The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Stealth democracy: Americans' beliefs about how government should work
Abstract
Part I. The Benefits of Studying the Processes People Want: 1. Policy space and American politics 2. Process space: an introduction 3. Using process space to explain features of American politics Part II. The Processes People Want: 4. Attitudes toward specific processes 5. Public assessments of people and politicians 6. Americans' desire for stealth democracy Part III. Should People Be Given the Processes They Want?: 7. Popular deliberation and group involvement in theory 8. The realities of popular deliberation and group involvement 9. Improving government and people's attitudes toward 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
Cited by
How Populist Are the People? Measuring Populist Attitudes in Voters
Akkerman, A., Mudde, C., & Zaslove, A. (2014) · Comparative Political Studies · doi:10.1177/0010414013512600 · Cited by 1,148
Conceptualizing Legitimacy, Measuring Legitimating Beliefs
Levi, M., Sacks, A., & Tyler, T. (2009) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/0002764209338797 · Cited by 729
CARAMANI, D. (2017) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055416000538 · Cited by 709
Party System Institutionalization and Party System Theory After the Third Wave of Democratization*
Mainwaring, S., & Torcal, M. (2006) · Handbook of Party Politics · doi:10.4135/9781848608047.n19 · Cited by 565
Connecting citizens and local governments? Social media and interactivity in major U.S. cities
Mossberger, K., Wu, Y., & Crawford, J. (2013) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.016 · Cited by 459
Validating a Scale for Citizen Trust in Government Organizations
Grimmelikhuijsen, S., & Knies, E. (2017) · International Review of Administrative Sciences · doi:10.1177/0020852315585950 · Cited by 366
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
Nabatchi, T. (2010) · The American Review of Public Administration · doi:10.1177/0275074009356467 · Cited by 321
Party Polarization and Mass Partisanship: A Comparative Perspective
Lupu, N. (2015) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-014-9279-z · Cited by 312
Do I Think BLS Data are BS? The Consequences of Conspiracy Theories
Einstein, K. L., & Glick, D. M. (2015) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-014-9287-z · Cited by 277
Direct Public Engagement in Local Government
Nabatchi, T., & Amsler, L. B. (2014) · The American Review of Public Administration · doi:10.1177/0275074013519702 · Cited by 274
The Politics of Beauty: The Effects of Partisan Bias on Physical Attractiveness
Nicholson, S. P., Coe, C. M., Emory, J., & Song, A. V. (2016) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-016-9339-7 · Cited by 210
Government Openness and Public Trust: The Mediating Role of Democratic Capacity
Schmidthuber, L., Ingrams, A., & Hilgers, D. (2021) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.13298 · Cited by 180
“It could turn ugly”: Selective disclosure of attitudes in political discussion networks
Cowan, S. K., & Baldassarri, D. (2018) · Social Networks · doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2017.04.002 · Cited by 169
Tokenism or Political Activism? Some Reflections on Participatory Planning
Monno, V., & Khakee, A. (2012) · International Planning Studies · doi:10.1080/13563475.2011.638181 · Cited by 149
The politics of interpersonal trust and reciprocity: An experimental approach
Carlin, R. E., & Love, G. J. (2013) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-011-9181-x · Cited by 132
Elite Polarization and Public Opinion: How Polarization Is Communicated and Its Effects
Robison, J., & Mullinix, K. J. (2016) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2015.1055526 · Cited by 124
Disavowing Politics: Civic Engagement in an Era of Political Skepticism
Bennett, E. A., Cordner, A., Klein, P. T., Savell, S., & Baiocchi, G. (2013) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/674006 · Cited by 112
Perceived conflict of interest in health science partnerships
Besley, J. C., McCright, A. M., Zahry, N. R., Elliott, K. C., Kaminski, N. E., & Martin, J. D. (2017) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0175643 · Cited by 84
Latent transparency and trust in government: Unexpected findings from two survey experiments
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G., Piotrowski, S. J., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2020) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2020.101497 · Cited by 105
Political Chameleons: An Exploration of Conformity in Political Discussions
Carlson, T. N., & Settle, J. E. (2016) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-016-9335-y · Cited by 74
The effects of information and social conformity on opinion change
Mallinson, D. J., & Hatemi, P. K. (2018) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0196600 · Cited by 62
Hafer, J. A., & Ran, B. (2016) · Administrative Theory & Praxis · doi:10.1080/10841806.2016.1202080 · Cited by 47
Testing the Participation Hypothesis: Evidence from Participatory Budgeting
Johnson, C., Carlson, H. J., & Reynolds, S. (2023) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-021-09679-w · Cited by 46
Yang, Y. (2018) · Journal of Service Theory and Practice · doi:10.1108/jstp-06-2017-0102 · Cited by 38
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 2003-04-01
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 08
- Pages
- 40-4901-40-4901
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W2130010855
- Cited by
- 740
- 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
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.
