All political participation requires an investment of time and interest. The more demanding the democratic practice, the more likely it only engages those that are highly motivated and possess the necessary resources. Deliberative practices are especially demanding as the participants are not only asked to invest time and interest, but also to face political disagreement. Hence, a number of scholars have suggested that experiences of deliberation may dissuade people from further political engagement.
In order to get a better understanding of how disagreement affects experiences of deliberation and whether facilitation can improve the deliberative experience we make use of three experiments with varying degrees of disagreement and facilitation. The degree of disagreement and moderation varied in the following way: In the first experiment all participants discussed in groups with mixed opinions. In the second experiment, the participants were first assigned into opinion-based enclaves, and then randomly assigned into like-minded or mixed small groups for deliberation. In these two experiments, all group discussions were moderated by trained facilitators. In the third experiment, all participants discussed in like-minded groups but they were randomly assigned either into a group where discussion took place under deliberative rules and with a facilitator, or into a group without rules.
Our dependent variable consists of the participants’ self-reported experiences of taking part deliberation. We look at items such as the participants’ willingness to take part in a similar event in the future, their willingness to participate in politics, their experience of being heard in the group discussion, and their perception of mutual respect in the discussion. We assume that both (moderate) disagreement and facilitation of discussion will enhance the participants’ positive experiences.
