信息能说服而不是两极分化吗?评亚历克斯·科波克的《平行劝导》

IF 0.8 4区社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Science Quarterly Pub Date : 2023-07-13 DOI:10.1093/psquar/qqad076

Matthew Levendusky

{"title":"信息能说服而不是两极分化吗?评亚历克斯·科波克的《平行劝导》","authors":"Matthew Levendusky","doi":"10.1093/psquar/qqad076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In Matthew Levendusky’s review of Alex Coppock's Persuasion in Parallel, he praises, overall, the book's clear focus, rich data, and striking results, arguing that it makes an important contribution to the literature. He takes issue, however, with Coppock's treatment of theories of motivated reasoning, and he explores ways in which the literature might profitably move forward to better understand how citizens process political information.","PeriodicalId":51491,"journal":{"name":"Political Science Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can Information Persuade Rather Than Polarize? A Review of Alex Coppock's Persuasion in Parallel\",\"authors\":\"Matthew Levendusky\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/psquar/qqad076\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n In Matthew Levendusky’s review of Alex Coppock's Persuasion in Parallel, he praises, overall, the book's clear focus, rich data, and striking results, arguing that it makes an important contribution to the literature. He takes issue, however, with Coppock's treatment of theories of motivated reasoning, and he explores ways in which the literature might profitably move forward to better understand how citizens process political information.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51491,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Science Quarterly\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Science Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqad076\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Science Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqad076","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

在Matthew Levendusky对Alex Coppock的《平行劝导》的评论中，他总体上称赞了这本书的重点清晰、数据丰富、结果惊人，认为它对文学做出了重要贡献。然而，他对科波克对动机推理理论的处理提出了质疑，他探索了文学如何更好地理解公民如何处理政治信息。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

Can Information Persuade Rather Than Polarize? A Review of Alex Coppock's Persuasion in Parallel

In Matthew Levendusky’s review of Alex Coppock's Persuasion in Parallel, he praises, overall, the book's clear focus, rich data, and striking results, arguing that it makes an important contribution to the literature. He takes issue, however, with Coppock's treatment of theories of motivated reasoning, and he explores ways in which the literature might profitably move forward to better understand how citizens process political information.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Political Science Quarterly POLITICAL SCIENCE-

CiteScore

1.70

自引率

0.00%

发文量

111

期刊介绍： Published continuously since 1886, Political Science Quarterly or PSQ is the most widely read and accessible scholarly journal covering government, politics and policy. A nonpartisan journal, PSQ is edited for both political scientists and general readers with a keen interest in public and foreign affairs. Each article is based on objective evidence and is fully refereed.