{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019011406844106463, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0022813688212927757, 'mean_word_length': 5.419512195121952, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Can Debate and Deliberation Reduce Partisan Divisions? Evidence from a Study of High School Students

ABSTRACT This paper presents findings from a study of high school students (N = 165) engaged in discussions of controversial political issues within Close Up Washington’s civic education program. We report findings from pre- and post surveys to investigate how the group’s views about the issues were affected by the discussion strategy they experienced. We compare two strategies: a deliberative small group activity and a team debate. We find that the deliberative strategy promoted more participation, promoted more comfort with the discussion, and resulted in more consensus within the group as shown by comparing pre- and post surveys. In the debate strategy, students reported less participation, more discomfort during the activity, and more polarized views on the post-survey compared with the pre-survey. Despite these differences, students reported enjoying each activity at about the same rates, though girls were more likely to report negative experiences. The findings suggest that using deliberative strategies in social studies classes with high political diversity may be an effective approach for mitigating the divisive attitudes that dominate the hyperpartisan context within the United States.