The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Increasing Political Sophistication Through Public Deliberation
Open accessAbstract
Deliberative democratic theory posits that group deliberation aids the development of citizens' political sophistication. To test this general claim, the authors studied the association between participation in face-to-face political deliberation and subsequent changes in the coherence, integration, differentiation, and detail of participants' political beliefs. The authors measured these dependent variables using questionnaires administered before and after participation in a deliberative activity-National Issues Forums (NIF) discussions of political issues. Seven different issues were studied, and the results of these separate studies were integrated through meta-analysis. Changes in preforum and postformum responses suggested that participation in the NIF discussions increased participants' schematic integration and differentiation and reduced their attitudinal uncertainty.
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 Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion
Zaller, J. R. (1992) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511818691 · Cited by 7,785
Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research
Rosenthal, R. (1991) · doi:10.4135/9781412984997 · Cited by 4,635
Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (2004) · doi:10.4135/9781412985031 · Cited by 3,023
How People Organize the Political World: A Schematic Model
Conover, P. J., & Feldman, S. (1984) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/2110789 · Cited by 378
Cited by
Cross-cutting Social Networks: Testing Democratic Theory in Practice
MUTZ, D. C. (2002) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055402004264 · Cited by 1,069
Kim, S., Eun, J., Oh, C., Suh, B., & Lee, J. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376785 · Cited by 133
Testing the Participation Hypothesis: Evidence from Participatory Budgeting
Johnson, C., Carlson, H. J., & Reynolds, S. (2023) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-021-09679-w · Cited by 46
The Gender Gap in Political Discussion Group Attendance
Beauvais, E. (2020) · Politics & Gender · doi:10.1017/s1743923x18000892 · Cited by 34
Metadata
- Authors
- Gastil, J., & Dillard, J. P.
- Venue
- Political Communication
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1999-02
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-23
- ISSN
- 1058-4609 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-7675
- OpenAlex
- W1968255460
- Cited by
- 317
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 24.65
- 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: Increasing Political Sophistication Through Public Deliberation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/105846099198749
- The paper
- Gastil, J., & Dillard, J. P. (1999). Increasing Political Sophistication Through Public Deliberation. Political Communication. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846099198749
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.
