Hearing the Other Side Revisited: The Joint Workings of Cross-Cutting Discussion and Strong Tie Homogeneity in Facilitating Deliberative and Participatory Democracy

Communication Research

Volumn 42, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 569-596

  Lee, Hoon ^a   Kwak, Nojin ^a   Campbell, Scott W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

cross cutting discussion; democracy dilemma; dialogic openness; political participation; strong tie homogeneity

Indexed keywords

EID: 84929204109     PISSN: 00936502     EISSN: 15523810     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0093650213483824     Document Type: Article

References (92)

1. Abramowitz A.,Saunders K.Why can’t we all just get along? The reality of polarized America.Forum. 2005;3 (2): 1-22
2. Bandura A.Self efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman; 1997:
3. Berelson B. R.Democratic theory and public opinion.Public Opinion Quarterly. 1952;16:313-330
4. Berelson B. R.,Lazarsfeld P. F.,McPhee W. N.Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1954:
5. Binder A. R.,Dalrymple K. E.,Brossard D.,Scheufele D. A.The soul of a polarized democracy.Communication Research. 2009;36:315-340
6. Brader T.Campaigning for hearts and minds. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2006:
7. Brundidge J.Encountering “difference” in the contemporary public sphere: The contribution of the Internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks.Journal of Communication. 2010;60:680-700
8. Burkhalter S.,Gastil J.,Kelshaw T.A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public deliberation in small face-to-face groups.Communication Theory. 2002;12:398-422
9. Calhoun C.Populist politics, communications media and large scale societal integration.Sociological Theory. 1988;6:219-241
10. Campbell S. W.,Kwak N.Political involvement in “mobilized” society: The interactive relationships among mobile communication, network characteristics, and political participation.Journal of Communication. 2011;61:1005-1024
11. Campbell S. W.,Kwak N.Mobile communication and strong network ties: Shrinking or expanding spheres of public discourse?.New Media & Society. 2012;14:262-280
12. Chen G.,Casper W. J.,Cortina J. M.The roles of self-efficacy and task complexity in the relationships among cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and work-related performance: A meta-analytic examination.Human Performance. 2001;14:209-230
13. Cronbach L. J.Statistical tests for moderator variables: Flaws in analyses recently proposed.Psychological Bulletin. 1987;102:414-417
14. Dodson K.The return of the American voter? Party polarization and voting behavior, 1988 to 2004.Sociological Perspectives. 2010;53:443-449
15. Eveland W. P.,Hively M. H.Political discussion frequency, network size, and “heterogeneity” of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation.Journal of Communication. 2009;59:205-224
16. Garrett R. K.Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate.Journal of Communication. 2009;59:676-699
17. Gastil J.,Black L.,Moscovitz K.Ideology, attitude change, and deliberation in small face-to-face groups.Political Communication. 2008;25:23-46
18. Gergen K. J.Handbook of mobile communication studies. Katz J. E., ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2008:297-310.
19. Glynn C. J.,McLeod J. M.Public opinion du jour: An examination of the spiral of silence.Public Opinion Quarterly. 1984;48:731-740
20. Granovetter M. S.The strength of weak ties.American Journal of Sociology. 1973;78:1360-1380
21. HayesA. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable moderation, mediation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
22. Hayes A. F.,Preacher K. J.,Myers T. A.The sourcebook for political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques. Bucy E. P.Holbert R. L., ed. New York, NY: Routledge; 2011:434-465.
23. Haythornthwaite C.Strong, weak, and latent ties and the impact of new media.Information Society. 2002;18:385-401
24. Huckfeldt R.,Johnson P.,Sprague J.Political disagreement: The survival of diverse opinions within communication networks. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2004:
25. Huckfeldt R.,Mendez J. M.,Osborn T.Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks.Political Psychology. 2004;25:65-95
26. Ikeda K.,Boase J.Multiple discussion networks and their consequence for political participation.Communication Research. 2011;38:634-659
27. Jaccard J.,Turrisi R.,Wan C. K.Interaction effects in multiple regression. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE; 1990:
28. Jang S.-J.Are diverse political networks always bad for participatory democracy?.American Politics Research. 2009;37:879-898
29. Kim E.,Scheufele D. A.,Han J. Y.Structure or predisposition? Exploring the interaction effect of discussion orientation and discussion heterogeneity on political participation.Mass Communication and Society. 2011;14:502-526
30. Knobloch-Westerwick S.,Meng J.Looking the other way.Communication Research. 2009;36:426-448
31. Kunda Z.The case for motivated reasoning.Psychological Bulletin. 1990;108:480-498
32. Kwak N.Revisiting the knowledge gap hypothesis: Education, motivation, and media use.Communication Research. 1999;26:385-413
33. Kwak N.,Williams A.,Wang X.,Lee H.Talking politics and engaging politics: An examination of the interactive relationships between structural features of political talk and discussion engagement.Communication Research. 2005;32:87-111
34. Lasorsa D. L.Effects of newspaper competition on public opinion diversity.Journalism Quarterly. 1991;68:38-47
35. Lee F. L. F.Does discussion with disagreement discourage all types of political participation? Survey evidence from Hong Kong.Communication Research. 2012;39:543-562
36. Lee F. L. F.,Chan J. M.The political consequences of ambivalence: The case of democratic reform in Hong Kong.International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2009;21:47-64
37. Lee H.Communication mediation model of late-night comedy: The mediating role of structural features of interpersonal talk between comedy viewing and political participation.Mass Communication and Society. 2012;15:647-671
38. MacKinnon D. P.,Fairchild A. J.,Fritz M. S.Mediation analysis.Annual Review of Psychology. 2007;58:593-614
39. Mansbridge J.Beyond adversary democarcy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1983:
40. Mansbridge J.,Morris A.Oppositional consciousness: The subjective roots of social protest. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2001:
41. Marcus G. E.,Sullivan J. L.,Theiss-Morse E.,Wood S. L.With malice toward some: How people make civil liberties judgments. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1995:
42. Matthes J.Exposure to counterattitudinal news coverage and the timing of voting decisions.Communication Research. 2012;39:147-169
43. Matthes J.,Rios Morrison K.,Schemer C.A spiral of silence for some: Attitude certainty and the expression of political minority opinions.Communication Research. 2010;37:774-800
44. McClurg S. D.The electoral relevance of political talk: Examining disagreement and expertise effects in social networks on political participation.American Journal of Political Science. 2006a;50:737-754
45. McClurg S. D.Political disagreement in context: The conditional effect of neighborhood context, disagreement and political talk on electoral participation.Political Behavior. 2006b;28:349-366
46. McGuire W. J.The effectiveness of supportive and refutational defenses in immunizing and restoring beliefs against persuasion.Sociometry. 1961;24:184-197
47. McLeod J. M.,Scheufele D. A.,Moy P.,Horowitz E. D.,Holbert R. L.,Zhang W.,Zubric J.Understanding deliberation: The effects of discussion networks on participation in a public forum.Communication Research. 1999;26:743-774
48. McPherson M.,Smith-Lovin L.,Cook J. M.Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks.Annual Review of Sociology. 2001;27:415-444
49. Milgram S.Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York, NY: Harper Colophon Books; 1974:
50. Morey A. C.,Eveland W. P.,Hutchens M. J.The “who” matters: Types of interpersonal relationships and avoidance of political disagreement.Political Communication. 2012;29:86-103
51. Mutz D. C.The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation.American Journal of Political Science. 2002a;46:838-855
52. Mutz D. C.Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice.American Political Science Review. 2002b;96:111-126
53. Mutz D. C.Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; 2006:
54. Mutz D. C.,Mondak J. J.The workplace as a context for cross-cutting political discourse.Journal of Politics. 2006;68:140-155
55. Neuwirth K.,Frederick E.,Mayo C.The spiral of silence and fear of isolation.Journal of Communication. 2007;57:450-468
56. Nickerson R. S.Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises.Review of General Psychology. 1998;2:175-220
57. Niemi R. G.,Craig S. C.,Mattei F.Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 national election study.American Political Science Review. 1991;85:1407-1413
58. Nir L.Ambivalent social networks and their consequences for participation.International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2005;17:422-442
59. Noelle-Neumann E.The spiral of silence: Public opinion, our social skin. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1993:
60. Norris P.The bridging and bonding role of online communities.Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. 2002;7 (3): 3-13
61. Park S. G.The significance of civility in deliberative democracy.Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies. 2000;45:162-194
62. Petty R. E.,Cacioppo J. T.Involvement and persuasion: Tradition versus integration.Psychological Bulletin. 1990;107:367-374
63. Pfau M.,Burgoon M.Inoculation in political campaign communication.Human Communication Research. 1988;15:91-111
64. Pfau M.,Tusing K. J.,Koerner A. F.,Lee W.,Godbold L. C.,Penaloza L. J.,Hong Y. Y.-H.Enriching the inoculation construct: The role of critical components in the process of resistance.Human Communication Research. 1997;24:187-215
65. Price V.,Cappella J. N.,Nir L.Does more disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion?.Political Communication. 2002;19:95-112
66. Putnam R. D.Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon and Shuster; 2000:
67. Putnam R. D.,Yonish S.How important is response rate? An evaluation of a “mail panel” survey archive.Paper presented at the the annual meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research; 1999Saint Pete Beach, FL; 1999.
68. Rimal R. N.,Real K.Perceived risk and efficacy beliefs as motivators of change: Use of the risk perception attitude (RPA) framework to understand health behaviors.Human Communication Research. 2003;29:370-399
69. Rudolph T. J.,Gangl A.,Stevens D.The effects of efficacy and emotions on campaign involvement.Journal of Politics. 2000;62:1189-1197
70. Scheufele D. A.Examining differential gains from mass media and their implications for participatory behavior.Communication Research. 2002;29:46-65
71. Scheufele D. A.,Hardy B. W.,Brossard D.,Waismel-Manor I. S.,Nisbet E. C.Democracy based on difference: Examining the links between structural heterogeneity, heterogeneity of discussion networks, and democratic citizenship.Journal of Communication. 2006;56:728-753
72. Scheufele D. A.,Nisbet M. C.,Brossard D.Pathways to political participation? Religion, communication contexts, and mass media.International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2003;15:300-324
73. Scheufele D. A.,Nisbet M. C.,Brossard D.,Nisbet E. C.Social structure and citizenship: Examining the impacts of social setting, network heterogeneity, and informational variables on political participation.Political Communication. 2004;21:315-338
74. Schuck A. R. T.,de Vreese C. H.When good news is bad news: Explicating the moderated mediation dynamic behind the reversed mobilization effect.Journal of Communication. 2012;62:57-77
75. Schudson M.Embarrassment and Erving Goffman’s idea of human nature.Theory and Society. 1984;13:633-648
76. Slater M. D.Reinforcing spirals: The mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity.Communication Theory. 2007;17:281-303
77. Stroud N. J.Niche news: The politics of news choice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2011:
78. Tajfel H.,Turner C.Psychology of intergroup relations. Worchel S.Austin W. G., ed. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall; 1986:7-24.
79. Thorson E.Beyond opinion leaders: How attempts to persuade foster political awareness and campaign learning.Communication Research. 2012;:
80. Ulbig S. G.,Funk C. L.Conflict avoidance and political participation.Political Behavior. 1999;21:265-282
81. Valentino N. A.,Gregorowicz K.,Groenendyk E.Efficacy, emotions and the habit of participation.Political Behavior. 2009;31:307-330
82. Valenzuela S.,Kim Y.,Gil de,Zúñiga H.Social networks that matter: Exploring the role of political discussion for online political participation.International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2012;24:163-184
83. Witte K.,Allen M.A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns.Health Education & Behavior. 2000;27:591-615
84. Wojcieszak M.“Carrying online participation offline”—Mobilization by radical online groups and politically dissimilar offline ties.Journal of Communication. 2009;59:564-586
85. Wojcieszak M.“Don’t talk to me”: Effects of ideologically homogeneous online groups and politically dissimilar offline ties on extremism.New Media & Society. 2010;12:637-655
86. Wojcieszak M.Deliberation and attitude polarization.Journal of Communication. 2011a;61:596-617
87. Wojcieszak M.Pulling toward or pulling away: Deliberation, disagreement, and opinion extremity in political participation.Social Science Quarterly. 2011b;92:207-225
88. Wojcieszak M.When deliberation divides: Processes underlying mobilization to collective action.Communication Monographs. 2011c;78:324-346
89. Wojcieszak M.,Baek Y. M.,Delli Carpini M. X.Deliberative and participatory democracy? Ideological strength and the processes leading from deliberation to political engagement.International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2010;22:154-180
90. Wojcieszak M.,Mutz D. C.Online groups and political discourse: Do online discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement?.Journal of Communication. 2009;59:40-56
91. Wojcieszak M.,Price V.Bridging the divide or intensifying the conflict? How disagreement affects strong predilections about sexual minorities.Political Psychology. 2010;31:315-339
92. Wojcieszak M.,Price V.Perceived versus actual disagreement: Which influences deliberative experiences?.Journal of Communication. 2012;62:418-436