Theorists of deliberative democracy envision a citizenry engaged in collective reasoning about public issues on the merits of rival arguments. Partisanship undermines this ideal when it causes people to discount counter-attitudinal arguments, independent of their quality. Empirical deliberative theory lacks an account for what mechanism mitigates this bias in small-group settings. To close that theoretical gap, this study draws on Relational Framing Theory and identifies a relational component of the reasoning process. Participants rated the relevance of dominance/submission and affiliation/disaffiliation relational frames after a small-group deliberation. This perception influenced participants’ decisions to endorse arguments as legitimate public reasons. Implications for deliberative theory, research, and practice are discussed.

中文翻译：

---

小组协商背景下的有偏见的政治推理和关系推理

协商民主的理论家设想，公民会根据敌对论点的优劣，对公共问题进行集体推理。党派偏见会破坏这种理想，因为它会导致人们忽视反态度的论点，而与他们的质量无关。经验协商理论没有说明什么机制可以减轻小组环境中的这种偏见。为了弥补这一理论差距，本研究借鉴了关系框架理论，并确定了推理过程的关系组成部分。在小组审议后，参与者对支配/服从和从属/非从属关系框架的相关性进行了评级。这种看法影响了参与者将论点认可为合法的公共理由的决定。讨论了对协商理论、研究和实践的影响。