Abstract
Deliberation’s effectiveness as a method of problem solving and democratic decision making is often seen as stemming from the persuasive power of the “forceless force” of argument to transform beliefs. However, because conflicts related to partisan polarization, conspiracy theories, and the COVID-19 pandemic often have deep connections to social identity, they may be difficult to resolve through a deliberative approach based on persuasion. Research shows that when the conclusions of an argument threaten participants’ social identities they are likely to engage in motivated reasoning, which inhibits the ability of any argument to induce belief change. In conflicts closely related to social identity a deliberative approach based around co-creation — such as Mary Parker Follett’s conception of integration — may be more productive than persuasion-based approaches. The contrast between these two approaches is illustrated in reference to contemporary conflicts between vaccine advocates and members of the “vaccine hesitancy and refusal” (VHR) community.