Replication Data for: When War Adversaries Talk: The Experimental Effect of Engagement Rules on Post-Conflict Deliberationhis text with your study name as it appears in your journal article

A set of discussion groups including leftist ex-guerrillas and rightist ex-paramilitaries in Colombia shows the limits for democratic deliberation in post-conflict societies, but also points to ways in which outcomes closer to the deliberative ideal might be obtained. A total of 342 ex-combatants agreed to sit down and talk politics under a number of experimental conditions, using three different protocols of engagement. Results show that consensus rule fosters simultaneously a more reasoned, common-good oriented and less self-interested type of discussion when compared to majority rule and unstructured “free talk.” Nevertheless, while it might be desirable to promote a better quality of deliberation in divided societies, it does not necessarily prevent antagonists’ tendency to polarize.

一项面向哥伦比亚左翼前游击队员与右翼前准军事人员组建的讨论小组的研究，既揭示了后冲突社会民主协商（democratic deliberation）的局限性，也指明了趋近协商理想状态的可行路径。共计342名前战斗人员同意在多种实验条件下，采用三种不同的互动参与规程开展政治对话。研究结果表明，与多数决规则（majority rule）及非结构化"自由讨论"相比，共识规则（consensus rule）能够同时催生更具理性、以公共利益为导向且更少利己倾向的讨论形态。尽管在分裂社会中提升协商质量是值得期许的目标，但共识规则未必能够遏制对立双方的极化倾向。