Abstract: . . .  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 . . .
. . .  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. . . .
. . .  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 . . .
. . .  bond among the participants in the discourse. The sense of being in it together and having to make the discourse work may actually produce a sufficiently strong bond that superordinate identities can begin to form. To reap these benefits, however, the deliberative group should have some permanency so that spirals of trust have a chance to form. Deliberation should occur in non-public arenas first. As our own research indicates, it is easier to engage in a respectful discourse in closed than in open arenas (Steiner et al. 2005; see also Elster 1998). This is particularly important in conflict situations. Representatives of conflicting groups may have a difficult time forging compromises if they . . .
--3000,4,375,3308,64653