent based on several untested assumptions. It is not clear that new participatory reforms will end up producing the same kind of effects for all kind of individuals. Certainly there is evidence that it is possible to achieve deliberation in a deliberative mini-public but is everybody included in that deliberation? It is important to establish the borders for what deliberative mini-publics can and cannot do. In doing this, it is necessary to examine their impact under different conditions and for different kind of individuals. This paper examines experimental data from an experiment on migration policy where 207 participants (with an initial negative or positive view about immigration) are randomly assigned into two treatments - deliberation in enclaves or deliberation in the standard setting of a deliberative mini-public. I present a framework for analysing the individual level in citizen deliberation. Both cognitive and affective premises are analysed as well as individuals’ willingness and ability to engage in deliberative behaviour. The framework can be used in a comparative perspective when comparing different democratic innovations or different participatory reforms. It is anticipated that the findings will increase our understanding of the impact of deliberation on an individual level and the challenge of achieving the deliberative ideal of equality. Promotion of political equality is one important aspect for adopting new participatory processes. This paper will contribute to bridging the gap between theory and practice. A mixed methods design is used, including both quantitative statistical analyses and qualitative analyses of different kinds of individuals.