Redefining (a good) democracy amid the crisis of affective polarization: Lay beliefs of deliberative democracy mitigate derogation of opponents

The prevailing model of democracy is currently grappling with a profound crisis of affective polarization, necessitating a reimagining of both the theory and practice of democracy. In response to this challenge, deliberative democracy, which emphasizes civil and diverse discussions that empower individuals to make well-informed decisions by critically evaluating competing arguments, has garnered increasing attention. Existing literature initially supports deliberative democracy as a societal norm capable of addressing affective polarization. We further propose that deliberative democracy as a set of lay beliefs may also mitigate outgroup derogations on public issues. Through four studies conducted in the Chinese context (N = 1634), we first developed a measurement of beliefs in deliberative democracy, then got support for our main propositions, verified opinion extremity as boundary conditions, and receptiveness to opposing views as a partial mediation. The findings highlight the potential of reshaping public beliefs through education and policy interventions to cultivate a healthier and more inclusive democracy.