Abstract: . . .  to retain also a sense of uniqueness. The goal of forming superordinate identities should thus not be the elimination of group identities, but rather the more modest task of showing communalities between the groups. If the formation of superordinate identities is difficult, then a simpler approach might be to stimulate “meta communication” in deliberative groups. Such communication moves away from the fundamental issues that divide the parties in a discourse. Instead, the discourse is directed toward a discussion of the deliberative process itself—it becomes a discourse about the discourse. Such a re- direction of the deliberative process may force participants to think about the best way to arrive at a solution, which may establish a foundation for actually obtaining that solution (see Spörndli 2003; Van Den Daele 2001). From a psychological standpoint, meta communication helps attention to shift away from emotionally-laden issues that are likely to involve identities and mobilize cognitive . . .
. . .  deliberation than as a set of considerations that should be taken into account when undertaking deliberative projects. Specifically, we strongly believe that a consideration of the psychological forces that are at work in deliberation will help in the development of institutions that can maximize the likelihood of success, measured in terms of reducing tensions or even forging compromises. We turn to these institutional considerations next. Institutional Design Meets Human Psychology A genuine political psychology of deliberation cannot stop by cataloguing psychological forces that impact deliberative behavior. It should consider how institutional characteristics interact with those forces to shape behavior. Here, we shall make a start on such a project by considering how psychological forces can best be harnessed to improve deliberation. The first aspect of institutional design that we wish to highlight is heterogeneity . Many of the problems noted in the previous section—most noteworthy, . . .
. . .  deliberation than as a set of considerations that should be taken into account when undertaking deliberative projects. Specifically, we strongly believe that a consideration of the psychological forces that are at work in deliberation will help in the development of institutions that can maximize the likelihood of success, measured in terms of reducing tensions or even forging compromises. We turn to these institutional considerations next. Institutional Design Meets Human Psychology A genuine political psychology of deliberation cannot stop by cataloguing psychological forces that impact deliberative behavior. It should consider how institutional characteristics interact with those forces to shape behavior. Here, we shall make a start on such a project by considering how psychological forces can best be harnessed to improve deliberation. The first aspect of institutional design that we wish to highlight is heterogeneity . Many of the problems noted in the previous section—most noteworthy, groupthink . . .
--3000,3,500,3251,59467