The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Can Deliberative Minipublics Address the Cognitive Challenges of Democratic Citizenship?
Abstract
Democracy asks its citizens to make informed judgments about collective matters. Given the scale and complexity of modern polities, however, even the most attentive citizens cannot engage knowledgeably with most of the collective decisions that affect them. For this reason, democratic theorists increasingly conceptualize democratic systems as requiring divisions of cognitive labor, in which citizens trust others to make decisions on their behalf. Modern democracies have long relied on such trustees, yet institutional supports for good trust decisions by citizens are often weak or missing. We argue that deliberative minipublics can serve as trusted information proxies that help citizens make the most of their scarce cognitive resources. These kinds of trustees cannot close the gap between the demands of complex societies and citizens’ capacities for informed judgment, but they may be able to narrow it.
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
Just Institutions Matter: The Moral and Political Logic of the Universal Welfare State
Rothstein, B. (1998) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511598449 · Cited by 1,403
Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection
Kahan, D. M. (2013) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500005271 · Cited by 1,302
Retrospective Voting Reconsidered
Healy, A., & Malhotra, N. (2013) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-032211-212920 · Cited by 667
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
When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation
Fishkin, J. S. (2011) · doi:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199604432.001.0001 · Cited by 368
Outcomes, process, and trust of civil servants
Van Ryzin, G. G. (2011) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muq092 · Cited by 328
The Cultural Orientation of Mass Political Opinion
Gastil, J., Braman, D., Kahan, D., & Slovic, P. (2011) · PS: Political Science & Politics · doi:10.1017/s1049096511001326 · Cited by 87 · cited 2×
“At a deeper level, selective trust also functions as an expression of one’s political-cultural orientation (Kahan 2013), even for those with limited general political knowledge (Gastil et al. 2011).”
Self-citation
Cited by
A problem-based approach to democratic theory
WARREN, M. E. (2017) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055416000605 · Cited by 478
Self-citationDeliberative democracy and the climate crisis
Willis, R., Curato, N., & Smith, G. (2022) · WIREs Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.759 · Cited by 253
Connecting deliberative mini‐publics to representative decision making
Setälä, M. (2017) · European Journal of Political Research · doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12207 · Cited by 160
What Motivates Reasoning? A Theory of Goal‐Dependent Political Evaluation
Groenendyk, E., & Krupnikov, Y. (2021) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12562 · Cited by 85
Barandiaran, X. E., Calleja-López, A., Monterde, A., & Romero, C. (2024) · SpringerBriefs in Political Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-50784-7 · Cited by 44
Metadata
- Authors
- Warren, M. E., & Gastil, J.
- Venue
- The Journal of Politics
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2015-04
- Volume
- 77
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 562-574
- ISSN
- 0022-3816 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2508
- OpenAlex
- W2313617431
- Cited by
- 267
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 67.61
- 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: Can Deliberative Minipublics Address the Cognitive Challenges of Democratic Citizenship? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/680078
- The paper
- Warren, M. E., & Gastil, J. (2015). Can Deliberative Minipublics Address the Cognitive Challenges of Democratic Citizenship? The Journal of Politics. https://doi.org/10.1086/680078
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.
