It is not clear that deliberation will end up producing the same effects for all kind of individuals. Therefore it is necessary to examine the effects of deliberation under different conditions and for different kind of individuals.
This paper examines 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. This paper focus on individual-level opinion change and address the following research question: What are the causes behind polarization and moderation of opinions? Why are individuals affected so differently? I look into cognitive and affective variables as well as deliberative behavior and group context. I also compare “standard deliberation” with enclaved deliberation. Both quantitative and qualitative methods are used to provide a better understanding of different effects than either approach alone.
