Final Report (all chapters)

members and instructed to reach consensus on the punishment. Common sense suggests that the
consensus rating should approximate the average of the views represented on each jury. The
actual results were quite different. Juries whose median pre-deliberation punishment rating was 4
or higher produced an even higher consensus rating. Conversely, juries whose pre-deliberation
rating was smaller than 4 shifted toward an even lower consensus rating. It appears that
deliberation amplifies a jury’s pre-deliberation tendency, whatever that tendency may be. 49
Fortunately, polarization is not an inevitable feature of group deliberation. Just as
deliberative groups under certain circumstances polarize, under other circumstances, they
depolarize. Producing “depolarization” is a surprisingly straightforward process. It merely
requires that opposing views within a group be represented in sufficiently high numbers. If this
structural condition is met, deliberation is very likely to move the participants closer to the
median view. Deliberation in this case produces the expected outcome – it fosters compromise,
and perhaps even a consensus. To the extent that minority views are represented in roughly equal
numbers, the evidence suggests that reputational cascades (or the tendency to conform to the
majority’s view) do not occur.
The data discussed in chapter 8 provides some evidence, albeit indirect, that even
individuals holding what seem to be unshakeable moral views may not be immune to
depolarization. Even religious and conservative voters normally opposed to abortion rights show
a measure of support for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Similar tendencies can
be observed in Congress, where a growing number of Republican leaders, including many
opposed to abortion, have expressed their support for a stronger role of the government in
supporting stem cell research. Although the evidence in this case is only anecdotal, it appears
that having a family member or a friend affected by a devastating disease may have prompted
many conservative voters and their Congressional representatives to reconsider their firm
opposition to stem cell research.
In short, deliberation as understood in this report increases the credibility of a process of
public consultation. It may also contribute to producing broadly acceptable political
compromises, but only if the consultative process is designed to prevent group polarization and
cascades. This can be accomplished by ensuring that the broadest possible range of societal
positions is heard, and that these views are represented in roughly equal numbers.
10.7.2 Other Features
In addition to deliberation, institutions of public consultation have other distinctive features.
Before diving into specifics, however, a qualification is in order. Throughout this report, we
frequently use the term “consultation” instead of the more common “participation.” The term
“public participation” has generated both considerable interest and considerable confusion, in
large measure because its advocates often fail to specify the role public participation should play
in the administrative and regulatory context. This becomes especially problematic at the federal
49
Sunstein, Why Societies Need Dissent, p.114.
268