The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Understanding Deliberation: The Effects of Discussion Networks on Participation in a Public Forum
Abstract
Participation in a deliberative forum has received relatively little scrutiny as opposed to more traditional forms of participation. This study examines direct and indirect effects of discussion network characteristics on willingness to participate in a deliberative forum. Using data collected in a telephone survey of 416 respondents in Madison, Wisconsin, in the fall of 1997, the authors employ structural equation modeling techniques to explore the roles that local media use, interpersonal discussion of local politics, and reflection of information play in mediating the relationship between discussion networks and participation in public forums. Findings show that network heterogeneity directly influences forum participation, suggesting that membership in heterogeneous networks ensures greater nontraditional participation. Also, having more discussion partners makes frequent discussion of issues and higher levels of local public affairs media use more likely. Communication processes lead to reflection about local issues, which enhances forum participation. Finally, normative implications are addressed.
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
A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination
NAGELKERKE, N. J. D. (1991) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/78.3.691 · Cited by 5,927
Cited by
Abelson, J., Forest, P.-G., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E., & Gauvin, F.-P. (2003) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00343-x · Cited by 982
MCLEOD, J. M., SCHEUFELE, D. A., & MOY, P. (1999) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/105846099198659 · Cited by 908
Self-citationHalpern, D., & Gibbs, J. (2013) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.008 · Cited by 631
Direct and Differential Effects of the Internet on Political and Civic Engagement
Xenos, M., & Moy, P. (2007) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00364.x · Cited by 512
Self-citationEVELAND, Jr. (2004) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584600490443877 · Cited by 494
Metadata
- Authors
- McLEOD, J. M., SCHEUFELE, D. A., MOY, P., HOROWITZ, E. M., HOLBERT, R. L., ZHANG, W., ZUBRIC, S., & ZUBRIC, J.
- Venue
- Communication Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1999-12
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 743-774
- ISSN
- 0093-6502 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3810
- OpenAlex
- W2064612354
- Cited by
- 215
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 11.15
- 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: Understanding Deliberation: The Effects of Discussion Networks on Participation in a Public Forum. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/009365099026006005
- The paper
- McLEOD, J. M., SCHEUFELE, D. A., MOY, P., HOROWITZ, E. M., HOLBERT, R. L., ZHANG, W., ZUBRIC, S., & ZUBRIC, J. (1999). Understanding Deliberation: The Effects of Discussion Networks on Participation in a Public Forum. Communication Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365099026006005
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.