Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Ahn, C. J.-K., & Min, Y. (2021). Making Cross-Cutting Exposure More Deliberative: The
Moderating Role of the Equality Rule in Online Discussions on a Gender Issue.
Journal
of Deliberative Democracy
,
17(2), pp. 57–68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.985
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Making Cross-Cutting Exposure More Deliberative:
The Moderating Role of the Equality Rule in Online
Discussions on a Gender Issue
Chloe Jae-Kyung Ahn* and Young Min†
Contrary to the normative emphasis on the rule of equality in the deliberation literature, little has
been known about empirical consequences of the rule of equality, especially when applied in online
discussions where political disagreement is prevalent. Given that hostile gender-related discussions have
been noticeably increasing in South Korea, we investigated whether applying deliberative rules, especially
cross-cutting exposure and equality, can improve gender-issue discussion quality and foster mutual
understanding and healthy political engagement. For this purpose, we designed an online experiment
involving moderated deliberations on the abolition of the national abortion ban via KakaoTalk, the most
popular messenger platform in South Korea. The deliberative qualities of online discussions in terms
of rationality and civility were assessed in a more objective and unobtrusive way: a content analysis
of actual conversation transcripts. Participatory intention for gender issue-related activities and civic
attitudes were also measured. Results indicate the equality rule can help to promote normatively desirable
outcomes in discussions with disagreeing others while the positive eects of cross-cutting exposure were
found limited. When combined with the rule of equality, hearing the other side meaningfully enhanced the
deliberative qualities and participatory intentions of discussants.
Keywords: deliberation; cross-cutting exposure; equality; deliberativeness; political participation; civic
virtues; gender politics; online discussion
Introduction
Can online deliberation over a highly controversial
issue engender democratic benefits that are predicted
by the framework of deliberative theory, particularly
vis-á-vis South Korea’s feminist movement? One of the
primary agendas in the growing feminist movement in
South Korea is a public reassessment of the legal status
of abortion. In 2012, South Korean courts upheld the
constitutionality of the legislation banning abortion, yet
a recent public opinion survey showed that more than
half of the population (51.9%) supported lifting the ban
(Realmeter, 2017). Alongside a large scale rally against
the criminalization of abortion and the rise of women’s
movement, the Constitutional Court finally eased the ban
on abortions in April 2019.
However, antipathy against feminism has been on
the rise in male-dominated online communities, thus
deepening fault lines between two gender groups in
younger generations (Jeong & Lee, 2018). Before and after
the decision from the Constitutional Court was made
public regarding the abortion ban, online communities
and news forums were overwhelmed with comments
about the decision, reflecting a stark dichotomy between
pro-life and pro-choice (Ock, 2019). Such public hostility
eventually led citizens to speak less of their own opinions
and be hesitant to expose themselves to disagreeing
viewpoints on gender issues (Steger, 2016).
In what follows, we examined whether a well-structured
online deliberation can bring about democratic benefits
in a highly polarized context of gender-related issues. As
South Korean gender-related dialogue is becoming even
more hostile, especially through online platforms, it may
be important for people to have some opportunities to
deliberatively reflect on relevant issues. We explored
whether applying some essential deliberative rules (such
as cross-cutting exposure and equality) into political
conversations on a messaging application can 1) improve
the rationality and civility of discussions on abortion,
2) promote healthy political participation regarding
gender-related issues, and 3) foster empathetic and tolerant
attitudes toward people holding different opinions.
Our study contributes to the deliberation literature by
focusing on one of the relatively understudied principles
of deliberation: equality. Contrary to the normative
* Annenberg School for Communication, University of
Pennsylvania, US
† School of Media and Communication, Korea University, Seoul,
Republic of Korea, KR
Corresponding author: Young Min (ymin@korea.ac.kr)
Ahn and Min: Making Cross-Cutting Exposure More Deliberative58
emphasis on the rule of equality, neither the meaning of
the rule has been coherently conceptualized nor have the
effects of equality been systematically investigated. Here,
we borrow the framework of Friess and Eilders (2015) and
define the rule of equality as one of the key features in the
input dimension of deliberative procedures— providing an
equal opportunity to everyone participating in a discussion
to address one’s opinion at a minimum. We specifically
focus on how the rule of equality moderates the effects of
cross-cutting exposure on desirable outcomes, such as the
deliberative quality of discussions, political participation,
and civic virtues. Beyond solely examining the consequences
of encountering dissonant viewpoints (e.g., Mutz, 2006),
we argue that greater attention to the equality rule and
its interaction with the condition of opinion diversity can
shed light on how to construct a successful deliberative
intervention in online discussions. Empirical findings
on deliberative effects have been at times at odds with
theoretical assumptions (Mutz, 2008), but this gap may
have emerged from the lack of empirical testing on the
interactions between different deliberative conditions.
We also contribute to the study of cross-cutting
exposure or disagreement in general. By varying the level
of disagreement to which an individual gets exposed, we
improve previous approaches that rely on individuals’
perceived sense of disagreement (e.g., Mutz, 2002). Our
focus on egocentric diversity is useful since it can bring up
new scholarly discussions about how much disagreement is
beneficial for a healthy democracy (Esterling, Fung, & Lee,
2015). Further, previous studies focusing on the political
effects of cross-cutting deliberations (e.g., Grönlund et al.,
2015; Wojcieszak, 2011) have mostly examined changes in
issue attitudes after face-to-face deliberation events. Here,
we specifically inquire whether cross-cutting exposure and
the rule of equality in online deliberation can interactively
bring about democratic outcomes.
To explore the aforementioned relationships, this
study designed an experiment on online deliberation via
KaKaoTalk, South Korea’s most widely used messenger
platform. In particular, its Open Chatting functions provide
opportunities for anonymous users to freely participate in
informal discussions over a diverse range of issues. It also
enabled us to assess the deliberative qualities in a more
objective and unobtrusive manner: a content analysis of
discussion scripts.
In short, we examine whether cross-cutting exposure
and the rule of equality—components required for
deliberative discussions—can help us successfully achieve
some desirable outcomes expected from the deliberative
process. We empirically test some of the normative
assumptions about the benefits of civic deliberation,
rather than accepting such consequences as a given, with
regard to one of the most critical gender issues in South
Korea: legalization of abortion.
Literature Review
When we talk to people who disagree with us
Although the answer to the question of “what is the
most necessary condition for deliberation?” has been
controversial (Mutz, 2008), there are generally accepted
core elements of deliberation, including exposure to
dissimilar opinions, diversity of representation, provision
of equal participation, showing respect to dissimilar
others, and reasonable justification of arguments (e.g.,
Fishkin, 2011; Gutmann & Thompson, 1996; Thompson,
2008). When such conditions for deliberation are met,
participants are to become more efficacious (Barabas,
2004), sophisticated (Gastil, 2006), reflective (McLeod
et al., 1999), and participatory in politics or other social
activities (Gastil et al., 2002; Roh & Min, 2009).
Experiencing disagreement, inter alia, has been
accentuated as one of the foremost conditions to be met
for deliberation (e.g., Gutmann & Thompson, 1996). By
coming in contact with dissimilar views, our conceptions
of the discussed matter can approximate to a better
truth (Mill, 1859/2015). By so doing, we attain great
opportunities to reflect on the oppositional views as well
as ourselves: a cognitive process that transforms us into
a public entity (Habermas, 1989). While demonstrating
political effects of exposure to disagreement has been
confounded with inconsistent conceptualizations and
measurements of disagreement itself (Klofstad et al.,
2013), we concentrate on how much disagreement is
occurring at the individual level in a conversational
setting, i.e., egocentric diversity or cross-cutting exposure.
Utilizing previous conceptualizations of egocentric
network diversity (e.g. Mutz, 2006; Scheufele et al., 2006;
Song & Eveland Jr, 2015), we defined egocentric diversity
as the amount of dissimilar opinions that one encounters
during a group discussion, i.e., cross-cutting exposure.
Cross-cutting exposure and deliberativeness. If exposure
to different views is a sine qua non of deliberation, can
it actually increase the deliberativeness of political
discussions? A sufficient amount of evidence to this
question has not been accumulated (Mutz, 2008). Two
different tasks need to be accomplished to succinctly
address this literature gap: clarifying the meaning of
deliberativeness and examining a causal relationship
between deliberative conditions and deliberativeness.
Given that elements that constitute the deliberative
quality of political conversations are manifold, we
identified two main dimensions of deliberativeness based
on some previous research: reason-giving (rationality
of the discursive acts) and respecting the other side
(civility of the discursive acts). In previous studies, the
deliberative qualities of political discussions have been
operationalized as the level of justification and reciprocity
or constructiveness during conversations (e.g., Bächtiger
& Parkinson, 2019; Jaidka et al., 2019; Steenbergen et
al., 2003; Stroud et al., 2015). Here, rationality resonates
with the former, whereas civility resonates with the latter.
Unlike just any sort of conversation, deliberation should
be rooted in public justification through reasonable
argumentation, i.e., rationality (Elster, 1998). In addition
to an individual’s ability to express their own idea
coherently and logically, deliberation also requires a
certain level of civility to genuinely listen to dissimilar
opinions (Papacharissi, 2004; Park, 2000). Considering
that explicitly uncivil behaviors are seldom found in
structured discussions, we concentrate on rationality
Ahn and Min: Making Cross-Cutting Exposure More Deliberative 59
and civility as the essential attributes constituting the
deliberative quality of political discussions.
Then, how can exposure to dissimilar opinions influence
these two dimensions of deliberativeness, rationality and
civility? Imagine a situation when you need to persuade
others who manifest a different perspective from yours:
we automatically look for legitimate reasons to justify our
positions. As Larmore (1990) explains, such a confrontation
itself encourages us to develop our arguments in a more
sophisticated way. It also allows the discussion to be less
arbitrary and more justifiable by making us aware of
opposing views that coexist (Manin, 1987).
However, perceived differences among discussants
may create a sense of conflicts and anxiety during a
conversation, possibly making them less willing to discuss
a given topic in a reason-giving manner (Eliasoph, 1998).
It may even direct the conversation to a more emotional
and less reflective way. Furthermore, those who perceive
themselves as having minority opinions under high cross-
cutting exposure may not express themselves openly for
fear of being isolated (Moy et al., 2001; Noelle-Neuman,
1993), thereby exacerbating biased interactions among
group members (Bettencourt & Dorr, 1998).
A similar question can be raised with regard to civility.
Above all, interacting with people of differing views is
essential to a more sophisticated understanding of others
(Park, 2000). At the same time, however, displaying
disagreement explicitly can be counterproductive for civil
interactions, since discussing a contentious political issue
with people with different opinions often triggers face-
threatening pressures (Eliasoph, 1998; Mutz, 2006).
As discussed so far, empirical evidence for the
thesis that cross-cutting exposure actually increases
deliberativeness remains relatively equivocal. Reflecting
on these inconsistent predictions in prior research, our
first research question has been formulated as follows:
RQ1: How does cross-cutting exposure during the
discussion on a gender issue influence the delib-
erativeness of the discussion, i.e., rationality and
civility?
Cross-cutting exposure, political participation and civic
virtues. Findings on the relationship between political
disagreement and participatory behaviors have also
been varied. On one hand, cross-cutting exposure holds
the potential to increase participatory motivations;
participants can enjoy political disagreement itself by
deeming it constructive (Esterling, Fung, & Lee, 2015),
and become more engaged in political issues (MacKuen
et al., 2010). In addition to enhancing political efficacy
and interest, exposure to dissimilar opinions can
increase attitudinal certainty, thus heightening political
participation (Sunstein, 2002; Wojcieszak, 2011).
On the other hand, a raft of empirical evidence has
suggested the contrary; individually-encountered
disagreements are positively associated with ambivalence
and cross-pressure, and thus causing withdrawal from
political participation (Huckfeldt, Morehouse, & Osborn,
2004; Mutz, 2002). Exposure to heterogeneous ideas may
create neutralized attitudes by helping people realize that
political issues are not necessarily dichotomous (Meffert
et al., 2004) or by increasing motivation to think about
alternatives (Vinokur & Burnstein, 1978). It may, thereby,
lead to less participation. Hovland, Janis, and Kelley (1953)
also state that “vacillation, apathy and loss of interest in
conflict-laden issues” (p. 283) can be caused by conflicting
cross-pressures. This controversy has been persistently
brought up by academics as a “conflict between two
major values in deliberative theory—participation and
deliberation itself” (Thompson, 2008, p. 511), although the
latest meta-analysis by Matthes and his colleagues (2019)
concludes that there is no direct relationship between
cross-cutting exposure and political participation.
Similarly, findings have been inconsistent with regard
to whether exposure to disagreeing opinions can succeed
or fail to engender civic virtues such as empathy and
tolerance. As proposed by the contact hypothesis (Allport,
1954), appreciating disparate perspectives is linked with
perspective-taking—that is, a cognitive form of empathy
(Mutz, 2002)—, which is possibly connected to enhanced
political tolerance (Robinson, 2010). However, exposure
to conflictual opinions often fails to shift the level of
empathy and tolerance toward differences due to inter-
group bias; people tend to privilege in-group arguments
and devalue out-group members’ opinions (Mendelberg,
2002).
Against this backdrop, our inquiries on the effects
of cross-cutting exposure on important democratic
outcomes have been put forward as follows:
RQ2: How does cross-cutting exposure during the
discussion on a gender issue influence political
participation in gender-related activities?
RQ3: How does cross-cutting exposure during the
discussion on a gender issue influence civic virtues
such as empathy and tolerance?
When we talk to people who disagree with us in an
equal manner
Is there another possible intervention that may help
discussants to realize the assumed, but often obscure,
benefits of deliberation in the real-world contexts? We
argue that talking with an equality rule is essential when
multifarious opinions are exchanged. In this regard, we
attend to how the rule of equality moderates the effects
addressed in RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3, assuming that some
positive outcomes of cross-cutting exposure can be
enhanced when combined with the equality rule.
Compared to the theoretical emphasis on the rule
of equality as a normative precondition for proper
deliberation (e.g., Thompson, 2008), attention to the
conceptualization of the rule of equality has remained
rather scant. Here, the online deliberation framework,
suggested by Friess and Eilders (2015), can be useful:
equality in deliberation is to be defined in terms of input
(prior to deliberation), throughput (during deliberation),
and output (after deliberation). When the principle of
equality is conceptualized in the input dimension, it mainly
addresses whether all citizens, who are influenced by
Ahn and Min: Making Cross-Cutting Exposure More Deliberative60
collective decision-making, are able to voice their reasons
in the process without any obstacles, thereby making all
viewpoints expressed and heard (Fishkin, 1995). Here, the
principle of equality concerns avoiding both domination
and exclusion during deliberation by incorporating
fair procedures (Thompson, 2008). This approach to
deliberative equality tackles with a procedural issue
providing equal opportunities to engage in a discussion.
Equality norms have also been defined in the
throughput or output of deliberation (Albrecht, 2006;
Besley & McComas, 2005; Zhang, 2015). To quantify the
degree of equality on the communicative throughput
level, Albrecht (2006) assessed the relative (in)equality
of speech distribution in a debate (“participant equality”
in his terms) using the Gini coefficient. When equality is
conceptualized as the expected output of deliberation,
it has been measured with participants’ feeling that the
interaction went reciprocal, fair, and legitimate (Besley &
McComas, 2005; Zhang, 2015). For instance, Besley and
McComas (2005) point out the importance of perceived
fairness and legitimacy in heightening citizens’ level of
satisfaction with public engagement. Similarly, Zhang
(2015) finds that perceived procedural fairness is a
significant predictor of enjoyment and intentions for
future participation in deliberation events.
Equality can refer to a number of properties within
deliberative settings, yet it has rarely been experimentally
examined at the individual level. In this study, we focus on
a particular input-related form of discursive equality: the
provision of equal opportunities to speak during group
discussions. By providing at least three opportunities
to talk about their arguments and reasons, we sought
to equalize the quantity of given speech from the
participants, to the extent that the equality rule does not
demotivate them from freely exchanging their thoughts.
Ideally, such forms of discursive equality can be realized
via active moderation and rule-enforcing by facilitators
(Coleman & Gøtze, 2001; Fishkin, 2011).
By pairing the experiment with a content analysis of
conversation transcripts, we examine the effects of cross-
cutting exposure moderated with the rule of equality (the
input dimension) on deliberative equalities of shared
discussions (the throughput dimension) and behavioral
intentions and attitudes (the output dimension). We first
inquire whether fulfilling both conditions, cross-cutting
exposure and the rule of equality, can enhance deliberative
qualities of political discourse, i.e., rationality and civility.
Under conversational domination, one may find it difficult
to reflect on a given issue in a balanced way (Gastil, 2006;
Morrell, 1999), thereby hurting the overall rationality
of a political discussion. Structured intervention with
the rule of equality can also assure participants that the
discussion is carried out in a fair and respectful manner,
possibly mitigating the effects of cross-cutting exposure
on increasing cross-pressures. Hence, moderated
equality can alleviate some negative influence of cross-
cutting exposure on discursive rationality and civility, by
intentionally providing participants with opportunities to
be exposed to different opinions and reconsider the other
side (Luskin, Fishkin, & Jowell, 2002).
Similar effects can be expected for the consequences of
cross-cutting exposure on political participation and civic
virtues. The rule of equality in deliberation can provide
participants with an “equal opportunity to access political
influence” (Knight & Johnson, 1997, p. 208). Throughout
this process, people can retain their interest in the
political outcomes relevant to the discussions and become
less detached from political discourse even when they are
exposed to oppositional viewpoints, eventually leading to
greater motivation to engage in political decision-making
(Cooper & Gulick, 1984; Roberts, 2004).
Further, with the equality rule being a procedural
principle, participants may realize that cooperation with
disagreeing others is not impossible (Laurian, 2009;
Smith & Wales, 2000). When everyone—from the extreme
naysayers to the ardent supporters of any given issue—
earns equal respect, participants can appreciate the utmost
norm of democracy: full inclusion of all voices (Abdullah
et al., 2016). Active reflections through equality norms set
in disagreeing situations can promote empathy for the
preferences of other people (Morrell, 2010) and tolerance
toward divergent viewpoints (Sullivan et al., 1993).
To the best of our knowledge, there is no previous
research that empirically examined the influence of
structured discussions among diverse but equal voices on
deliberative qualities. While cross-cutting exposure alone
may fail to decisively bring about positive outcomes,
combining these two conditions can entail desirable
outcomes in online spaces. In this regard, we set the
following research questions:
RQ4, RQ5, RQ6: Does the implementation of the
equality rule during the discussion on a gender
issue moderate the effects of cross-cutting expo-
sure on deliberativeness (rationality and civility)
(RQ4), political participation in gender-related
activities (RQ5), and civic virtues (empathy and tol-
erance) (RQ6)?
Methods
Experimental designs and procedures
The experiment involved moderated deliberations on the
repeal of the abortion ban via KakaoTalk Open Chat that
provides chatting not only with users’ intimate contacts
but also with anonymous others. Using Open Chat
features, we originally constructed our basic experimental
design as presented in Table 1. The design was based on 1)
different compositions of discussion participants in terms
of their attitudes toward the abortion issue, i.e., whether
the opinions favored pro-life, pro-choice, or were evenly
distributed, and 2) whether the equality rule was applied.
Groups were matched according to the participants’
attitudes toward the abortion ban (see Appendix A 1.2
pretest for details). In the pretest, participants rated
their agreements on two statements: whether they (1)
support for the abortion ban and (2) support for the lift
of the abortion ban on a scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5
(strongly disagree). After reverse-coding the measurement
of the support for the abortion ban, we calculated the
average for the final score from the two measurements (M
Ahn and Min: Making Cross-Cutting Exposure More Deliberative 61
= 2.99, SD = 1.45). People who had their final score above
3 were categorized as pro-lifers, whereas those with scores
below 3 were classified as pro-choicers. Moderates who
scored 3 were not included in the experiment.
Since opinion diversity was manipulated at the group
level in our original experimental setting, the degree of
cross-cutting exposure during group discussions varied
among participants assigned to the same experimental
conditions. For example, participants with a group-
majority viewpoint (e.g., pro-lifers assigned to Group
1 in Table 1) and those who hold a group-minority
viewpoint (e.g., pro-choicers assigned to Group 1 in Table
1) encountered different levels of dissonant perspectives
while chatting because the opinion distribution of some
groups was tilted toward a particular side (e.g., the pro-life
side in Group 1 in Table 1).
To operationalize cross-cutting exposure as ego-
centric diversity at the individual level, i.e., the level of
disagreement one encounters during a group discussion,
experimental groups were reconstructed after the post-
test was completed (Table 2). For example, a pro-choicer
in group 1 in the initial design, who was engaged in
conversations with six pro-lifers and two pro-choicers out
of eight participants, was reassigned to group 3 that had
the highest level of cross-cutting exposure (i.e., six out of
eight, thus 75%). As one-way ANOVA results in Appendix
C indicate, there was no significant difference in major
demographic and related political variables among the
reconstructed groups, indicating that these groups were
comparable.
While most of the study participants were
undergraduates from major universities in Seoul, South
Korea, some robust supporters of the abortion ban, who
were seldom found in the university student sample, were
recruited from recently-held abortion-related rallies. The
topic of discussion was whether South Korea should lift
its abortion ban. The entire discussion session was limited
to 30 minutes, and only the 30-minute length of the
discussion after the facilitator’s opening statement was
considered for the content analysis. To ensure informed
deliberation, a ten-page document on the current state
of the abortion issue and major arguments and rationales
on each side were delivered to each participant a few
days before discussion. All participants were given a
mobile voucher worth 5,000 KRW (approximately $5)
for participation. Each participant used a pseudonym
assigned by the researcher as a nickname to maintain
confidentiality during the discussion.
For all sessions, the facilitator announced the rules for
discussion in the beginning (e.g., a 30-minute time limit) and
regulated unpleasant language if needed. For the groups
informed with the equality rule, the facilitator announced
the predetermined order by which the participants
should speak at least three times during discussion: at the
beginning, in the middle (after 15 minutes from the start),
and at the end. More specifically, participants in the groups
where the rule of equality was enforced were shown the
following messages three times during the discussion:
“Now, please present your opinions about the discussed
topic in the predetermined order: Frodo – Ryan – Neo –
Jay-Z – Tube – Peach (names of Kakao characters). If you
wish not to speak, you can say ‘no opinion.’”
Adapting the equality rule from Deliberative Polling
(Fishkin, 2011), we manipulated it as guaranteeing
opportunities to speak at least three times for all
participants, rather than structuring the whole discussion
in a determined order—which may be more effective in
face-to-face settings—or mechanically equalizing the
amount of time for each to speak. By providing at least
three chances to talk about their arguments and reasons,
we sought to equalize the quantity of given speech from
the participants, to the extent that the equality rule
does not demotivate them from freely exchanging their
thoughts in online chats. As a result, the groups with the
rule of equality showed lower standard deviation in the
total number of utterances shared during the discussion
session (M = 10.96, SD = 2.60), compared to the groups
without the equality rule (M = 9.58, SD = 3.13). After a
30-minute discussion, a post-test questionnaire was
administered.
Table 1: The original experimental setting (N = 48).
Opinion diversity within a group
2 pro-choice, 6 pro-life 4 pro-choice, 4 pro-life 6 pro-choice, 2 pro-life
The rule of
equality
No Group 1 (n = 8) Group 2 (n = 8) Group 3 (n = 8)
Yes Group 4 (n = 8) Group 5 (n = 8) Group 6 (n = 8)
Table 2: The reconstructed experimental setting (N = 48).
Cross-cutting exposure
25% 50% 75%
The rule of equality No Group 1 (n = 12) Group 2 (n = 8) Group 3 (n = 4)
Yes Group 4 (n = 12) Group 5 (n = 8) Group 6 (n = 4)
Note. The percentage of cross-cutting exposure indicates the proportion of individuals holding different opinions that an individual
encounters in a discussion group.
Ahn and Min: Making Cross-Cutting Exposure More Deliberative62
Measures
The pretest questionnaire contained several items
regarding demographic information and attitudes
toward the abortion ban. Gender, ideological orientation,
political interest, interest in gender issues, and political
knowledge were measured and treated as control variables
(see Appendix A 1.2 Pretest for details). The posttest
questionnaire included items for participatory intentions
toward gender-related political activities and empathy and
tolerance for the other side (see Appendix A 1.3 Posttest for
details). After the post-survey was completed, debriefing
messages were disseminated to the participants.
Particularly, the deliberativeness of a political discussion
was measured through a content analysis of the discussion
scripts in the chat rooms from a total of 6 sessions. (See
Appendix B for details.) Similar to the level of justification
in the Discourse Quality Index (Bächtiger & Parkinson,
2019; Steenbergen et al., 2003), discursive rationality
was operationalized as the number of reasons to support
one’s argument stated in the discussion scripts. Here,
reasons included a broad range of justifying statements
such as declared facts, examples, statistics, experiences,
and feelings (Jaidka et al., 2019; Oz et al., 2018; Stroud
et al., 2015). On the other hand, civility was assessed by
the sum of appeals to common interests and respect for
opposing opinions (Bächtiger & Parkinson, 2019; Steiner
et al., 2004). Showing respect for different opinions,
suggesting solutions, building consensus, and recognizing
commonality among opposing groups were all considered
as civil acts (Steenbergen et al., 2003; Stroud et al., 2015).
Results
The study tested whether the conditions of deliberation,
i.e., cross-cutting exposure and the equality rule moderated
in discussions, meaningfully enhance the deliberative
quality of discussion and promote gender-related political
participation and civic attitudes.
Quality of Discussion: Deliberativeness (RQ1 & RQ4)
We explored whether encountering contrary opinions
influences the deliberativeness of gender-related
discussions (RQ1), and whether enforcing the rule of
equal participation moderates the effects of cross-cutting
exposure (RQ4). To test these inquiries, a series of analyses
of covariance (ANCOVA) on rank-transformed measures1
were conducted. Table 3 summarizes the results. (See
Appendix D for the results of ANCOVA without using rank-
transformed measures. The results remain fairly the same.)
Results for RQ1 indicate that the effects of cross-cutting
effects on deliberativeness were limited; cross-cutting
exposure did not entail a significant increase in rationality,
F (2, 37) = 0.96, p = .393, or in civility, F (2, 37) = 1.11, p
= .342.
On the other hand, the effects of interaction between
the level of egocentric diversity and the provision of
equal chances of speaking (RQ4) were found modestly
significant for the deliberative qualities of the discussion.
Positive effects of the rule of equality on rationality were
most prominent when the level of cross-cutting exposure
was the highest, while the effects were reduced in more
homogeneous conditions, F (2, 37) = 3.24, p = .050, as
shown in Figure 1. People with a higher level of cross-
cutting exposure were much more likely to provide
justifications for their arguments during the discussion
when the equality rule was applied. Applying the equality
rule increased civility in a similar pattern, albeit marginally
significant, for the participants in the highly discordant
context, F (2, 37) = 2.50, p = .096.
Outcomes of Deliberation: Political Participation
(RQ2 &RQ5) and Civic Virtues (RQ3 & RQ6)
We investigated whether exposure to opposing opinions
toward the abortion issue and application of the rule of
equality in such discordant settings can influence gender-
related participation and civic virtues such as empathy
and tolerance toward the opposing parties. The results are
summarized in Table 4.
RQ2, which deals with the effect of cross-cutting
exposure on political participation with regard to gender
issues, did not entail any directional findings. Hearing
the other side on the abortion issue did not significantly
promote nor undermine political activism. On the
other hand, the effects of interaction between the two
deliberative conditions on political participation (RQ5)
were statistically significant, F (2, 37) = 4.56, p = .017.
While cross-cutting exposure itself did not meaningfully
enhance political participation, the enforcement of the
equality rule increased participatory intentions for gender
politics among the people who have the highest level of
egocentric diversity (i.e., 75%), as illustrated in Figure2.
That is, when equal chances to speak are guaranteed,
people on the minority side were more motivated to
Table 3: Effects of cross-cutting exposure and the rule of equality on the deliberativeness of abortion discussion.
Rationality Civility
df F η2p df F η2p
Cross-cutting exposure (A) 2 0.96 .05 .393 2 1.11 .06 .342
The rule of equality (B) 1 5.08 .12 .030* 1 2.25 .06 .14 2
Interaction (AXB) 2 3.24 .15 .050* 2 2.50 .12 .096^
Error (S/AB) 37 (166.82) 37 (184.72)
Note. Entries in parentheses refer to the mean square of error. Gender, political orientation, political interest, interest in gender
issues, and political knowledge were treated as covariates.
** p ≤ .01 * p ≤ .05 ^ p ≤ .1.
Ahn and Min: Making Cross-Cutting Exposure More Deliberative 63
participate than otherwise. However, a similar pattern
was also found among the people whose cross-cutting
exposure was the lowest (i.e., 25%), indicating that the
equality rule encouraged discussants to participate in
gender-related issues more actively when there was a
more dominant opinion within a discussion group.
Results for RQ3, regarding the improvement in civic
virtues through cross-cutting exposure, did not support
the normatively assumed benefits of deliberation.
Although cross-cutting exposure influenced empathy, F
(2, 37) = 6.50, p = .004, the direction appeared reversed:
individuals who belonged to the conditions with the
Figure 1: Rationality in different deliberative conditions.
Note: Greater values indicate a greater level of reason-giving from participants.
Table 4: Effects of cross-cutting exposure and the rule of equality on political participation and civic virtues.
Political participation in gender-related activities
df F η2p
Cross-cutting exposure (A) 2 0.33 .02 .724
The rule of equality (B) 1 5.04 .12 .031*
Interaction (AXB) 2 4.56 .20 .017*
Error (S/AB) 37 (134.90)
Civic virtues
Empathy Tolerance
df F η2p df F η2p
Cross-cutting exposure (A) 2 6.50 .26 .004** 2 0.69 .04 .510
The rule of equality (B) 1 0.10 .003 .755 1 1.29 .03 .264
Interaction (AXB) 2 0.06 .003 .944 2 0.63 .03 .538
Error (S/AB) 37 (167.51) 37 (167.85)
Note. Entries in parentheses refer to mean square of error. Gender, political orientation, political interest, interest in gender issues,
and political knowledge are treated as covariates.
** p ≤ .01 * p ≤ .05 ^ p ≤ .1.
Ahn and Min: Making Cross-Cutting Exposure More Deliberative64
lowest level of cross-cutting exposure (M = 30.98, SD =
11.97) expressed a higher level of empathy than those
exposed to the highest level of opinion dissimilarity (M
= 16.88, SD = 6.60). Effects of the rule of equality on
moderating the influence of cross-cutting exposure in
enhancing one’s empathy and tolerance (RQ6) were not
found significant, either.
Discussion
We explored how some of the key normative conditions
from deliberation theory can promote empirical benefits
in the context of conflictual discussion over a gender issue
via an online messaging application. Several research
questions regarding the effects of cross-cutting exposure
and the rule of equality on 1) the deliberativeness of
gender-issue discussions, 2) participation in gender-
related political activities, and 3) civic virtues such as
empathy and tolerance and were proposed.
Experiencing a higher level of disagreement did not
automatically transfer to a better quality of political
discussion. However, the equality rule functioned as an
important moderator: A greater level of cross-cutting
exposure led to a higher level of rationality when the
rule of equality was enforced. Individuals were more
eager to deliver their arguments with the reasons that
are relevant to the issue when equal opportunities to
deliver their opinion were given. Further, our findings
suggest that benefits from the interaction of the two
aforementioned conditions are largely driven by the
discussants exposed to the greatest level of disagreement
while speaking. The equality rule helped these discussants
argue with others in a more rational way. In this sense, a
structured intervention to provide equal chances to speak
for everyone may be crucial in relatively mixed-opinion
interactions for ensuring participants, especially those
who hold minority opinions, that they are being treated
as reasonable discussants in a fair manner.
When the participants experience disagreement, they
may react in two different ways: they would either actively
persuade others on plausible grounds or rather remain
silent or indifferent. When the other parties’ opinion
is deemed as the majority and the discussed issues are
socially controversial, the latter scenario seems more
compelling (Noelle-Neumann, 1993; Scheufele & Eveland
Jr, 2001). Once we take these complex possibilities into
consideration, the next step is to address exactly how to
transform hostile discussions into deliberative exchange
of ideas encompassing reasonable arguments and mutual
respect. Our experiment showed that the rule of equality
in cross-cutting interactions rewarded participants with
more logical expression, rather than making them retreat
from mutual interaction. Thus, we conclude that providing
equal opportunities to speak may be essential, especially
for those holding minority opinions, to overcome feeling
reluctant to talk to others who disagree with them.
Similar patterns arose regarding political participation
related to gender issues. As stated in a recent meta-analysis
(Matthes et al., 2019), the experience of political difference
Figure 2: Gender-related political participation in different deliberative conditions.
Note: Greater values indicate greater intention of participation on gender issues (7 items averaged).
Ahn and Min: Making Cross-Cutting Exposure More Deliberative 65
did not directly influence how much people participated
in gender-related political activities. However, when the
equality rule was additionally enforced, motivation to
participate increased among those who were engaged
in gender-related discussions either as a minority or as
a majority. First, the groups exposed to the highest level
of disagreement (i.e., 75%) may have solidified their
rational grounds to argue against the majority’s opinion
(i.e., heightened rationality in speaking) and felt more
need to take action for their own political beliefs when
they are given equal chances to speak. On the other hand,
the groups assigned to the lowest level of cross-cutting
exposure (i.e., 25%) may have experienced a greater level
of social acceptance for their opinion through the equality
rule. However, these interpretations are only tentative for
now and should be subjected to future investigation.
For civic virtues, the role of the equality rule was found
limited; it did not appear as a critical moderator for the
effects of hearing the other side. Whereas encountering
conflicting opinions decreased empathy toward the
opposing side and failed to cultivate tolerance for
disagreement, additionally enforcing the rule of equality
did not make any meaningful changes.
While academics have long debated on the extent to
which cross-cutting exposure is normatively meritorious
(e.g., Mutz, 2006), we focused on the interactions
of the two essential conditions for deliberation and
demonstrated that the providing equal opportunities for
speech in cross-cutting online discussions can be vital to
minimize the gap between deliberative ideals and actual
political outcomes. This finding is highly relevant to the
current landscape of gender politics in South Korea where
inter-gender dialogue is becoming extremely heated
and polarized especially in online contexts. Our findings
suggest that online deliberative interventions could be a
productive solution for the hostilities surrounding gender
issues. Applying the rule of equality in the exchange of
opposing viewpoints may function as a starting point for
individuals to transform themselves into more reasoning,
respecting, and participating citizens.
This study is not without limitations. We did not precisely
illuminate the possible mediating process in which the key
deliberation conditions influence democratic outcomes
through the deliberativeness of political discussion.
Furthermore, our sample displayed a relatively high level
of interest in gender issues (M = 4.52, SD = 1.15). That
is, people highly interested in gender issues might have
chosen to participate in this experiment, thus limiting the
generalizability of the findings. Still, the characteristic of
our subjects reflects the involved-yet-divided public over
gender issues in South Korea. More than 70% of people
in their 20s in South Korea are highly interested in gender
issues (Korean Women’s Development, 2019), and more
than half of them have indicated gender conflict as the
most unsolvable problem (Kim, 2019). Given that most of
the online discourse is being dominated by those highly
involved in gender issues but antagonistic toward the
opposing groups, our findings illuminate the importance
of intervening efforts to transform such inimical
conversations into a deliberative discussion. It is also fair
to say that the main purpose of this study was to explore
relatively open inquiries on the interaction of cross-cutting
exposure and the rule of equality rather than to confirm
some directional relationships. The external validity of
our exploratory findings can be improved through future
replications with non-student samples.
The equality rule in an online deliberation should
be more conceptually refined and contextualized.
There is a possibility that the equality rule in online
settings might backfire because it is unnatural in online
settings. From debriefing sessions, we also found that
it is necessary to consider the unique characteristics of
a given online platform in enforcing specific rules for
deliberation. Another remaining question pertains to a
more theoretical issue, namely, the desirable degree of
cross-cutting exposure. The limited effects of cross-cutting
exposure observed in this study may be due to the vague
explication of the desirable level of hearing the other side.
In this sense, more studies should be ensued to identify
the optimal level of diversity one should encounter during
a political discussion.
Data Accessibility Statement
Supplementary file 1: The data related to the experiments
and the content analysis.
Supplementary file 2: The questionnaire, coding
instructions for a content analysis, and results for the
supplemental analysis.
The data reported in this paper and additional
supplementary materials, including the questionnaire,
coding instructions for a content analysis, and results for
supplemental analyses, can be found in each link. The
supplementary files have also been cited in the main text.
Note
1 We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers who
suggested to use ANCOVA on ranks to address the
problem of having a small sample size in our study.
Competing Interests
The authors have no competing interests to declare.
References
Abdullah, C., Karpowitz, C. F., & Raphael, C. (2016).
Equality and equity in deliberation: Introduction to
the special issue. Journal of Public Deliberation, 12(2),
1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.253
Albrecht, S. (2006). Whose voice is heard in online
deliberation?: A study of participation and
representation in political debates on the internet.
Information, Community and Society, 9(1), 62–82. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180500519548
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison–
Wesley.
Bächtiger, A., & Parkinson, J. (2019). Mapping and
measuring deliberation: towards a new deliberative
quality. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1093/oso/9780199672196.001.0001
Barabas, J. (2004). How deliberation affects policy
opinions. American Political Science Review,
Ahn and Min: Making Cross-Cutting Exposure More Deliberative66
98(4), 687–701. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0003055404041425
Besley, J. C., & McComas, K. A. (2005). Framing justice:
Using the concept of procedural justice to advance
political communication research. Communication
Theory, 15(4), 414–436. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2005.tb00342.x
Bettencourt, B. A., & Dorr, N. (1998). Cooperative
interaction and intergroup bias: Effects of
numerical representation and cross-cut role
assignment. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 24(12), 1276–1293. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1177/01461672982412003
Coleman, S., & Gøtze, J. (2001). Bowling together: Online
public engagement in policy deliberation. Hansard
Society London.
Cooper, T. L., & Gulick, L. (1984). Citizenship and
professionalism in public administration. Public
Administration Review, 44, 143–151. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.2307/975554
Eliasoph, N. (1998). Avoiding politics: How Americans
produce apathy in everyday life. Cambridge
University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9780511583391
Elster, J. (1998). Deliberative democracy (J. Elster,
Ed.). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1017/CBO9781139175005
Esterling, K. M., Fung, A., & Lee, T. (2015). How much
disagreement is good for democratic deliberation?
Political Communication, 32(4), 529–551. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2014.969466
Fishkin, J. S. (1995). The voice of the people: Public opinion
and democracy. Yale University Press.
Fishkin, J. S. (2011). When the people speak: Deliberative
democracy and public consultation. Oxford University
Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:os
obl/9780199604432.001.0001
Friess, D., & Eilders, C. (2015). A systematic review of
online deliberation research. Policy & Internet, 7(3),
319–339. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.95
Gastil, J. (2006). How balanced discussion shapes
knowledge, public perceptions, and attitudes: A case
study of deliberation on the Los Alamos National
Laboratory. Journal of Public Deliberation, 2(1). DOI:
https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.38
Gastil, J., Deess, E. P., & Weiser, P. (2002). Civic
awakening in the jury room: A test of the connection
between jury deliberation and political participation.
The Journal of Politics, 64(2), 585–595. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.00141
Grönlund, K., Herne, K., & Setälä, M. (2015). Does
enclave deliberation polarize opinions? Political
Behavior, 37(4), 995–1020. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11109-015-9304-x
Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and
disagreement. Harvard University Press.
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the
public sphere. MIT Press.
Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1954).
Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies
of opinion change. Yale University Press.
Huckfeldt, R., Mendez, J. M., & Osborn, T. (2004).
Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: The
political consequences of heterogeneous networks.
Political Psychology, 25(1), 65–95. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00357.x
Jaidka, K., Zhou, A., & Lelkes, Y. (2019). Brevity is the
soul of twitter: The constraint affordance and political
discussion. Journal of Communication, 69(4), 345–372.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz023
Jeong, E., & Lee, J. (2018). We take the red pill, we
confront the DickTrix: Online feminist activism and
the augmentation of gendered realities in South Korea.
Feminist Media Studies, 18(4), 705–717. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2018.1447354
Kim, H.-Y. (2019, January 2). Class and gender conflicts
increase explosively. Hankook Ilbo. Retrieved from
https://www.hankookilbo.com/News/Read/2018122
70601327645?did=NA&dtype=&dtypecode=&prnew
sid=.
Klofstad, C. A., Sokhey, A. E., & McClurg, S. D. (2013).
Disagreeing about disagreement: How conflict in social
networks affects political behavior. American Journal
of Political Science, 57(1), 120–134. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00620.x
Knight, J., & Johnson, J. (1997). What sort of equality does
deliberative democracy require? (J. Bohman & W. Rehg,
Eds.). MIT Press.
Korean Women’s Development. (2019). Korean
women’s development institute: Survey reports on
perceptions of gender equality issues in South Korea.
Retrieved from http://www.kwdi.re.kr/publications/
kwdiBriefView.do?p=1&idx=122966.
Larmore, C. (1990). Political liberalism. Political
Theory, 18(3), 339–360. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1177/0090591790018003001
Laurian, L. (2009). Trust in planning: Theoretical
and practical considerations for participatory
and deliberative planning. Planning Theory
& Practice, 10(3), 369–391. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1080/14649350903229810
Luskin, R. C., Fishkin, J. S., & Jowell, R. (2002).
Considered opinions: Deliberative polling in Britain.
British Journal of Political Science, 32(3), 455–487. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123402000194
MacKuen, M. B., Wolak, J., Keele, L., & Marcus, G. E.
(2010). Civic engagements: Resolute partisanship
or reflective deliberation. American Journal of
Political Science, 54(2), 440–458. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00440.x
Manin, B. (1987). On legitimacy and political deliberation.
Political Theory, 15(3), 338–368. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1177/0090591787015003005
Matthes, J., Knoll, J., Valenzuela, S., Hopmann, D. N., &
Von Sikorski, C. (2019). A meta-analysis of the effects
of cross-cutting exposure on political participation.
Political Communication, 36(4), 523-542. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1619638
McLeod, J. M., Scheufele, D. A., Moy, P., Horowitz, E.
M., Holbert, R. L., Zhang, W., Zubric, S., & Zubric,
J. (1999). Understanding deliberation: The effects
of discussion networks on participation in a public
Ahn and Min: Making Cross-Cutting Exposure More Deliberative 67
forum. Communication Research, 26(6), 743–774. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/009365099026006005
Meffert, M. F., Guge, M., & Lodge, M. (2004).
Good, bad, and ambivalent: The consequences of
multidimensional political attitudes (W. E. Saris & P.
M. Sniderman, Eds.). Princeton University Press. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691188386-005
Mendelberg, T. (2002). The deliberative citizen: Theory and
evidence (M. X. Delli Carpini, L. Huddy, & R. Shapiro,
Eds.). JAI Press.
Mill, J. S. (2015). On liberty, utilitarianism, and other essays
(2nd Ed.; M. Philp & F. Rosen, Eds.). Oxford University
Press. (Original work published 1958). DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1093/owc/9780199670802.001.0001
Morrell, M. E. (1999). Citizen’s evaluations of
participatory democratic procedures: Normative
theory meets empirical science. Political Research
Quarterly, 52(2), 293–322. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1177/106591299905200203
Morrell, M. E. (2010). Empathy and democracy: Feeling,
thinking and deliberation. Penn State University Press.
Moy, P., Domke, D., & Stamm, K. (2001). The spiral of silence
and public opinion on affirmative action. Journalism
& Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(1), 7–25. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900107800102
Mutz, D. C. (2002). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing
democratic theory in practice. American Political
Science Review, 96(1), 111–126. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0003055402004264
Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus
participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511617201
Mutz, D. C. (2008). Is deliberative democracy a falsifiable
theory? Annual Review of Political Science, 11,
521–538. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
polisci.11.081306.070308
Noelle-Neumann, E. (1993). The spiral of silence: Public
opinion, our social skin. University of Chicago Press.
Ock, H.-J. (2019, March 31). Debate on abortion ban
intensifies as decision looms. The Korea Herald.
Retrieved from http://www.koreaherald.com/view.
php?ud=20190331000068.
Oz, M., Zheng, P., & Chen, G. M. (2018). Twitter versus
Facebook: Comparing incivility, impoliteness,
and deliberative attributes. New Media &
Society, 20(9), 3400–3419. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1177/1461444817749516
Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility,
politeness, and the democratic potential of
online political discussion groups. New Media
& Society, 6(2), 259–283. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1177/1461444804041444
Park, S.-G. (2000). The significance of civility in
deliberative democracy. Korean Journal of Journalism
& Communication Studies, 53(3), 173–197.
Realmeter. (2017, November). TBS survey results: Public
opinion on abortion ban (rep.).
Roberts, N. (2004). Public deliberation in an age of direct
citizen participation. The American Review of Public
Administration, 34(4), 315–353. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1177/0275074004269288
Robinson, C. (2010). Cross-cutting messages and
political tolerance: An experiment using evangelical
protestants. Political Behavior, 32(4), 495–515. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9118-9
Roh, S., & Min, Y. (2009). The coexistence of
“deliberation” and “participation”: The moderating
effects of deliberative political dialogue on the
relationships between cross-cutting exposure and
political participation. Korean Journal of Journalism &
Communication Studies, 53(3), 173–197.
Scheufele, D. A., & Eveland, W. P. Jr. (2001). Perceptions
of ‘public opinion’ and ‘public’ opinion expression.
International Journal of Public Opinion Research,
13(1), 25–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/
ijpor/13.1.25
Scheufele, D. A., Hardy, B. W., Brossard, D., Waismel-
Manor, I. S., & Nisbet, E. (2006). Democracy based
on difference: Examining the links between structural
heterogeneity, heterogeneity of discussion networks,
and democratic citizenship. Journal of Communication,
56(4), 728–753. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-
2466.2006.00317.x
Smith, G., & Wales, C. (2000). Citizens’ juries and
deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 48(1), 51–65.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00250
Song, H., & Eveland, W. P. Jr. (2015). The structure of
communication networks matters: How network
diversity, centrality, and context influence political
ambivalence, participation, and knowledge. Political
Communication, 32(1), 83–108. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1080/10584609.2014.882462
Steenbergen, M. R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., &
Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring political deliberation: A
discourse quality index. Comparative European Politics,
1(1), 21–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.
cep.6110002
Steger, I. (2016, October 24). An epic battle between
feminism and deep-seated misogyny is under way
in South Korea. Quartz. Retrieved from https://
qz.com/801067/an-epic-battle-between-feminism-and-
deep-seated-misogyny-is-under-way-in-south-korea.
Steiner, J., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., & Steenbergen,
M. (2004). Deliberative politics in action: Cross-
national study of parliamentary debates. Cambridge
University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9780511491153
Stroud, N. J., Scacco, J. M., Muddiman, A., & Curry,
A. L. (2015). Changing deliberative norms on news
organizations’ Facebook sites. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 20(2), 188–203. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12104
Sullivan, J. L., Piereson, J., & Marcus, G. E. (1993).
Political tolerance and American democracy. University
of Chicago Press.
Sunstein, C. R. (2002). The law of group polarization.
Journal of Political Philosophy, 10(2), 175–195. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00148
Thompson, D. F. (2008). Deliberative democratic theory
and empirical political science. Annual Review of
Political Science, 11, 497–520. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.081306.070555
Ahn and Min: Making Cross-Cutting Exposure More Deliberative68
Vinokur, A., & Burnstein, E. (1978). Depolarization
of attitudes in groups. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 36(8), 872–885. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.8.872
Wojcieszak, M. (2011). Deliberation and attitude
polarization. Journal of Communication, 61(4),
596–617. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-
2466.2011.01568.x
Zhang, W. (2015). Perceived procedural fairness in
deliberation: Predictors and effects. Communication
Research, 42(3), 345–364. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1177/0093650212469544
How to cite this article: Ahn, C. J.-K., & Min, Y. (2021). Making Cross-Cutting Exposure More Deliberative: The Moderating Role
of the Equality Rule in Online Discussions on a Gender Issue.
Journal of Deliberative Democracy
, 17(2), pp. 57–68. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.16997/jdd.985
Submitted: 04 November 2020 Accepted: 02 June 2021 Published: 29 November 2021
Copyright: © 2021 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Journal of Deliberative Democracy
is a peer-reviewed open access journal published
by University of Westminster Press.
