Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T00:18:58.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reducing political polarization in Hong Kong: a pilot experiment of deliberation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2021

Fei Shen Open the ORCID record for Fei Shen [Opens in a new window]  and
Wenting Yu
Fei Shen*
Affiliation:
Department of Media and Communication, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong
Wenting Yu
Affiliation:
Department of Media and Communication, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Contemporary Hong Kong is riven by serious political and social polarization. Hong Kong's problem does not lie in ideological differences among citizens; rather, the major issue is that people of different political stripes view each other as enemies. In this study, we conducted two experiments to compare the impacts of deliberation and discussion on political depolarization. In study 1, we invited participants of opposing views toward the Article 23 legislation and conducted a 90-min discussion session. The participants were divided into two groups: deliberation and causal discussion. The deliberation group received an information booklet on the issue and had to strictly follow rules of deliberation whereas the causal discussion group had no such stimuli. In study 2, we used video recordings from study 1 and presented the videos to two groups of participants. One group of participants watched the deliberation video and the other group watched the causal discussion video. The main finding of the study is both deliberation and causal discussion had mixed effects on reducing political polarization. After discussion, issue attitude and issue polarization remained largely the same, but people's attitude toward others with opposing views became more favorable and affective polarization was reduced. No systematic differences were found between deliberation and discussion. And watching discussion and deliberation will deliver similar effects but to a lesser extent.

Keywords

Deliberationexperimentpolarization
Type
Research Article
Information
Japanese Journal of Political Science , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , December 2021 , pp. 233 - 247
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amsalem, E and Nir, L (2019) Does interpersonal discussion increase political knowledge? A meta-analysis. Communication Research 48, 619–641.10.1177/0093650219866357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, VN and Hansen, KM (2007) How deliberation makes better citizens: the Danish deliberative poll on the euro. European Journal of Political Research 46, 531–556.10.1111/j.1475-6765.2007.00699.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandura, A and Walters, RH (1977) Social Learning Theory (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Barber, M, McCarty, N, Mansbridge, J and Martin, CJ (2015) Causes and consequences of polarization. In Mansbridge, Jane and Martin, Cathie Jo (eds), Political Negotiation: A Handbook, Vol. 37. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, pp. 39–43.Google Scholar
Bartle, NC and Harvey, K (2017) Explaining infant feeding: the role of previous personal and vicarious experience on attitudes, subjective norms, self-efficacy, and breastfeeding outcomes. British Journal of Health Psychology 22, 763–785.10.1111/bjhp.12254CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caluwaerts, D and Reuchamps, M (2014) Does inter-group deliberation foster inter-group appreciation? Evidence from two experiments in Belgium. Politics 34, 101–115.10.1111/1467-9256.12043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, S (2003) Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science 6, 307–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J (1989) Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. 1997, 67–92.Google Scholar
De Vreese, CH and Boomgaarden, H (2006) News, political knowledge and participation: the differential effects of news media exposure on political knowledge and participation. Acta Politica 41, 317–341.10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, MJ and Lobitz, WC (1973) When familiarity breeds respect: the effects of an experimental depolarization program on police and student attitudes toward each other. Journal of Social Issues 29, 95–109.10.1111/j.1540-4560.1973.tb00105.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, JN, Gubitz, SR, Lloyd, AM and Levendusky, MS (2019) How incivility on partisan media (de) polarizes the electorate. The Journal of Politics 81, 291–295.10.1086/699912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, AH and Chaiken, S (1993) The Psychology of Attitudes. California: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.4220120509.Google Scholar
French, D and Laver, M (2009) Participation bias, durable opinion shifts and sabotage through withdrawal in citizens' juries. Political Studies 57, 422–450.10.1111/j.1467-9248.2009.00785.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, RK, Gvirsman, SD, Johnson, BK, Tsfati, Y, Neo, R and Dal, A (2014) Implications of pro-and counterattitudinal information exposure for affective polarization. Human Communication Research 40, 309–332.10.1111/hcre.12028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gittings, D (2013) Introduction to the Hong Kong Basic law. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
Grönlund, K, Setälä, M and Herne, K (2010) Deliberation and civic virtue: lessons from a citizen deliberation experiment. European Political Science Review: EPSR 2, 95.10.1017/S1755773909990245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J (1996) Deliberative politics: A procedural concept of democracy. Between Facts and Norms. Contributions to a Theory of Law and Democracy, 287–328.Google Scholar
Hall, TE, Wilson, P and Newman, J (2011) Evaluating the short- and long-term effects of a modified deliberative poll on Idahoans' attitudes and civic engagement related to energy options. Journal of Public Deliberation 7, 1–30.Google Scholar
Hovland, CI and Weiss, W (1951) The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly 15, 635–650.10.1086/266350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchens, MJ, Hmielowski, JD and Beam, MA (2019) Reinforcing spirals of political discussion and affective polarization. Communication Monographs 86, 357–376.10.1080/03637751.2019.1575255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, S, Sood, G and Lelkes, Y (2012) Affect, not ideologya social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly 76, 405–431.10.1093/poq/nfs038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, J, Chen, E, Yan, S, Lerman, K and Ferrara, E (2020) Political polarization drives online conversations about COVID-19 in the United States. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies 2, 200–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, C (1998) The behavioral consequences of political discussion: another look at discussant effects on vote choice. The Journal of Politics 60, 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y and Kim, Y (2019) Incivility on Facebook and political polarization: the mediating role of seeking further comments and negative emotion. Computers in Human Behavior 99, 219–227.10.1016/j.chb.2019.05.022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landemore, HE and Mercier, H (2010) ‘Talking it Out’: Deliberation with Others Versus Deliberation Within. Available at SSRN 1660695.10.2139/ssrn.1660695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, S-K (1982) Society and Politics in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.Google Scholar
Lau, S-K (2017) The Practice of ‘One Country, Two System’ Policy in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Lee, FLF (2016) Impact of social media on opinion polarization in varying times. Communication and the Public 1, 56–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, FL, Liang, H and Tang, GK (2019) Online incivility, cyberbalkanization, and the dynamics of opinion polarization during and after a mass protest event. International Journal of Communication 13, 20.Google Scholar
Levendusky, MS (2018) Americans, not partisans: can priming American national identity reduce affective polarization? The Journal of Politics 80, 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luginbühl, M (2007) Conversational violence in political TV debates: forms and functions. Journal of Pragmatics 39, 1371–1387.10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLeod, JM, Scheufele, DA and Moy, P (1999) Community, communication, and participation: the role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation. Political Communication 16, 315–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Min, SJ (2009) Deliberation, east meets west: exploring the cultural dimension of citizen deliberation. Acta Politica 44, 439–458.10.1057/ap.2009.10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, DC (2006) Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative Versus Participatory Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peyton, K, Sierra-Arévalo, M and Rand, DG (2019) A field experiment on community policing and police legitimacy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 19894–19898.10.1073/pnas.1910157116CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strandberg, K and Berg, J (2020) When reality strikes: opinion changes among citizens and politicians during a deliberation on school closures. International Political Science Review 41, 567–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strandberg, K and Grönlund, K (2012) Online deliberation and its outcome – evidence from the virtual polity experiment. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 9, 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strandberg, K, Himmelroos, S and Grönlund, K (2019) Do discussions in like-minded groups necessarily lead to more extreme opinions? Deliberative democracy and group polarization. International Political Science Review 40, 41–57.10.1177/0192512117692136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Guardian (2019) Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam faces public anger in ‘dialogue session’. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/26/hong-kong-leader-carrie-lam-public-anger-dialogue-session.Google Scholar
Ugarriza, JE and Trujillo-Orrego, N (2020) The ironic effect of deliberation: what we can (and cannot) expect in deeply divided societies. Acta Politica 55, 221–241.10.1057/s41269-018-0113-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, Y and Shen, F (2020) Negativity makes us polarized: a longitudinal study of media tone and opinion polarization in Hong Kong. Asian Journal of Communication 30, 199–220.10.1080/01292986.2020.1784968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yarchi, M, Baden, C and Kligler-Vilenchik, N (2021) Political polarization on the digital sphere: a cross-platform, over-time analysis of interactional, positional, and affective polarization on social media. Political Communication 38, 98–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar