Making cross-cutting exposure more deliberative: The moderating role of the equality rule in online discussions on a gender issue

Abstract

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 effects 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.