The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effects of “In-Your-Face” Television Discourse on Perceptions of a Legitimate Opposition
Open accessAbstract
How do Americans acquire the impression that their political foes have some understandable basis for their views, and thus represent a legitimate opposition? How do they come to believe that reasonable people may disagree on any given political controversy? Given that few people talk regularly to those of opposing perspectives, some theorize that mass media, and television in particular, serve as an important source of exposure to the rationales for oppositional views. A series of experimental studies suggests that television does, indeed, have the capacity to encourage greater awareness of oppositional perspectives. However, common characteristics of televised political discourse—incivility and close-up camera perspectives—cause audiences to view oppositional perspectives as less legitimate than they would have otherwise. I discuss the broader implications of these findings for assessments of the impact of television on the political process, and for the perspective that televised political discourse provides on oppositional political views.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The limited capacity model of mediated message processing
Lang, A. (2000) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02833.x · Cited by 2,153
Stealth Democracy: Americans' Beliefs About How Government Should Work
Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511613722 · Cited by 1,349
Remembering pictures: Pleasure and arousal in memory.
Bradley, M. M., Greenwald, M. K., Petry, M. C., & Lang, P. J. (1992) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.18.2.379 · Cited by 1,188
Facilitating Communication across Lines of Political Difference: The Role of Mass Media
Mutz, D. C. (2001) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055401000223 · Cited by 700
Self-citation
Cited by
Tucker, J. A., Guess, A., Barbera, P., Vaccari, C., Siegel, A., Sanovich, S., Stukal, D., & Nyhan, B. (2018) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3144139 · Cited by 1,222
The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of U.S. elections in the 21st century
Abramowitz, A. I., & Webster, S. (2016) · Electoral Studies · doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2015.11.001 · Cited by 978
Online and Uncivil? Patterns and Determinants of Incivility in Newspaper Website Comments
Coe, K., Kenski, K., & Rains, S. A. (2014) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/jcom.12104 · Cited by 964
Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A., & Ladwig, P. (2014) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/jcc4.12009 · Cited by 786
Why Do Partisan Media Polarize Viewers?
Levendusky, M. S. (2013) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12008 · Cited by 587
Metadata
- Authors
- MUTZ, D. C.
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2007-11
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 621-635
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W2165620557
- Cited by
- 318
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 18.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effects of “In-Your-Face” Television Discourse on Perceptions of a Legitimate Opposition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s000305540707044x
- The paper
- MUTZ, D. C. (2007). Effects of “In-Your-Face” Television Discourse on Perceptions of a Legitimate Opposition. American Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.1017/s000305540707044x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.