The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Social Networks that Matter: Exploring the Role of Political Discussion for Online Political Participation
Abstract
We examine the relationship between citizen-to-citizen discussions and online political participation considering various attributes of individuals’ social networks: Modality, discussants’ ties, diversity of opinions, and quality of argumentation. Using a national survey of U.S. residents we find that communication within networks is a significant predictor of web-based forms of political engagement, after controlling for offline participation, political orientations, news use, and socio-demographics. Consistent with the “strength of weak ties” argument, larger online networks and weak-tie discussion frequency are associated with online participation. While like-minded discussions are positively related to online participation, discussions with people who are not of like mind correlate negatively with it. Online network size and reasoning discussions were positively related to online participation, although these associations were rather weak compared to the role of other network characteristics.
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
Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2009) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01474.x · Cited by 2,229
Self-citationDisagreement, Ambivalence, and Engagement: The Political Consequences of Heterogeneous Networks
Huckfeldt, R., Mendez, J. M., & Osborn, T. (2004) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00357.x · Cited by 576
The Immensely Inflated News Audience: Assessing Bias in Self-Reported News Exposure
Prior, M. (2009) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfp002 · Cited by 561
Cited by
Gil de Zúñiga, H., Weeks, B., & Ardèvol-Abreu, A. (2017) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/jcc4.12185 · Cited by 594
Boutyline, A., & Willer, R. (2017) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12337 · Cited by 491
Frenemies: How Social Media Polarizes America
Settle, J. E. (2018) · doi:10.1017/9781108560573 · Cited by 377
Stoycheff, E. (2016) · Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/1077699016630255 · Cited by 191
Feng, S., Park, C. Y., Liu, Y., & Tsvetkov, Y. (2023) · Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.656 · Cited by 149
Metadata
- Authors
- Valenzuela, S., Kim, Y., & Gil de Zuniga, H.
- Venue
- International Journal of Public Opinion Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2011-11-29
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 163-184
- ISSN
- 0954-2892 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-6909
- OpenAlex
- W2142793955
- Cited by
- 294
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 38.21
- 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: Social Networks that Matter: Exploring the Role of Political Discussion for Online Political Participation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/ijpor/edr037
- The paper
- Valenzuela, S., Kim, Y., & Gil de Zuniga, H. (2012). Social Networks that Matter: Exploring the Role of Political Discussion for Online Political Participation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edr037
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.
