Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy
Abstract
'Religion and politics', as the old saying goes, 'should never be discussed in mixed company.'And yet fostering discussions that cross lines of political difference has long been a central concern of political theorists. More recently, it has also become a cause célèbre for pundits and civic-minded citizens wanting to improve the health of American democracy. But only recently have scholars begun empirical investigations of where and with what consequences people interact with those whose political views differ from their own. Hearing the Other Side examines this theme in the context of the contemporary United States. It is unique in its effort to link political theory with empirical research. Drawing on her empirical work, Mutz suggests that it is doubtful that an extremely activist political culture can also be a heavily deliberative one.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Exposure to information that is more diverse or less agreeable in relation to one's own thoughts and beliefs could lessen self-reinforcement and opinion polarization.
“Exposure to information that is more diverse or less agreeable in relation to one's own thoughts and beliefs could then lessen selfreinforcement and opinion polarization (Mutz, 2006).”
From Do Search Algorithms Endanger Democracy? An Experimental Investigation of Algorithm Effects on Political Polarization (2020) · cites this paper as Mutz, 2006
If a person is exposed to counter-attitudinal information, her attitudinal ambivalence would increase, thereby reducing affective polarization.
“If a person is exposed to counter-attitudinal information, her attitudinal ambivalence would increase, thereby reducing affective polarization (Huckfeldt et al., 2004;Mutz, 2006).”
From Do Search Algorithms Endanger Democracy? An Experimental Investigation of Algorithm Effects on Political Polarization (2020) · cites this paper as Mutz, 2006
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Tweeting From Left to Right: Is Online Political Communication More Than an Echo Chamber?
Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A., & Bonneau, R. (2015) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797615594620 · Cited by 1,472 · see citing works
Echo chambers online?: Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users
Garrett, R. K. (2009) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01440.x · Cited by 1,040 · see citing works
A “Selection Model” of Political Representation*
Mansbridge, J. (2009) · Journal of Political Philosophy · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00337.x · Cited by 563 · see citing works
Boutyline, A., & Willer, R. (2017) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12337 · Cited by 491 · see citing works
Yarchi, M., Baden, C., & Kligler-Vilenchik, N. (2021) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2020.1785067 · Cited by 437 · see citing works
Social Media, Echo Chambers, and Political Polarization
Barberá, P. (2020) · Social Media and Democracy · doi:10.1017/9781108890960.004 · Cited by 373 · see citing works
(Almost) Everything in Moderation: New Evidence on Americans' Online Media Diets
Guess, A. M. (2021) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12589 · Cited by 342 · see citing works
How do social media feed algorithms affect attitudes and behavior in an election campaign?
Guess, A. M., Malhotra, N., Pan, J., Barberá, P., Allcott, H., Brown, T., Crespo-Tenorio, A., Dimmery, D., Freelon, D., Gentzkow, M., et al. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abp9364 · Cited by 363 · see citing works
No Need to Watch: How the Effects of Partisan Media Can Spread via Interpersonal Discussions
Druckman, J. N., Levendusky, M. S., & McLain, A. (2018) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12325 · Cited by 291 · see citing works
The New Personal Influence: How Our Facebook Friends Influence the News We Read
Anspach, N. M. (2017) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2017.1316329 · Cited by 289 · see citing works
Cho, J., Ahmed, S., Hilbert, M., Liu, B., & Luu, J. (2020) · Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media · doi:10.1080/08838151.2020.1757365 · Cited by 164 · see citing works
Argyle, L. P., Bail, C. A., Busby, E. C., Gubler, J. R., Howe, T., Rytting, C., Sorensen, T., & Wingate, D. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2311627120 · Cited by 144 · see citing works
Conformity in Groups: The Effects of Others’ Views on Expressed Attitudes and Attitude Change
Levitan, L. C., & Verhulst, B. (2016) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-015-9312-x · Cited by 129 · see citing works
Lau, R. R., Andersen, D. J., Ditonto, T. M., Kleinberg, M. S., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2017) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-016-9354-8 · Cited by 127 · see citing works
Measuring the news and its impact on democracy
Watts, D. J., Rothschild, D. M., & Mobius, M. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1912443118 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
The Incidental Pundit: Who Talks Politics with Whom, and Why?
Minozzi, W., Song, H., Lazer, D. M. J., Neblo, M. A., & Ognyanova, K. (2020) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12469 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
Influencing Myself: Self-Reinforcement Through Online Political Expression
Cho, J., Ahmed, S., Keum, H., Choi, Y. J., & Lee, J. H. (2018) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650216644020 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
“There must be a reason”: Osama, Saddam, and inferred justification
Prasad, M., Perrin, A. J., Bezila, K., Hoffman, S. G., Kindleberger, K., Manturuk, K., & Powers, A. S. (2009) · Sociological Inquiry · doi:10.1111/j.1475-682x.2009.00280.x · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Political Chameleons: An Exploration of Conformity in Political Discussions
Carlson, T. N., & Settle, J. E. (2016) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-016-9335-y · Cited by 74 · see citing works
When Efforts to Depolarize the Electorate Fail
Levendusky, M. S. (2018) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfy036 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Hilbert, M., Ahmed, S., Cho, J., Liu, B., & Luu, J. (2018) · Communication Methods and Measures · doi:10.1080/19312458.2018.1479843 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Kim, D. H., & Kwak, N. (2017) · Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media · doi:10.1080/08838151.2017.1375498 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Cuéllar Rivero, R. (2026) · Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas · doi:10.5477/cis/reis.194.25-44
- Authors
- Mutz, D. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Corresponding author
- Mutz, Diana C.
- ORCID
- Mutz, Diana C.
- Venue
- Cambridge University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2006-03-13
- OpenAlex
- W4232455859
- Cited by
- 1,687
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 115 · 2025: 123 · 2024: 80 · 2023: 77 · 2022: 102 · 2021: 116 · 2020: 123 · 2019: 96 · 2018: 118 · 2017: 84 · 2016: 107 · 2015: 109 · 2014: 93 · 2013: 74 · 2012: 73
- FWCI
- 43.45
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Keywords
- political polarization, political debate, deliberation, political culture, activism, democracy, religion and politics, American politics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
