The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Does Disagreement Contribute to More Deliberative Opinion?
Abstract
Theorists have argued that discussion and disagreement are essential components of sound public opinion, and indeed that both are necessary for effective democracy. But their putative benefits have not been well tested. Consequently, this article examines whether disagreement in political conversation contributes to opinion quality--specifically, whether it expands one's understanding of others' perspectives. Data are drawn from a survey of the American public ( N = 1,684) conducted in February and March 2000. Open-ended survey measures of "argument repertoire"--reasons people can give in support of their own opinions, as well as reasons they can offer to support opposing points of view--are examined in light of numerous explanatory variables, including the frequency of political conversation and exposure to disagreement. Results confirm the hypothesis that exposure to disagreement does indeed contribute to people's ability to generate reasons, and in particular reasons why others might disagree with their own 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
Granovetter, M. S. (1973) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/225469 · Cited by 40,491
The structural transformation of the public sphere: an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-4175 · Cited by 12,693
The Human Condition: Second Edition
Arendt, H., Canovan, M., & Allen, D. (2018) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226586748.001.0001 · Cited by 10,123
The theory of communicative action
(2014) · The Philosophy of Habermas · doi:10.4324/9781315710495-5 · Cited by 8,634
(1997) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.34-3548 · Cited by 2,975
Democracy and deliberation: new directions for democratic reform
(1992) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.29-6564 · Cited by 1,497
Citizens, Politics and Social Communication: Information and Influence in an Election Campaign
Huckfeldt, R. R., & Sprague, J. (1995) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511664113 · Cited by 1,318
The Consequences of Cross-Cutting Networks for Political Participation
Mutz, D. C. (2002) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/3088437 · Cited by 1,265
The voice of the people: public opinion and democracy
(1996) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.33-4782 · Cited by 1,239
BOYER, A. (1995) · Ratio Juris · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9337.1995.tb00192.x · Cited by 1,201
Cited by
The Consequences of Cross-Cutting Networks for Political Participation
Mutz, D. C. (2002) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/3088437 · Cited by 1,265
Politically Motivated Reinforcement Seeking: Reframing the Selective Exposure Debate
Garrett, R. K. (2009) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01452.x · Cited by 714
The Workplace as a Context for Cross-Cutting Political Discourse
Mutz, D. C., & Mondak, J. J. (2006) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00376.x · Cited by 612
Fake news and ideological polarization: Filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media
Spohr, D. (2017) · Business Information Review · doi:10.1177/0266382117722446 · Cited by 530
Boutyline, A., & Willer, R. (2017) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12337 · Cited by 491
Metadata
- Authors
- Price, V., Cappella, J. N., & Nir, L.
- Venue
- Political Communication
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2002-01
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 95-112
- ISSN
- 1058-4609 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-7675
- OpenAlex
- W2030364916
- Cited by
- 441
- References
- 31
- FWCI
- 52.58
- 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: Does Disagreement Contribute to More Deliberative Opinion? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/105846002317246506
- The paper
- Price, V., Cappella, J. N., & Nir, L. (2002). Does Disagreement Contribute to More Deliberative Opinion? Political Communication. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846002317246506
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.