Search
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Mini-Conference
Browse By Division
Browse By Session or Event Type
Search Tips
Virtual Exhibit Hall
Change Preferences
Sign In
X (Twitter)
How do people process information in a deliberative setting? When processing information provided by others within a political conversation, participants may exhibit biased motivated reasoning whereby they denigrate opinions that do not confirm their previously held beliefs. While the growing empirical literature on deliberation has noted that biases may impede persuasion, this work does not always speak to the insights garnered from public opinion and political psychology. Reason-giving rules—a cornerstone of effective deliberative design—require participants to provide the reasoning behind their stated political opinions within a structured conversation. I argue that these rules promote accuracy-oriented motivated reasoning over directionally-motivated reasoning by signaling to the participants that they must share a fact-based defense of their views. In a novel design using 360-degree video recordings of experimental deliberative sessions, I demonstrate that reason-giving rules promote higher quality deliberative discourse within deliberative sessions. I analyze the deliberative quality using a deliberative quality assessment tool, and find that reason-giving within a deliberative session results in discourse that is more thoughtful, reasoned, consensual, and equal in terms of participation. Additionally, I provide evidence that reason-giving rules promote opinion moderation over polarization, and facilitate information seeking among participants. These findings are consistent with the idea that deliberation can be structured so as to promote accuracy-motivated reasoning over biased, directionally-motivated reasoning. Together, these findings highlight ways in which to design venues for political discussion that allow participants to have more thoughtful conversations, avoiding reliance on partisan biases.