The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Political Discussion Frequency, Network Size, and “Heterogeneity” of Discussion as Predictors of Political Knowledge and Participation
Abstract
In this study, we examine the influence of discussion frequency, network size, and 3 variables that together entangle the often misunderstood concept of network heterogeneity: discussion frequency with like-minded individuals (“safe” discussion), discussion frequency with nonlike-minded individuals (“dangerous” discussion), and diversity of discussion based on the proportion of safe and dangerous discussion. Data were gathered via a postelection random-digit dial telephone survey of residents of a battleground state (N = 600) in November 2004. Three central dependent variables were measured: factual political knowledge, political knowledge structure density, and political participation. The results support the argument that different aspects of political discussion have different implications for different democratic outcomes-and that different conceptualizations and measures of discussion “heterogeneity” produce different results.
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
Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys
Groves, R. M. (2006) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfl033 · Cited by 2,420
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
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
Facilitating Communication across Lines of Political Difference: The Role of Mass Media
Mutz, D. C. (2001) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055401000223 · Cited by 700
Disagreement, 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
Cited by
Boutyline, A., & Willer, R. (2017) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12337 · Cited by 491
Garrett, R. K., Gvirsman, S. D., Johnson, B. K., Tsfati, Y., Neo, R., & Dal, A. (2014) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1111/hcre.12028 · Cited by 351
Jang, S. M., & Hart, P. S. (2015) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.02.010 · Cited by 334
BOR, A., & PETERSEN, M. B. (2022) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055421000885 · Cited by 128
The Incidental Pundit: Who Talks Politics with Whom, and Why?
Minozzi, W., Song, H., Lazer, D. M. J., Neblo, M. A., & Ognyanova, K. (2020) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12469 · Cited by 123
Metadata
- Authors
- Eveland, W. P., & Hively, M. H.
- Venue
- Journal of Communication
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-06
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 205-224
- ISSN
- 0021-9916 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2466
- OpenAlex
- W1975946830
- Cited by
- 507
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 53.64
- 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: Political Discussion Frequency, Network Size, and “Heterogeneity” of Discussion as Predictors of Political Knowledge and Participation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01412.x
- The paper
- Eveland, W. P., & Hively, M. H. (2009). Political Discussion Frequency, Network Size, and “Heterogeneity” of Discussion as Predictors of Political Knowledge and Participation. Journal of Communication. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01412.x
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.
