Replication Data for: Why Do Deliberative Discussions Reduce Affective Polarization? Evidence from a Deliberation Experiment in Honduras

Deliberative democracy advocates argue that deliberation can strengthen democracy in part by reducing partisan hostility and affective polarization. Yet whether and why this holds remains under-examined. This paper demonstrates that deliberation can reduce partisan animus by promoting engagement with out-partisan policy perspectives. This engagement builds cognitive empathy, increasing positive affect and tolerance toward out-partisans. Evidence is from an experiment in Honduras. Deliberators were randomly assigned to defend policies with which they agreed (own perspective) or disagreed (out-partisan perspective). Deliberation reduced affective polarization and out-partisan animus. These reductions were concentrated and more persistent in the out-partisan perspective group, while polarization increased modestly in the own-perspective group. The findings demonstrate that engagement with out-partisan policy viewpoints is an important causal mechanism driving deliberation’s impact while also highlighting the potential limits of deliberation and discussion in the absence of active engagement with out-group points of view.协商民主（Deliberative democracy）倡导者主张，协商可通过削弱党派敌意与情感极化（affective polarization），在一定程度上强化民主制度。然而，这一论断是否成立、以及其背后的成因，迄今仍未得到充分检视。本研究证实，协商可通过推动个体接触异党派政策立场，降低党派敌意；此类接触能够培育认知共情（cognitive empathy），提升对异党派群体的正向情感与包容度。研究证据来自洪都拉斯的一项实验：协商参与者被随机分配至两种组别，分别为自身认同的政策辩护（自身立场组），或为自身不认同的异党派政策辩护（异党派立场组）。整体而言，协商行为降低了受试者的情感极化水平与异党派敌意，且此类改善在异党派立场组中更为显著且持久；而自身立场组的极化水平仅出现小幅上升。本研究结果表明，接触异党派政策立场是驱动协商发挥积极影响的关键因果机制，同时也凸显了一大潜在局限：若未能主动接触外群体立场，协商与讨论或将存在效果边界。