The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Considered Opinions: Deliberative Polling in Britain
Abstract
This article presents the results of the first Deliberative Poll, in which a national British sample discussed the issue of rising crime and what to do about it. We describe Deliberative Polling and its rationale, the representativeness of the deliberative sample, the extent to which the participants acquired factual information about the issue and about politics generally, and how much and how they changed their views. We also weigh the extent to which such changes of view hinge on small group influences versus information gains.
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
Cited by
Democratic innovations: designing institutions for citizen participation
(2010) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.47-5275 · Cited by 915
The Logic of the Survey Experiment Reexamined
Gaines, B. J., Kuklinski, J. H., & Quirk, P. J. (2007) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpl008 · Cited by 553
Are Survey Experiments Externally Valid?
BARABAS, J., & JERIT, J. (2010) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055410000092 · Cited by 481
Weeks, B. E., & Garrett, R. K. (2014) · International Journal of Public Opinion Research · doi:10.1093/ijpor/edu005 · Cited by 191
DO THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES? PARTISAN DISAGREEMENT AS A CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRATIC COMPETENCE
Shapiro, R. Y., & Bloch‐Elkon, Y. (2008) · Critical Review · doi:10.1080/08913810802316373 · Cited by 178
Metadata
- Authors
- LUSKIN, R. C., FISHKIN, J. S., & JOWELL, R.
- Venue
- British Journal of Political Science
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2002-06-11
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 455-487
- ISSN
- 0007-1234 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-2112
- OpenAlex
- W2107710106
- Cited by
- 702
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 46.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Considered Opinions: Deliberative Polling in Britain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0007123402000194
- The paper
- LUSKIN, R. C., FISHKIN, J. S., & JOWELL, R. (2002). Considered Opinions: Deliberative Polling in Britain. British Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123402000194
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.
