Empa hy in a Ci izen Delibe a ion
Expe imen
Kimmo G €
onlund*, Kaisa He ne
†
, and Maija Se €
al€
a
‡
Despi e inc eased schola ly a en ion, he e is s ill limi ed knowledge on how empa hy wo ks
in democ a ic delibe a ion. This a icle examines he ole o empa hy in ci izen delibe a ion
wi h he help o a delibe a i e expe imen on immig a ion. Fi s , a andom sample o ci izens
was su eyed ega ding hei opinions on immig a ion. Based on hei opinions, hey we e
hen di ided in o a pe missi e o a non-pe missi e encla e, and andomly assigned in o like-
minded o mixed-opinion g oups o delibe a ion. A e delibe a ion, hey we e su eyed
anew. The s udy analyzes: (a) empa hy di e ences be ween pe missi e and non-pe missi e
pa icipan s; (b) changes in ou g oup empa hy owa d immig an s as a esul o delibe a ion;
and (c) di e ences in p osocial beha io (i.e., dona ing o cha i y). The esul s show ha he
pe missi e esponden s had mo e empa hy, especially owa d immig an s, han he non-
pe missi e esponden s. Among pa icipan s, ou g oup empa hy inc eased du ing delibe a ion.
Rega ding p osocial beha io , he pe missi e pa icipan s dona ed mo e o en o cha i y a
he end o he expe imen .
In oduc ion
Democ a ic delibe a ion appea s o be he key o in o med and ai collec-
i e decision making. In democ a ic delibe a ion, pa icipan s’ awa eness
o ac s and causali ies ela ed o poli ical issues a e expec ed o inc ease
oge he wi h hei unde s anding o o he people’s pe spec i es. This
s udy conce ns especially he la e aspec – ha is, he abili y o delibe a-
o s o empa hize wi h o he people. We a e speci ically in e es ed in he
ques ion o whe he he capaci y o conside he pe spec i es o o he s is
a p econdi ion o delibe a ion, and o wha ex en delibe a ion imp o es
his capaci y.
* Kimmo G €
onlund, P o esso o Poli ical Science, Social Science Resea ch Ins i u e, ASA-
building, A
˚bo Akademi Uni e si y, 20500 A
˚bo, Finland. E-mail: [email p o ec ed]
†
School o Managemen , Uni e si y o Tampe e, Finland.
‡
Depa men o Philosophy, Con empo a y His o y and Poli ical Science, Uni e si y o
Tu ku, Finland.
This is an open access a icle unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion
License, which pe mi s use, dis ibu ion and ep oduc ion in any medium, p o ided he
o iginal wo k is p ope ly ci ed.
Scandina ian Poli ical S udies, Vol. 40 – No. 4, 2017 457
ISSN 0080-6757 Doi: 10.1111/1467-9477.12103
V
C2017 The Au ho s Scandina ian Poli ical S udies published by John Wiley & Sons L d on
behal o No dic Poli ical Science Associa ion
While democ a ic delibe a ion is p ima ily a collec i e p ocess o ea-
soning, i also en ails indi idual p ocesses o e lec ion o , as Robe
Goodin (2000) desc ibes i , ‘delibe a ion wi hin’. In e nal delibe a ion
equi es ha people a e e lec i e o e hei own iewpoin s as well as
empa he ic owa d o he s’ posi ions. J€
u gen Habe mas (1996, 162), who
mos ly emphasizes in e subjec i e aspec s, ega ds ‘ideal ole- aking’ as a
pa o mo al discou se. The e m ‘ideal ole- aking’, o iginally in oduced
by Mead (1934), e e s o a p ocess o placing onesel in ano he ’s posi ion
and ying o unde s and hei pe spec i e. In Habe mas’s discou se e hics,
ole- aking is needed o ack whe he o he s ha e a gene alizable a i ude
abou he alidi y o a no m (Mo ell 2010, 79).
Recen ly, he e has been inc easing a en ion paid o he ole o a ec in
democ a ic delibe a ion (e.g., K ause 2008). In his book Empa hy and
Democ acy, Michael Mo ell (2010) c i icizes hose unde s andings o delib-
e a i e democ acy ha lean oo hea ily on a ionali y and he easonableness
o a gumen a ion. Mo eo e , he a gues ha democ a ic delibe a ion needs
empa hy, unde s ood as a p ocess ha in ol es bo h a ec i e and cogni i e
componen s. Mo ell (2010, 114) w i es:
[W]i hou he p ocess o empa hy, i is highly unlikely ha ci izens will demons a e he
ole a ion, mu ual espec , ecip oci y, and openness owa d o he s i al o delibe a i e
democ acy o ul ill i s p omise o equal conside a ion ha is cen al o gi ing collec i e
decisions hei legi imacy.
In his a icle, we examine he ole o empa hy in a ci izen delibe a ion
expe imen . Ou expe imen al design p o ides a way o es he e ec s o
delibe a ion on pa icipan s’ le els o empa hy. We ha e also included a
speci ic design ea u e allowing us o es al uis ic beha io among pa ici-
pan s. Ou expe imen is designed o compa e so-called ‘encla e delibe a-
ion’ (i.e., delibe a ion among like-minded people) wi h delibe a ion in
c oss-cu ing g oups. The opic o he discussion – immig a ion poli ics – is
ideal o es ing he causal link be ween delibe a ion and empa hy since
delibe a ion on immig a ion seems o equi e conce n o o he s’ posi-
ions, especially ega ding ou g oups.
In ou empi ical analysis, we i s pay a en ion o he po en ial di e en-
ces be ween hose who we e willing o pa icipa e in democ a ic delibe a-
ion and hose who we e no . We e hose who pa icipa ed mo e
empa he ic han hose who d opped ou ? We also look a he po en ial o
delibe a ion o inc ease empa hy, especially owa ds membe s o an ou -
g oup, which in he p esen con ex is immig an s. We in es iga e whe he
ou expe imen al ea men in luences le els o empa hy by examining di -
e ences be ween like-minded and mixed g oups. Finally, we examine
p oneness o al uis ic beha io in di e en g oups. Al uis ic beha io is
ope a ionalized h ough an ac o dona ing money o cha i y.
V
C2017 The Au ho s Scandina ian Poli ical S udies published by John Wiley & Sons L d on
behal o No dic Poli ical Science Associa ion
458 Scandina ian Poli ical S udies, Vol. 40 – No. 4, 2017
The a icle is o ganized as ollows. Fi s , we p o ide a de ini ion o empa-
hy, and conside i s ole in democ a ic delibe a ion. We hen p esen ou
hypo heses and he expe imen al p ocedu es, which a e ollowed by he
esul s and concluding ema ks.
Empa hy as an Elemen o Democ a ic
Delibe a ion
Empa hy, unde s ood as a capaci y and mo i a ion o pu onesel in he
posi ion o o he s, seems o be a necessa y elemen in he p ocess o
delibe a ion. Al hough many heo is s ha e hough abou he ole o
empa hy, he e a e no many empi ical s udies on empa hy, o ‘ideal ole-
aking’, in he con ex o democ a ic delibe a ion. Apa om some ai ly
ecen con ibu ions in his a ea (e.g., Mo ell 2010), empa hy is la gely
neglec ed in s udies o delibe a ion.
The e m ‘empa hy’ has been de ined in a numbe o ways, and no gene -
ally sha ed de ini ion o he e m exis s (e.g., Ho man 2000; P es on & De
Waal 2002; Wal e 2012). Fo his eason, he discussion on empa hy is o en
elusi e (Mo ell 2010, 39–66). Fu he mo e, he e a e concep s such as ‘sym-
pa hy’, ‘compassion’ and ‘empa he ic conce n’ ha a e closely ela ed o
‘empa hy’, bo h concep ually and empi ically. Some w i e s conside empa-
hy mainly as an a ec i e p ocess whe e o he s’ emo ions a e ep oduced.
O he s, in u n, make a dis inc ion be ween a ec i e and cogni i e elemen s
o empa hy whe e he la e e e s o an unde s anding o o he s’ posi ions
(Wal e 2012). Da is (1980) a gues ha empa hy is a mul idimensional con-
cep and ha he eisaneed omeasu ebo hcogni i eanda ec i easpec s
o empa hy (i.e., a pe spec i e- aking capaci y and emo ional eac i i y).
Democ a ic delibe a ion, especially i s idea o equal conside a ion o all
iewpoin s based on hei me i s, clea ly equi es empa hy, in e p e ed as
a cogni i e p ocess o unde s anding o he s’ pe spec i es. No ably, Rawls’s
(1971) concep o ‘public eason’ equi es ha people a e open o o he s’
pe spec i es and eady o jus i y hei own claims in e ms accep able o
o he s. Habe mas’s (1996) idea ha he alidi y o mo al no ms is de ined
h ough he uni e saliza ion es , which examines wha is accep able o
all, is a simila concep . I seems ha bo h Rawls’s public eason and he
ul illmen o Habe mas’s uni e saliza ion es equi e an unde s anding o
o he s’ social posi ions and in e es s. Such an unde s anding is necessa y
o de e mine wha kind o e ms o coope a ion can be accep able o
o he s. Delibe a i e democ acy calls o an unde s anding o hose aspec s
o o he people’s social posi ions ha a e ‘e hically ele an ’ – ha is,
hose pe aining o gene alizable mo al p inciples. These e hically ele an
aspec s could be in e p e ed as being ela ed o wha Rawls (1971) calls
V
C2017 The Au ho s Scandina ian Poli ical S udies published by John Wiley & Sons L d on
behal o No dic Poli ical Science Associa ion
Scandina ian Poli ical S udies, Vol. 40 – No. 4, 2017 459
‘p ima y goods’. In he p ocess o delibe a ion on income dis ibu ion, o
ins ance, i seems ele an o unde s and ha li ing wi h less han a mini-
mum income can lead o poo nu i ion.
Au ho s such as K ause (2008) and Mo ell (2010) ha e a gued ha emo-
ional componen s o empa hy a e also ele an o democ a ic delibe a ion.
While cogni i e aspec s o empa hy pe ain o he p ocess o gaining knowl-
edge abou o he s’ posi ions as well as p e e ences and alues ela ed o
hem, he emo ional aspec o empa hy e e s o a ec ions ela ed o hose
posi ions. Emo ional empa hy equi es he ep oduc ion o he a ge ’s emo-
ions based on one’s own an icipa ed emo ions in he posi ion o he a ge
o al e na i ely on he obse ed o imagined emo ions o he a ge . This
does no mean ha he subjec has o expe ience exac ly he same emo ions
as he a ge ; a he , he subjec should eel some hing ha is in line wi h he
a ge ’s emo ions. In his espec , emo ional empa hy is simila o empa he ic
conce n o sympa hy. Ba son (2011), o example, a gues ha empa he ic
conce n in ol es a a ie y o eelings, including sympa hy and compassion.
Unde s ood in his way, emo ional empa hy seems ele an o democ a ic
delibe a ion because i is likely o be linked o p o-social a i udes. We would
no ega d a pe son as empa he ic i she o he uses hei unde s anding o
wha causes pain o ha m o he s; no can we see how his kind o an a i ude
would help democ a ic delibe a ion.
In addi ion o objec i e social posi ions, unde s anding o ce ain kinds
o emo ions ela ed o hose posi ions can be ega ded as e hically ele-
an in democ a ic delibe a ion. Emo ional empa hy migh be needed, o
example, o unde s and ha a pe son would eel dis espec ed as a ci izen
i denied he igh o o e, o ang y o us a ed i ea ed un ai ly by
public o icials. Ye , he e a e also good easons o being c i ical o he
iew ha democ a ic delibe a ion would equi e ep oducing o he s’ emo-
ions. Fi s , people can misunde s and o he s’ emo ions. Second, people
may mis ep esen hei own emo ions in o de o enhance be e ou comes
o hemsel es, al hough his would iola e Habe mas’s since i y condi ion.
Thi d, he e is he p oblem o mo ally ‘w ong’ emo ions – o example,
‘ he pain he acis eels in he ace o an i-disc imina ion laws’ (K ause
2008, 166). Such an emo ion is ha dly jus i iable om a mo e gene alizable
pe spec i e, which should be he ou come o a delibe a i e p ocess.
Al hough he ole o a ec i e aspec s o empa hy is no s aigh o wa d,
Mo ell (2010) claims ha open-mindedness and sensi i i y o o he s’
emo ions a e likely o be empi ically ela ed o he sense o ecip oci y
and commi men o delibe a ion. In o he wo ds, i is he a ec i e ele-
men o empa hy ha mo i a es conside a ions o o he people’s posi ions.
I his is he case, a ec i e componen s o empa hy acili a e o can e en
be a p econdi ion o he cogni i e ype o empa hy. Following Da is’s
mul idimensional model o empa hy, Mo ell (2010, 60–3) p omo es a
V
C2017 The Au ho s Scandina ian Poli ical S udies published by John Wiley & Sons L d on
behal o No dic Poli ical Science Associa ion
460 Scandina ian Poli ical S udies, Vol. 40 – No. 4, 2017
‘p ocess model o empa hy’ ha emphasizes in e ac ion be ween a ec i e
and cogni i e elemen s. F om he pe spec i e o democ a ic delibe a ion,
i is, howe e , impo an ha emo ional eac ions, whe he one’s own o
o he s’, a e assessed in e ms o he e hical ele ance and gene alizabili y
o he claims ela ed o hem.
The unde s anding o he a ec i e componen s o empa hy helps o ecog-
nize po en ial sou ces o biases in empa hizing. Such biases can be p oblem-
a ic o he idea o equal conside a ion o he pe spec i es o all a ec ed,
which is a cen al poin in democ a ic delibe a ion. Social psychological li e -
a u e p o ides a numbe o examples o empa hy biases. People a e mo e
likely o empa hize wi h hose who a e simila o close o hem han wi h
membe s o socially mo e dis an ou g oups ( o e e ences, see Cika a e al.
2014). In o he wo ds, iends, ela i es and o he in-g oup membe s a e
mo e likely o gene a e empa hy, which may lead o biased judgmen s. A sin-
gle pa en unde s ands he posi ion o ano he single pa en ; a disabled pe -
son is amilia wi h he speci ic p oblems o disabled people; and so on.
Empa hy biases ha e also been obse ed in empi ical s udies. Fo example,
judges who ha e daugh e s a e mo e likely o ake a eminis s andpoin in
hei decisions compa ed o judges who ha e only sons, sugges ing ha he
o me unde s and women’s pe spec i es be e han he la e (Glynn &
Sen 2015). While people end o unde s and ing oup membe s’ pe spec i es,
ou g oup membe s, in u n, a e no as likely o gi e ise o empa hy. In a con-
lic si ua ion, compassion is lowe o an indi idual who ep esen s he o he
side in a con lic (B uneau e al. 2012).
Democ a ic delibe a ion, unde s ood as an in e subjec i e p ocess whe e
di e en iewpoin s a e pu o wa d o balanced conside a ion, can be
ega ded as a possible emedy o empa hy biases. Fo example, Mu z (2002)
has shown ha exposu e o c oss-cu ing iews, which is ypical in p ocesses
o democ a ic delibe a ion, helps o unde s and hings om ano he ’s pe -
spec i e. I can be assumed ha inclusi e p ocesses o delibe a ion, whe e
people a e encou aged o conside o he s’ posi ions, could enhance empa hy
owa d ou g oups, especially i hey appea o be in a disad an aged posi ion.
In his s udy, we sepa a e gene al empa hy om empa hy owa d a speci ic
ou g oup – in his case, immig an s. ‘Gene al empa hy’ e e s o cogni i e
and a ec i e empa hy el owa ds people in gene al, whe eas ‘ou g oup
empa hy’ e e s o empa hy el owa ds immig an s.
In addi ion o he ole o empa hy in he delibe a i e p ocess, we also
s udy he connec ion be ween empa hy and p osocial beha io in he con-
ex o democ a ic delibe a ion. I appea s ha an empa he ic unde s and-
ing o someone else’s posi ion is no au oma ically linked o p osocial
beha io . Binmo e’s (1998) example is a gun igh e who uses ‘his empa-
he ic powe s o p edic an opponen ’s nex mo e wi hou losing he u ge
o kill him’. Howe e , empi ical s udies in social psychology show ha
V
C2017 The Au ho s Scandina ian Poli ical S udies published by John Wiley & Sons L d on
behal o No dic Poli ical Science Associa ion
Scandina ian Poli ical S udies, Vol. 40 – No. 4, 2017 461

empa hy o sympa hy usually ends o p omo e p osocial ac ion (e.g.,
Mon ada & Schneide 1989; Pagano & Huo 2007).
Fu he mo e, pe spec i e- aking abili ies lea ned in one con ex can
ex end o o he con ex s (Ba son 2011, 175–6). S udies gi e suppo o he
empa hy-al uism hypo hesis, which s a es ha empa he ic conce n e okes
an al uis ic mo i a ion o help o he s – ha is, gi es ise o p osocial ac ion
(e.g., Ba son 1997). Se e al s udies show ha inducing empa hy inc eases
he willingness o help o ac ual helping o o he s, e en when he ac o help-
ing is cos ly (e.g., Ba son 1997; Ba son e al. 1997, 2002). Expe imen al e i-
dence also sugges s ha al uis ic dona ions migh be ela ed o he dono s’
belie s abou he esponden s’ wo hiness o help (Fong 2007).
In sum, he e is a heo e ical link be ween democ a ic delibe a ion and
empa hy, including empa hy owa ds ou g oups. Fu he mo e, empa hy is
empi ically linked o p osocial a i udes o beha io . While empa hy is
heo e ically connec ed o delibe a i e discussion, we a e no awa e o
p e ious empi ical s udies on he connec ion be ween delibe a i e discus-
sion and empa hy. Mo eo e , he e a e no p e ious s udies on he in lu-
ence o g oup composi ion on empa hy in he con ex o delibe a ion.
The e a e a numbe o s udies showing ha pa icipa ion in delibe a i e
discussion leads o opinion changes (e.g., Luskin e al. 2002; Ba abas 2004;
Fishkin & Luskin 2005; Se €
al€
ae al.2010;G
€
onlund e al. 2015), as well
as o o he expec ed consequences o delibe a ion, such as inc eases in
poli ical knowledge, e icacy, us and p epa edness o poli ical pa icipa-
ion (e.g., G €
onlund e al. 2010; Himmel oos e al. 2017). None o hese
empi ical s udies looks a he connec ion be ween delibe a ion and empa-
hy. G €
onlund e al. (2015) is based on he same expe imen as he one in
his a icle, bu i s udies opinion changes and obse es ha people wi h
an i-immig an a i udes become mo e ole an e en when hey discuss in
like-minded g oups wi h delibe a i e ules and acili a ion. This change in
opinions canno only be explained by gaining mo e in o ma ion on he
immig a ion issue du ing delibe a ion. Finally, al hough he empa hy-
al uism hypo hesis has been es ed in a numbe o social psychological
s udies, we a e no awa e o any o hem connec ing he hypo hesis o
democ a ic delibe a ion. Howe e , ea lie s udies sugges ha pa icipa-
ion in o ganized delibe a ion enhances gene alized us and a willingness
o con ibu e o collec i e ac ion (Se €
al€
a e al. 2010; G €
onlund e al. 2010).
Delibe a ion on Immig a ion: Hypo heses on
Empa hy
To sum up he heo e ical discussion, empa hy – unde s ood as a willing-
ness o conside o he s’ pe spec i es and emo ions – can be ega ded as a
V
C2017 The Au ho s Scandina ian Poli ical S udies published by John Wiley & Sons L d on
behal o No dic Poli ical Science Associa ion
462 Scandina ian Poli ical S udies, Vol. 40 – No. 4, 2017
p econdi ion o democ a ic delibe a ion, and i can also be expec ed o
de elop in he cou se o delibe a ion. The ole o empa hy may a y
acco ding o he ype o issue; i can be expec ed o be pa icula ly impo -
an when delibe a ing abou an issue such as immig a ion, which calls o
conside a ion o o he people’s pe spec i es. Those capable o empa hiz-
ing a e likely o be mo i a ed o delibe a e on immig a ion because hey
a e willing and able o unde s and o he s’ pe spec i es and emo ions.
Mo eo e , success ul delibe a ion is expec ed o enhance unde s anding o
o he s’ pe spec i es, especially hose in a disad an aged posi ion.
In his s udy, we compa e he ole o empa hy in encla e delibe a ion –
ha is, delibe a ion among a like-minded g oup – o c oss-cu ing delibe -
a ion whe e g oup membe s hold di e en iews. The inclusion o di e -
en iewpoin s in he p ocess o exchanging a gumen s is one o he key
ea u es in democ a ic delibe a ion. Indeed, he p esence o con lic ing
iewpoin s is o en ega ded as a necessa y p econdi ion o delibe a ion
(Thompson 2008, 502). Di e si y o opinions can be expec ed o enhance
conside a ion and e lec ion on di e en iewpoin s (e.g., Me cie &
Landemo e 2012). Cass Suns ein (2002, 2007, 2009) discusses he p oblems
and isks ela ed o encla e delibe a ion, including, mos impo an ly,
g oup pola iza ion. O he schola s (e.g., Ka powi z e al. 2009; see also
Suns ein 2007, 76–7) poin ou ha delibe a ion in like-minded con ex s
migh acili a e a icula ion o speci ic in e es s and alues as well as
enhance mobiliza ion, especially o hose in disad an aged posi ions.
Mansb idge (1994, 63), who was p obably he i s o use he e m ‘encla e
delibe a ion’, calls o ‘encla es o p o ec ed discou se and ac ion’ as an
elemen o a jus socie y.
In ou expe imen , he esponden s we e di ided in o wo encla es
based on hei opinions on immig a ion exp essed in a baseline su ey
(T1). Responden s wi h nega i e a i udes o immig a ion we e classi ied
in o a con encla e, and esponden s wi h a posi i e iew on immig a ion
in o a p o encla e. Fu he mo e, pa icipan s we e andomly assigned
in o: like-minded g oups consis ing o people om he same encla e;
mixed g oups, including an equal numbe o pa icipan s om bo h
encla es; and a con ol g oup. Subjec s in he i s wo g oups ook pa in
he delibe a ion e en , whe eas he con ol g oup only illed in h ee mail-
in su eys. The pu pose o ou expe imen was o compa e p ocesses and
consequences o delibe a ion in like-minded and mixed g oups.
1
Al hough
g oup composi ion was subjec o manipula ion, he o he s anda d p oce-
du es o he delibe a i e ‘package’ (Mu z 2006, 61) we e applied. These
p ocedu al ea u es include he p o ision o balanced in o ma ion o all
pa icipan s as well as he use o mode a o s and discussion ules o
encou age a p ocess whe e pa icipan s lis en o each o he ’s a gumen s
and e lec on hei own iews.
V
C2017 The Au ho s Scandina ian Poli ical S udies published by John Wiley & Sons L d on
behal o No dic Poli ical Science Associa ion
Scandina ian Poli ical S udies, Vol. 40 – No. 4, 2017 463
Empa hy was measu ed h ough su eys conduc ed among he expe imen-
al subjec s be o e and a e delibe a ion (a T2 and T4). To measu e gene al
empa hy, we used h ee i ems om Da is’s (1980) la ge empa hy ques ion-
nai e. We ocused on i ems o pe spec i e- aking and empa he ic conce n,
which we conside ele an om he poin o iew o democ a ic delibe a-
ion.
2
In addi ion o gene al empa hy, we also analyzed ques ions designed
o he speci ic pu poses o his s udy. These ques ions measu e pa icipan s’
willingness o conside he iews o a speci ic ou g oup (i.e., immig an s).
As poin ed ou in he heo e ical discussion, we conside empa hy as a
ac o acili a ing success ul delibe a ion. Based on his, we expec ha
hose who we e ac ually willing o pa icipa e in he delibe a i e expe i-
men a emo eempa he ic han hosewhod oppedou .
Since he pa icipan s we e di ided in o p o and con encla es, we a e
able o compa e empa hy in hese wo g oups. Based on ea lie s udies
(e.g., Newman e al. 2015), we expec people in he p o encla e o be
mo e empa he ic when i comes o ou g oup empa hy, ope a ionalized as
a willingness o conside he pe spec i es o immig an s.
Fu he mo e, ou expe imen al subjec s delibe a ed ei he in like-
minded o in mixed g oups, which allows us o analyze he e ec s o he
exposu e o con lic ing iewpoin s in he cou se o delibe a ion. The di e -
si y o iewpoin s, pu o wa d in a delibe a i e p ocess, is expec ed o
help pa icipan s o see hings om o he people’s pe spec i es, including
ou g oups such as immig an s. This kind o de elopmen is expec ed o
ake place especially among hose pa icipan s who ha e nega i e a i udes
owa d immig a ion and who delibe a e in mixed g oups. This is because
hese pa icipan s a e likely o hea a gumen s and iewpoin s in suppo
o mo e pe missi e iews owa ds immig a ion. Ano he issue is ha
acco ding o Suns ein’s (2002) ‘law o g oup pola iza ion’, people delibe -
a ing in like-minded g oups can become mo e ex eme in hei iews.
Especially, pa icipan s wi h an i-immig a ion a i udes can be expec ed o
ein o ce each o he ’s nega i e a i udes owa d immig an s, which may
dec ease hei willingness o conside immig an s’ pe spec i es.
In addi ion o he su ey da a measu ing empa hy, ou s udy yields e i-
dence on he pa icipan s’ p oneness o beha e al uis ically. A he end
o he expe imen , he pa icipan s had he possibili y o dona e e5o hei
e90 emune a ion o he Red C oss. Mo eo e , hey could choose be ween
domes ic o in e na ional cha i y. Based on ea lie indings on empa hy
and al uism, we assume ha membe s o he p o encla e a e mo e likely
o con ibu e o cha i y compa ed o he membe s o he con encla e. As
people in he p o encla e can be expec ed o be mo e empa he ic owa d
ou g oups, hey can also be assumed o be mo e willing o con ibu e o
in e na ional aid han hose belonging o he con encla e. On he basis o
he p e ious discussion, we o mula e he ollowing hypo heses.
V
C2017 The Au ho s Scandina ian Poli ical S udies published by John Wiley & Sons L d on
behal o No dic Poli ical Science Associa ion
464 Scandina ian Poli ical S udies, Vol. 40 – No. 4, 2017
H1: Empa hy, especially empa hy owa d ou g oups, is highe among he pa icipan s in
he p o encla e han in he con encla e.
H2a: Empa hy owa d ou g oups inc eases du ing delibe a ion.
H2b: The la ges inc ease in ou g oup empa hy occu s among hose pa icipan s in he
con encla e who delibe a e in mixed g oups.
H3: Pa icipan s in he p o encla e dona e mo e o en o he Red C oss han pa icipan s
in he con encla e, especially o he In e na ional Ca as ophe Fund.
Expe imen al P ocedu es
Ou analysis is based on an expe imen whe e ci izens, d awn om a an-
dom sample, delibe a ed on immig a ion. The expe imen was held in Fin-
land in 2012. A sho su ey (T1) was i s mailed ou o a simple andom
sample o 12,000 adul s in he egion o Tu ku (A
˚bo). O he add essed
sample, 39 pe cen (n54,681) esponded o he su ey. T1 consis ed o 14
ques ions measu ing esponden s’ immig a ion a i udes. The ques ions a e
lis ed in he Appendix. Figu e 1 shows he ini ial dispe sion o a i udes
among hose esponden s (n 53,232) who allowed u he con ac om
he esea ch g oup.
3
Figu e 1. The Ini ial Dispe sion o A i udes owa d Immig a ion.
V
C2017 The Au ho s Scandina ian Poli ical S udies published by John Wiley & Sons L d on
behal o No dic Poli ical Science Associa ion
Scandina ian Poli ical S udies, Vol. 40 – No. 4, 2017 465
ea men s and encla es, we ind ha he sligh inc ease among he con
pa icipan s in he like-minded g oups is no signi ican , whe eas he
inc ease om 0.39 o 0.47 among he con pa icipan s in mixed g oups is
signi ican ( 53.98, p 50.000). The inc ease om 0.67 o 0.71 in he p o like-
minded g oups is signi ican ( 52.63, p <0.01), whe eas he mino dec ease
among he p o pa icipan s in mixed g oups is no ( 521.51, p <0.14). The
esul s seem o con i m ou expec a ion ha aking pa in delibe a ion on
immig a ion inc eases conce n o immig an s’ pe spec i es (H2a). Mo e-
o e , he inc ease seems o be especially la ge among pa icipan s in he con
encla e delibe a ing in mixed g oups (H2b).
12
Ne e heless, when we look a
he di e ences-in-di e ence, we ind ha he con pa icipan s’ la ge
inc ease in ou g oup empa hy in he mixed ea men is no s a is ically
highe han he inc ease in he like-minded ea men .
This inding was also con i med h ough sepa a e eg ession analyses
wi hin he wo encla es (no shown he e) whe e he de elopmen o a i udes
owa d immig a ion was added o he dummy a iables o ea men , ime
(pos -delibe a ion) and ea men * ime. Wi hin he con encla e, only he
inc ease o ole an a i udes explains inc ease in ou g oup empa hy. Wi hin
he p o encla e, ou g oup empa hy was ound o inc ease by he like-minded
ea men bu no by change in a i udes owa d immig a ion. In he con ol
g oup, ou g oup empa hy did no change. In conclusion, H2a gains suppo ,
bu he inc ease occu s among all pa icipan s, wi h he excep ion o he p o-
immig a ion pa icipan s in he mixed ea men . Thus, we canno con i m
H2b, s a ing ha he pa icipan s wi h non-pe missi e iews on immig a ion
would ha e gained mo e ou g oup empa hy in mixed g oups.
These esul s a e in line wi h he indings by G €
onlund e al. (2015), which
show an o e all de elopmen in o mo e pe missi e a i udes owa d immig a-
ion among he pa icipan s. A i udes we e measu ed wi h 14 i ems such as
‘Finland should ake mo e immig an s. Do you hink his is a bad o a good
sugges ion?’. De elopmen in o mo e pe missi e a i udes happened in bo h
ea men s. Also a he indi idual le el, he change in ou g oup empa hy is
posi i ely co ela ed wi h he change in immig a ion a i udes owa d a mo e
ole an iew (Kendall’s au 0.183, p 50.000). Mo eo e , i is no able ha ,
on a e age, he con pa icipan s delibe a ing in like-minded g oups became
mo e ole an o immig a ion, which is con a y o ea lie indings on discus-
sion in like-minded g oups, labeled by Suns ein (2002) as g oup pola iza ion.
Ou esul s suppo he iew ha delibe a ion is di e en om o he o ms
o alk, and ha discussion p ocedu es can ha e a s ong impac on ou -
comes. The ‘delibe a i e package’, including in o ma ion and acili a ed
small g oup discussions, seems o ha e an impac on how g oups discuss and
how a i udes de elop (G €
onlund e al. 2015; S andbe g e al. 2017).
So a , he analysis has been based on a i udinal i ems. We will now
u n o al uis ic beha io among he pa icipan s (H3). A he end o he
V
C2017 The Au ho s Scandina ian Poli ical S udies published by John Wiley & Sons L d on
behal o No dic Poli ical Science Associa ion
472 Scandina ian Poli ical S udies, Vol. 40 – No. 4, 2017

delibe a ion, he pa icipan s had an oppo uni y o dona e e5o hei e90
emune a ion o he Finnish Red C oss. This oppo uni y o dona e was
nei he amed no p imed in any way; and he pa icipan s we e no old
abou his in ad ance. The dona ion i sel was included as a ques ion a
he end o Su ey T4, and he pa icipan s could make hei dona ion by
icking a box in he ques ionnai e. In his espec , he dona ion was
en i ely a he pa icipan s’ disc e ion and he possible in e en ion o
social desi abili y o g oup p essu e was minimized. Figu e 3 shows he
dis ibu ion o dona ions wi hin he wo encla es and ea men s.
13
As Figu e 3 shows, he al uis ic ac o dona ing was clea ly mo e com-
mon in he p o encla e. Hal o he pa icipan s in he p o encla e made
he dona ion, whe eas he p opo ion o hose who dona ed in he con
encla e was 28 pe cen . The di e ence is s a is ically signi ican ( 53.13,
p5001).
14
A he indi idual le el, he e is a weak posi i e co ela ion
be ween gene al baseline empa hy and dona ing (Kendall’s au 0.13,
p<0.05). The bi a ia e co ela ion be ween ou g oup empa hy (a e he
expe imen ) and dona ing is sligh ly s onge and s a is ically signi ican
(Kendall’s au 0.19, p <0.01). Among hose who dona ed, pa icipan s in
he p o encla e we e mo e likely o gi e money o he In e na ional
Ca as ophe Fund han hose in he con encla e, as expec ed. In he p o
encla e, 47 indi iduals (77.0 pe cen o he dona o s wi hin he encla e)
dona ed o he ca as ophe und, compa ed o 14 pe sons in he con
encla e (58.3 pe cen ). The numbe o dona o s o he domes ic und was
14 in he p o and 10 in he con encla e. The di e ences in whe e people
Figu e 3. The Dis ibu ion o Dona ions o he Red C oss a he End o he Expe imen .
V
C2017 The Au ho s Scandina ian Poli ical S udies published by John Wiley & Sons L d on
behal o No dic Poli ical Science Associa ion
Scandina ian Poli ical S udies, Vol. 40 – No. 4, 2017 473
dona ed o is no , howe e , s a is ically signi ican be ween he wo
encla es ( 51.61, p 50.116).
Rega ding he di e ences in e ms o dona ing be ween he wo ea men s,
he di e ence is signi ican wi hin he p o encla e bu no wi hin he con
encla e. When p o-immig a ion people discussed wi h each o he , his seems
o ha e a ec ed hei willingness o dona e o cha i y in a signi ican way: 43
pe sons dona ed, 33 did no , compa ed o 17 dona ing in mixed g oups and 27
no dona ing. ( 51.97, p 50.051).
15
Somewha su p isingly, con pa icipan s
delibe a ing in like-minded g oups dona ed (14 dona ed, 28 did no ) mo e
o en han hei pee s discussing in mixed g oups ( en dona ed, 34 did no ),
al hough his di e ence is no s a is ically signi ican ( 51.09, p 50.28).
Wi hin he con encla e, Figu e 3 would sugges ha he e is a ia ion in he
ex en o which dona ions a e a ge ed o domes ic o in e na ional aid. How-
e e , hese di e ences a e no s a is ically signi ican ( he di e ence is close o
being signi ican in he like-minded ea men , p <0.12).
16
In o de o e i y he pa e ns ound in bi a ia e analyses be ween
empa hy and p osocial beha io , we also conduc ed a bina y logis ic
eg ession analysis whe e empa hy, ou g oup empa hy, change in ou g oup
empa hy and he p esence o a pa icipan wi h an immig an backg ound
in he small g oup we e included as co a ia es. Table 6 shows he esul s
o he eg ession. The only s a is ically signi ican a iable is baseline ou -
g oup empa hy, which has an odds a io o o e 13. O e all, he model
does no p edic dona ions e y well (62 pe cen co ec ). In o he wo ds,
we did no ind a link be ween gene al empa hy and al uism, which has
been es ablished in some o he s udies (Ba son 1997; Ba son e al. 1997,
2002), bu he willingness o conside immig an s’ iews inc eased he like-
lihood o al uis ic dona ing, as assumed by H3.
Conclusions
I has been con incingly a gued ha bo h cogni i e and a ec i e aspec s
o empa hy a e essen ial elemen s o democ a ic delibe a ion (e.g.,
Table 6. Bina y Logis ic Reg ession
B Odds a io S.E. p
Gene al baseline empa hy 0.83 2.30 1.10 0.450
Ou g oup baseline empa hy 2.61 13.59 0.98 0.007
Ou g oup empa hy change 0.92 2.50 1.27 0.472
Immig an in small g oup 0.17 1.19 0.30 0.557
Cons an 22.54 0.08 0.90 0.005
Nagelke ke pseudo R
2
0.075
% co ec ly p edic ed 62.3
No es: Dependen a iable: Dona ed o he Red C oss. S.E. 5S anda d e o .
V
C2017 The Au ho s Scandina ian Poli ical S udies published by John Wiley & Sons L d on
behal o No dic Poli ical Science Associa ion
474 Scandina ian Poli ical S udies, Vol. 40 – No. 4, 2017
K ause 2008; Mo ell 2010). In addi ion, i seems plausible o assume ha
he ole o empa hy a ies acco ding o he ype o issue delibe a ed – he
issue o immig a ion is ce ainly an issue ha equi es an unde s anding o
o he s people’s posi ions (c . Newman e al. 2015). Mo eo e , delibe a ion
abou immig a ion can be expec ed o aise conce ns ega ding he pe -
spec i es o he ele an ou g oup (i.e., immig an s).
Ou analyses show ha esponden s wi h p o-immig a ion a i udes
had a somewha highe baseline le el o gene al empa hy han espond-
en s wi h es ic i e a i udes owa d immig a ion. Gene al empa hy was
no , on he o he hand, connec ed wi h a i ion in he expe imen .
Empa he ic people we e no mo e inclined o ake pa in delibe a ions
on immig a ion, and we did no ind signi ican changes in he pa ici-
pan s’ gene al empa hy le els in he cou se o he expe imen . Nei he
delibe a ing in small-n g oups, no being subjec o he like-minded o
mixed ea men had any e ec on he pa icipan s’ gene al empa hy a
he agg ega e le el.
The e we e, howe e , mo e p ominen di e ences in he subjec s’ will-
ingness o ake in o accoun immig an s’ pe spec i es. This second index,
which was c ea ed as a p oxy o ou g oup empa hy, consis s o h ee
i ems on esponden s ecep i i y owa d immig an s’ iewpoin s. The p o-
immig a ion encla e was a mo e willing o conside immig an s’ iews
han he less pe missi e con encla e. I is also no able ha hose con
encla e esponden s who we e less willing o conside immig an s’ pe -
spec i es we e also less p one o pa icipa e in delibe a ion. Among hose
who pa icipa ed in delibe a ion, he e was an inc ease in ou g oup empa-
hy wi hin he con encla e. E en hough he inc ease seemed o be mo e
e iden in he mixed ea men , he di e ence-in-di e ence analysis
showed no s a is ically signi ican di e ence be ween he ea men s. The
esul s sugges ha people whose ini ial a i udes owa d immig a ion
we e es ic i e we e especially a ec ed by aking pa in delibe a ions in
g oups wi h mixed opinions; hei willingness o unde s and immig an s’
pe spec i es inc eased no ably. Also in he like-minded ea men , delibe -
a ion led o somewha inc eased ou g oup empa hy, especially wi hin he
p o encla e
In o he wo ds, delibe a ion on he immig a ion issue seems o ha e
enhanced a speci ic ype o pe spec i e- aking. Because ou measu e o
ou g oup empa hy only aps in o cogni i e aspec s o empa hy, i emains
possible ha he inc eased ecep i i y o immig an s’ pe spec i es was
ins umen al o e en sel -in e es ed in cha ac e . Fo example, pa icipan s
could ha e s a ed o hink ha immig an s’ iewpoin s should be consid-
e ed mo e ca e ully in o de o educe he isks o e o ism. Howe e ,
he ac ha g ea e willingness o hea immig an s’ iewpoin s was associ-
a ed wi h an inc eased pe missi eness (i.e., ole an a i udes) owa ds
V
C2017 The Au ho s Scandina ian Poli ical S udies published by John Wiley & Sons L d on
behal o No dic Poli ical Science Associa ion
Scandina ian Poli ical S udies, Vol. 40 – No. 4, 2017 475
immig a ion, especially wi hin he con encla e, sugges s a mo e p o ound
change in pa icipan s’ a i udes.
When i comes o he beha io al dependen a iable – ha is, whe he
o dona e o cha i y o no – we ound in acco dance wi h H3 ha he
an i-immig an con encla e was less willing o dona e a po ion o hei
emune a ion o he Red C oss. Pa icipan s in he con like-minded g oups
dona ed much less ( wo hi ds did no dona e) han pa icipan s in he p o
like-minded g oups (43 pe cen did no dona e). We did no ind a link
be ween gene al empa hy and likelihood o dona e, whe eas ou measu e
o ou g oup empa hy was posi i ely linked o he likelihood o dona ion.
The e was also a signi ican di e ence wi hin he p o encla e be ween
hose delibe a ing in like-minded g oups (43 pe cen did no dona e) and
hose delibe a ing in mixed g oups (61 pe cen did no dona e). This ind-
ing seems o be in line wi h s udies in poli ical beha io (e.g., Mu z 2002,
2006; also Ka powi z e al. 2009) showing ha discussions wi h like-
minded people os e willingness owa d collec i e ac ion, whe eas c oss-
cu ing exposu e dec eases people’s willingness o ac .
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The expe imen was unded by he Academy o Finland (Resea ch Council o Cul u e and
Socie y, p ojec 251222) and A
˚bo Akademi Uni e si y Founda ion (Cen e o Excellence
Funding). The au ho s a e g a e ul o he h ee anonymous e e ees as well as he Edi o o
Scandina ian Poli ical S udies, Ca l Hen ik Knu sen, o aluable commen s. Pa icipan s a
se e al con e ences, mos no ably in he Panel ‘Me hods and Measu es o Assessing Demo-
c a ic Inno a ions’ a he ECPR Gene al Con e ence in Glasgow in 2014, p o ided commen s
on ea lie e sions o his a icle.
NOTES
1. Fo esul s ega ding opinion changes in he expe imen , see G €
onlund e al. (2015).
2. We a e awa e o he c i ique ela ed o measu ing empa hy h ough sel - epo scales. In
pa icula , such scales a e likely o inc ease he likelihood o socially desi able answe s. In
he p esen s udy, Da is’s measu e was used because i i ed well wi h he gene al su ey
wi h many i ems. Due o he la ge numbe o su ey i ems, we could no use all he ques ions
om Da is’s measu e, which includes ou scales – namely a ‘ an asy scale’, a ‘pe spec i e-
aking scale’, an ‘empha ic conce n scale’ and a ‘pe sonal dis ess scale’. Ins ead, we used
hose ha in ou iew bes ep esen he kind o empa hy and pe spec i e- aking ele an in
democ a ic delibe a ion. I is also no ewo hy ha because o andom alloca ion, social
desi abili y should no a y be ween he expe imen al ea men s.
3. The ques ions we e i s pilo es ed wi h s uden s a wo uni e si ies in o de o mea-
su e he app op ia eness o he ques ions o he pu pose o he expe imen . All su ey
i ems wo ked well bo h in he pilo s and in he ac ual su ey conduc ed among he an-
dom sample (T1). In he su eyed sample, all 14 i ems loaded on a single ac o and
C onbach’s Alpha o he sum a iable eached 0.94. The e o e, we we e able o con-
s uc a sum a iable o he 14 i ems. Each i em was i s ecoded in o a scale om 0 o
1, wi h 1 indica ing he mos immig a ion- iendly a i ude.
4. A e he expe imen , each pa icipan in delibe a ions ecei ed a gi ce i ica e wo h
e90, whe eas e e yone in he con ol g oup ecei ed e15.
5. Fo a mo e de ailed accoun o ec ui men and a i ion, see Rapeli and Ka jalainen (2015).
6. T3 was only comple ed by hose who ook pa in he delibe a ion e en .
V
C2017 The Au ho s Scandina ian Poli ical S udies published by John Wiley & Sons L d on
behal o No dic Poli ical Science Associa ion
476 Scandina ian Poli ical S udies, Vol. 40 – No. 4, 2017
7. Acco ding o he webpages o he Finnish Red C oss (h ps://www. edc oss. i/), domes-
ic wo k is abou counselling in heal h- ela ed issues, p o ision o i s aid in la ge public
e en s and p o ision o olun a y ‘ iends’ o lonely people, such as o he elde ly. The
mos isible pa o he Ca as ophe und is o aid people in ca as ophes all o e he
wo ld, bu ac ually he und also inances domes ic wo k, like helping ic ims o i es.
We belie e, howe e , ha he gene al public unde s anding in Finland would be ha
he Ca as ophe und is o o eign wo k and he domes ic und o he wo k in Finland.
8. The da a analyzed in he in he p esen a icle, including ques ionnai es, a e deposi ed
a he Finnish Social Science Da a A chi e (G €
onlund 2014). They can be o de ed ee
o cha ge o esea ch and eaching pu poses.
9. C onbach’s Alpha o hese h ee i ems is 0.66 a T2 and 0.69 a T4.
10. C onbach’s Alpha o hese h ee imes is 0.67 a T2 and 0.64 a T4.
11. E en hough we do no ha e a hypo hesis on gene al empa hy, we also looked a he
de elopmen o gene al empa hy be o e and a e aking pa in delibe a ion. The
esul s a e shown in Appendix Table 1. Gene al empa hy emained s able among hose
who ook pa in he delibe a i e expe imen . The e we e no changes in any compa i-
sons among hose who delibe a ed o in he con ol g oup.
12. In a sepa a e es , we disco e ed ha he inc ease in ou g oup empa hy occu ed
among male pa icipan s, especially in he con encla e. Al hough his inc ease among
con male pa icipan s was mo e e iden in he mixed ea men (p 50.001), i also
occu ed in he like-minded ea men (p 50.03). Among women, no s a is ically signi -
ican changes in ou g oup empa hy can be aced in any o he g oups.
13. K uskall-Wallis H- es e eals a signi ican di e ence in dona ions be ween he ou
g oups depic ed in Figu e 3 (p 50.010).
14. When conside ing hei dona ions o he Red C oss, pa icipan s we e engaged in a so-
called ‘dic a o game’, which is a echnique equen ly used o es subjec s’ inclina ion
o p osocial ac ion. In he s anda d o m o he game, he dic a o and he ecipien a e
s uden subjec s, whe eas in ou expe imen he ecipien is a cha i y o ganiza ion. P e-
ious esul s on such games show ha subjec s end o sha e a la ge pa o hei
endowmen when he ecipien is conside ed as dese ing o needy, compa ed o he
s anda d o m o he game (Engel 2011). A compa able s udy o ou own was con-
duc ed by Eckel and G ossman (1996), who ound ha abou 73 pe cen o expe imen-
al subjec s made an alloca ion o he Ame ican Red C oss. O e all, pa icipan s in ou
expe imen dona ed conside ably less han he pa icipan s in Eckel and G ossman’s
s udy. This migh be due o ou pa icipan s’ expe ience o ha ing ea ned he ewa d
om aking pa in he expe imen , which in ol ed many s ages and ook place o
qui e a long ime. This in e p e a ion is in line wi h he esul s o Engel’s (2011) me a-
s udy o e dic a o games.
15. Acco ding o he Mann-Whi ney U- es , he di e ence be ween he wo ea men s
wi hin he p o encla e is no s a is ically signi ican (p 50.137, exac one- ailed
p50.072).
16. Acco ding o he Mann-Whi ney U- es , he di e ence be ween he wo ea men s wi hin
he con encla e is no s a is ically signi ican (p 50.272, exac one- ailed p 50.155).
Appendix
The main i ems measu ing a i udes on immig a ion a e:
1. Finland should ake mo e immig an s. Do you hink his is a bad o a
good sugges ion?
2. Mig a ion o o eigne s in o Finland should be es ic ed as long as
he e is unemploymen in Finland. [ ]
V
C2017 The Au ho s Scandina ian Poli ical S udies published by John Wiley & Sons L d on
behal o No dic Poli ical Science Associa ion
Scandina ian Poli ical S udies, Vol. 40 – No. 4, 2017 477

3. Do you hink Finland will change in o a be e o a wo se place o
li e when people om o he coun ies mo e o Finland?
Ques ions 1–3 we e p esen ed on a scale om 0 o 10.
4. I is good o he Finnish economy ha people om o he coun ies
mo e o Finland.
5. Immig an s ake away jobs om na i e Finns. [ ]
6. Immig an s should ha e he same igh o social secu i y as Finns
e en i hey a e no Finnish ci izens.
7. The s a e and he municipali ies use oo much money o aid immi-
g an s. [ ]
8. Immig a ion poses a se ious h ea o ou na ional o iginali y.
9. E e yone who wan s o come o Finland o li e and wo k should be
allowed o do so.
10. Immig a ion policy should p ima ily a o Ch is ians ins ead o
o he eligions. [ ]
11. Gene ally speaking, immig an s adap well in o he Finnish socie y.
12. I would be happy o ha e an immig an as a co-wo ke .
13. I would accep an immig an as a amily membe .
14. I would accep immig an s in my neighbo hood.
Ques ions 3–14 we e p esen ed as a s anda d Like scale wi h ou alues.
[ ] 5Re e sed coding in he sum a iable.
Appendix Table 1. The De elopmen o Gene al Empa hy
P e (T2) Pos (T4) T4–T2 p
Con
All 0.72 0.72 0.00
Like-minded 0.72 0.73 0.01
Mixed 0.73 0.71 20.02
P o
All 0.75 0.75 0.00
Like-minded 0.74 0.75 0.01
Mixed 0.77 0.76 20.01
Con ol g oup
Con 0.69 0.68 20.01
P o 0.75 0.74 20.01
No e:*p<0.05; **p <0.01; ***p <0.001.
V
C2017 The Au ho s Scandina ian Poli ical S udies published by John Wiley & Sons L d on
behal o No dic Poli ical Science Associa ion
478 Scandina ian Poli ical S udies, Vol. 40 – No. 4, 2017
REFERENCES
Ba son, D. C. 1997. ‘Sel -O he Me ging and he Empa hy-Al uism Hypo hesis: Reply o Neu-
be g e al. 1997’, Jou nal o Pe sonali y and Social Psychology, 73(3), 517–22.
Ba abas, J. 2004. ‘How Delibe a ion A ec s Policy Opinions’, Ame ican Poli ical Science
Re iew, 98(4), 687–701.
Ba son, D. C. 2011. Al uism in Humans. New Yo k: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
Ba son, D. C. e al. 1997. ‘Is Empa hy-induced Helping Due o Sel -O he Me ging?’, Jou nal
o Pe sonali y and Social Psychology, 73(3), 495–509.
Ba son, D. C. e al. 2002. ‘Empa hy, A i udes and Ac ion: Can Feeling o a Membe o a
S igma ized G oup Mo i a e One o Help he G oup?’, Pe sonali y and Social Psychology
Bulle in, 28(12), 1656–66.
Binmo e, K. 1998. Game Theo y and he Social Con ac , Vol. 2: Jus Playing. Camb idge, MA:
MIT P ess.
B uneau, E. G., Du ou , N. & Saxe, R. 2012. Social Cogni ion in Membe s o Con lic G oups:
Beha iou al and Neu al Responses in A abs, Is aelis and Sou h Ame icans o Each O he ’s
Mis o unes. Philosophical T ansac ions o he Royal Socie y B, 367, 717–30.
Cika a, M. e al. 2014. ‘Thei Pain Gi es Us Pleasu e: How In e g oup Dynamics Shape
Empa hic Failu es and Coun e -empa hic Responses’, Jou nal o Expe imen al Social Psy-
chology, 55, 110–25.
Da is, M. H. 1980. ‘A Mul idimensional App oach o Indi idual Di e ences in Empa hy’,
JSAS Ca alog o Selec ed Documen s in Psychology, 10, 85.
Eckel, C. C. & G ossman, P. J. 1996. ‘Al uism in Anonymous Dic a o Games’, Games and
Economic Beha io , 16, 181–91.
Engel, C. 2011. ‘Dic a o Games: A Me a S udy’, Expe imen al Economics, 14, 583–610.
Fishkin, J. S. & Luskin, R. 2005. ‘Expe imen ing wi h a Democ a ic Ideal: Delibe a i e Polling
and Public Opinion’, Ac a Poli ica, 40, 284–98.
Fong, C. M. 2007. ‘E idence om an Expe imen on Cha i y o Wel a e Recipien s: Recip oci y,
Al uism and he Empa hic Responsi eness Hypo hesis’, Economic Jou nal,117,1008–24.
Glynn, A. N. & Sen, M. 2015. ‘Iden i ying Judicial Empa hy: Does Ha ing Daugh e s Cause
Judges o Rule o Women’s Issues?’, Ame ican Jou nal o Poli ical Science, 59(1), 37–54.
Goodin, R. E. 2000. ‘Democ a ic Delibe a ion Wi hin’, Philosophy and Public A ai s, 29(1),
81–109.
G €
onlund, K. 2014. Ci izen Delibe a ion on Immig a ion: Su ey Da a 2012 [da ase ]. Ve sion
1.0 (2014-11-05). Finnish Social Science Da a A chi e [dis ibu o ]. A ailable online a :
h p://u n. i/u n:nbn: i: sd:T-FSD2958
G €
onlund, K., He ne, K. & Se €
al€
a, M. 2015. ‘Does Encla e Delibe a ion Pola ize Opinions?’,
Poli ical Beha io , 37(4), 995–1020.
G €
onlund, K., Se €
al€
a, M. & He ne, K. 2010. ‘Delibe a ion and Ci ic Vi ue: Lessons om a
Ci izen Delibe a ion Expe imen ’, Eu opean Poli ical Science Re iew, 2(1), 95–117.
Habe mas, J. 1996. Be ween Fac s and No ms. Camb idge, MA: MIT P ess.
Himmel oos, S., Rapeli, L. & G €
onlund, K. 2017. ‘Talking wi h Like-minded People: Equali y
and E icacy in Encla e Delibe a ion’, Social Science Jou nal, 54(2), 148–58.
Ho man, M. L. 2000. Empa hy and Mo al De elopmen : Implica ions o Ca ing and Jus ice.
Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Ka powi z, C. F., Raphael, C. & Hammond IV, A. S. 2009. ‘Delibe a i e Democ acy and
Inequali y: Two Chee s o Encla e Delibe a ion among he Disempowe ed’, Poli ics and
Socie y, 37(4), 576–615.
K ause, S. E. 2008. Ci il Passions: Mo al Sen imen and Democ a ic Delibe a ion. P ince on,
NJ: P ince on Uni e si y P ess.
Luskin, R. C., Fishkin, J. S. & Jowell, R. 2002. ‘Conside ed Opinions: Delibe a i e Polling in
B i ain’, Poli ics and B i ish Jou nal o Poli ical Science, 32(3), 455–87.
Mansb idge, J. 1994. ‘Using Powe /Figh ing Powe ’, Cons ella ions, 1(1), 53–73.
Mead, G. H. 1934. Mind, Sel and Socie y. Ed. C. M. Mo is. Chicago, IL: Uni e si y o
Chicago P ess.
Me cie , H. & Landemo e, H. 2012. ‘Reasoning is o A guing: Unde s anding he Successes
and Failu es o Delibe a ion’, Poli ical Psychology, 33(2), 243–58.
V
C2017 The Au ho s Scandina ian Poli ical S udies published by John Wiley & Sons L d on
behal o No dic Poli ical Science Associa ion
Scandina ian Poli ical S udies, Vol. 40 – No. 4, 2017 479
Mon ada, L. & Schneide , A. 1989. ‘Jus ice and Emo ional Reac ions o he Disad an aged’,
Social Jus ice Resea ch, 3(4), 313–44.
Mo ell, M. E. 2010. Empa hy and Democ acy. Uni e si y Pa k, PA: Pennsyl ania S a e Uni-
e si y P ess.
Mu z, D. C. 2002. ‘C oss-cu ing Social Ne wo ks: Tes ing Democ a ic Theo y in P ac ice’,
Ame ican Poli ical Science Re iew, 96, 111–26.
Mu z, D. C. 2006. Hea ing he O he Side: Delibe a i e Ve sus Pa icipa o y Democ acy.Cam-
b idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Newman, B. J. e al. 2015. ‘Easing he Hea y Hand: Humani a ian Conce n, Empa hy and
Opinion on Immig a ion’, B i ish Jou nal o Poli ical Science, 45(3), 583–607.
Pagano, S. J. & Huo, Y. J. 2007. The Role o Mo al Emo ions in P edic ing Suppo o Poli i-
cal Ac ions in Pos -wa I aq’, Poli ical Psychology, 28(2), 227–55.
P es on, S. D. & De Waal, F. B. M. 2002. ‘Empa hy: I s Ul ima e and P oxima e Bases’,
Beha io al and B ain Sciences, 25, 1–72.
Rapeli, L. & Ka jalainen, M. 2015. ‘Who Will No delibe a e? A i ion in a Mul i-s age Ci i-
zen Delibe a ion Expe imen ’, Quali y and Quan i y, 49(1), 407–22
Rawls, J. 1971. A Theo y o Jus ice. Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
Se €
al€
a, M., G €
onlund, K. & He ne, K. 2010. ‘Ci izen Delibe a ion on Nuclea Powe : A Com-
pa ison o Two Decision-making Me hods’, Poli ical S udies, 58, 688–714.
S andbe g, K., Himmel oos, S. & G €
onlund, K. 2017. ‘Do Discussions in Like-minded G oups
Necessa ily Lead o Mo e Ex eme Opinions? Delibe a i e Democ acy and G oup Pola iza-
ion’ In e na ional Poli ical Science Re iew, DOI: 10.1177/0192512117692136.
Suns ein, C. 2002. ‘The Law o G oup Pola iza ion’, Jou nal o Poli ical Philosophy,10(2),
175–95.
Suns ein, C. 2007. Republic.com 2.0. P ince on, NJ: P ince on Uni e si y P ess.
Suns ein, C. 2009. Going o Ex emes. How Like Minds Uni e and Di ide. Ox o d: Ox o d Uni-
e si y P ess.
Thompson, D. F. 2008. ‘Delibe a i e Democ a ic Theo y and Empi ical Poli ical Science’,
Annual Re iew o Poli ical Science, 11, 497–520.
Wal e , H. 2012. ‘Social Cogni i e Neu oscience o Empa hy: Concep s, Ci cui s and Genes’,
Emo ion Re iew, 4(1), 9–17.
V
C2017 The Au ho s Scandina ian Poli ical S udies published by John Wiley & Sons L d on
behal o No dic Poli ical Science Associa ion
480 Scandina ian Poli ical S udies, Vol. 40 – No. 4, 2017