In this article, we examine whether a deliberative mini-public can provide a trusted source of information in the context of a polarized referendum. Political polarization gives rise to selective distrust of those on the ‘other side’. The Citizens’ Jury on Referendum Options in Korsholm, Finland, was organized in conjunction with a polarized referendum on a municipal merger. Our analysis is based on a field experiment measuring the effects of reading the jury’s statement. We find that trust in all public actors was selective, that is, dependent on views on the merger, the Citizens’ Jury being the only exception. Overall, reading the jury’s statement increased trust in all public actors, including those perceived as being on the ‘other side’. With some caveats, our findings suggest that mini-publics can alleviate selective distrust in polarized contexts.

在本文中，我们研究了在两极分化的公投背景下，经过协商的微型公众是否可以提供可信赖的信息来源。政治两极分化导致对“另一边”的人的选择性不信任。在芬兰科斯霍尔姆举行的公民投票选项公民陪审团是与关于市政合并的两极分化公民投票一起组织的。我们的分析基于测量阅读陪审团声明的效果的现场实验。我们发现对所有公共行为者的信任是有选择性的，也就是说，取决于对合并的看法，公民陪审团是唯一的例外。总的来说，阅读陪审团的声明增加了对所有公共行为者的信任，包括那些被认为是“另一边”的人。有一些警告，