The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year.
Persuasion in Parallel: How Information Changes Minds about Politics
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Indeed, our results mirror those from Coppock (46) and others whose work suggests that the content quality of persuasive arguments is more important than either elaboration or customization.”
From Testing theories of political persuasion using AI (2025) · cites this paper as [46]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Like-minded sources on Facebook are prevalent but not polarizing
Nyhan, B., Settle, J., Thorson, E., Wojcieszak, M., Barberá, P., Chen, A. Y., Allcott, H., Brown, T., Crespo-Tenorio, A., Dimmery, D., et al. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06297-w · Cited by 333
How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting
Törnberg, P. (2022) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2207159119 · Cited by 288
Evaluating the persuasive influence of political microtargeting with large language models
Hackenburg, K., & Margetts, H. (2024) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2403116121 · Cited by 114
“However, a body of research suggests that such divergent reactions are rare, and that persuasive political messages tend to sway people, regardless of their demographic traits, in broadly similar ways (23–25).”
BackgroundQuantifying the potential persuasive returns to political microtargeting
Tappin, B. M., Wittenberg, C., Hewitt, L. B., Berinsky, A. J., & Rand, D. G. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2216261120 · Cited by 83
Testing theories of political persuasion using AI
Argyle, L. P., Busby, E. C., Gubler, J. R., Lyman, A., Olcott, J., Pond, J., & Wingate, D. (2025) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2412815122 · Cited by 53
Metadata
- Authors
- Coppock, A.
- Corresponding author
- Coppock, Alexander
- ORCID
- Coppock, Alexander
- Venue
- University of Chicago Press eBooks
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2022
- OpenAlex
- W4391669721
- Cited by
- 91
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 3
- FWCI
- 23.99
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- University of Chicago Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychology of Social Influence
- Social Sciences › Communication › Rhetoric and Communication Studies
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Linguistics and Discourse Analysis
- Keywords
- persuasion
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
