The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Ideology and opinions: studies in rhetorical psychology
Abstract
Ideology, Rhetoric and Opinions Thinking as Arguing Social Representations and Rhetoric The Very Ordinary Life of Young Conservatives Arguments in Fascist Propaganda The Concept of `Prejudice' Rhetorical and Historical Aspects of Attitudes The Case of the British Monarchy The Argumentative Nature of Holding Strong Views Politics and the Revival of Rhetoric
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
Cited by
Archer, L., & Hutchings, M. (2000) · British Journal of Sociology of Education · doi:10.1080/713655373 · Cited by 325
Making Gender Relevant: Conversation Analysis and Gender Categories in Interaction
STOKOE, E. H., & SMITHSON, J. (2001) · Discourse & Society · doi:10.1177/0957926501012002005 · Cited by 214
Archer, L., Pratt, S. D., & Phillips, D. (2001) · Gender and Education · doi:10.1080/09540250120081779 · Cited by 136
Applying critical discursive psychology to health psychology research: a practical guide
Locke, A., & Budds, K. (2020) · Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1080/21642850.2020.1792307 · Cited by 74
Berti, C. (2021) · Media, Culture & Society · doi:10.1177/0163443720957564 · Cited by 37
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 1992-01-01
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 05
- Pages
- 29-3002-29-3002
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W386349523
- Cited by
- 684
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- 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: Ideology and opinions: studies in rhetorical psychology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.29-3002
- The paper
- Ideology and opinions: studies in rhetorical psychology. (1992). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.29-3002
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.
