The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Hearing the other side: deliberative versus participatory democracy
Abstract
'Religion and politics', as the old saying goes, 'should never be discussed in mixed company.'And yet fostering discussions that cross lines of political difference has long been a central concern of political theorists. More recently, it has also become a cause celebre for pundits and civic-minded citizens wanting to improve the health of American democracy. But only recently have scholars begun empirical investigations of where and with what consequences people interact with those whose political views differ from their own. Hearing the Other Side examines this theme in the context of the contemporary United States. It is unique in its effort to link political theory with empirical research. Drawing on her empirical work, Mutz suggests that it is doubtful that an extremely activist political culture can also be a heavily deliberative one.
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
Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach.
Davis, M. H. (1983) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113 · Cited by 10,272
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65 · Cited by 6,001
Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions
Bartels, L. M. (2002) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1023/a:1021226224601 · Cited by 1,468
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
Self-citationFacilitating 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
The Workplace as a Context for Cross-Cutting Political Discourse
Mutz, D. C., & Mondak, J. J. (2006) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00376.x · Cited by 612
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
Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (2001) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.19 · Cited by 255
Red and Blue Scare: The Continuing Diversity of the American Electoral Landscape
Klinkner, P. A. (2004) · The Forum · doi:10.2202/1540-8884.1035 · Cited by 46
Cited by
Tweeting From Left to Right: Is Online Political Communication More Than an Echo Chamber?
Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A., & Bonneau, R. (2015) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797615594620 · Cited by 1,472
Echo chambers online?: Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users
Garrett, R. K. (2009) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01440.x · Cited by 1,040
Politically Motivated Reinforcement Seeking: Reframing the Selective Exposure Debate
Garrett, R. K. (2009) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01452.x · Cited by 714
MONDAK, J. J., HIBBING, M. V., CANACHE, D., SELIGSON, M. A., & ANDERSON, M. R. (2010) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055409990359 · Cited by 667
The Parties in Our Heads: Misperceptions about Party Composition and Their Consequences
Ahler, D. J., & Sood, G. (2018) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1086/697253 · Cited by 586
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 2006-12-01
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 04
- Pages
- 44-2388-44-2388
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W658743970
- Cited by
- 1,474
- References
- 9
- 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: Hearing the other side: deliberative versus participatory democracy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.44-2388
- The paper
- Hearing the other side: deliberative versus participatory democracy. (2006). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.44-2388
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.
