How much the public should be involved in politics is an enduring question for democratic theory. Deliberative democratic theorists support involvement because it can educate citizens. However, they do not believe in expanding all forms of political activism. Instead, deliberative theorists support expanding what they call democratic deliberation - - a special form of political discussion that is cooperative, noncoercive, and among equals with diverse opinions. Overall, deliberative theorists argue that deliberation extends civic education beyond the classroom. One possible educative effect of deliberation is enhancing political tolerance. Political tolerance is the attitude of individuals towards extending civil liberties such as freedom of speech and assembly to potentially unpopular minority groups. However, it has not been examined whether deliberation actually can increase individuals' tolerance. To begin to assess the relationship between deliberation and tolerance in American politics, this study conducts an experiment that simulates deliberation in order to examine its effect on tolerance. Subjects for the experiment will be asked to engage in either a competitive or cooperative discussion about a particular policy towards and unpopular group. The expectation is that subjects in the cooperative discussion groups will be more likely to converge on their attitudes and become more tolerant while the subjects' initial attitudes in the competitive discussions will be reinforced. In other words, engaging in political discussion about a policy issue may lead to attitude change, eventhough it is the policy and not the attitude that is the topic of discussion. This experiment allows the investigator to create an environment that is as close to deliberation as possible in order to ascertain what its effects might be if it were adopted to a greater extent in America.
