Mini-publics, such as citizens' assemblies and citizens' juries, typically invite a small number of citizens to deliberate on a political issue. To ensure the inclusion of different social groups, scholars usually suggest stratified or quota sampling. However, given that the sampling method is known to selected participants, such measures not only secure the presence of individuals from different social groups; they also emphasize the salience of social group differences. Since the deliberative process involves both highlighting and transcending differences, this paper explores whether the emphasis on social group difference associated with stratified and quota sampling triggers a trade-off between expectations of observing and acknowledging differences, on the one hand, and expectations of humble communication and reflexivity in deliberation, on the other hand. The main finding is that emphasizing group differences raises expectations of observing and acknowledging differences without lowering the prospect of humble communication and reflexivity.