WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON?

Figures & data

TABLE 1  Difference tests on error structure, factor loadings, mean, variance, and covariance structure.

Source	χ^2	df	Δχ^2	Δdf	Δχ^2/Δdf
Base model (no constraints)	585.52	254
Error structure (Model 1A)	652.83	270	67.31	16	4.21
Factor loadings (Model 1B)	683.70	281	30.87	11	2.81
Means of latent variables (Model 2)	740.67	288	56.97	7	8.14
Variances of latent variables (Model 3)	764.03	295	23.36	7	3.34
Covariance structure (Model 4)	842.49	316	78.46	21	3.74
Note: n = 82. All difference tests are statistically significant (p < 0.01).

TABLE 2  Correlation coefficients between seven latent variables in two deliberative formats.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Online: mean scores	6.37	5.96	3.49	6.18	6.31	6.23	5.69
Online: standard deviations	1.73	2.85	2.04	2.49	2.51	2.50	2.39
Face-to-face: mean scores	7.19	6.80	3.72	8.15	6.88	5.92	5.14
Face-to-face: standard deviations	1.59	1.98	2.39	1.09	2.28	2.74	1.13
1. Evaluation of deliberation's goals		< 0.01	0.24	0.68∗	0.15	0.49∗	0.15
2. Positive emotion	0.19		0.08	0.07	0.52∗	0.16	< 0.01
3. Negative emotions	−0.20	0.60∗		0.53∗	0.22	−0.04	0.44∗
4. Collectivistic reasons	0.34	0.26	−0.03		0.24	0.41∗	0.18
5. Individualistic reasons	0.49∗	0.45∗	0.27	0.56∗		0.32	−0.06
6. Understanding differences	0.41∗	0.48∗	0.15	0.04	0.62∗		0.11
7. Perceived diversity	0.65∗	0.17	−0.02	0.24	0.27	0.36∗
Note: n = 82. Correlation coefficients are presented after correcting different error structure and factor loadings. Upper correlation matrix comes from face-to-face deliberation, while lower correlation matrix comes from online deliberation.
∗p < 0.05.

Figure 1 Sociogram of latent variables in online deliberation.

Figure 2 Sociogram of latent variables in face-to-face deliberation.

TABLE 3  Degree centrality measures in correlation matrices in two deliberative formats.

	online deliberation		face-to-face deliberation
	degree (D c )	share (d c )	degree (D c )	share (d c )
Node (i.e., latent variables) centrality
Understanding differences	206	0.15	153	0.15
Perceived diversity	171	0.13	94	0.09
Evaluation of deliberation's goals	228	0.17	171	0.17
Collectivistic reasons	147	0.11	211	0.21
Individualistic reasons	266	0.20	151	0.15
Positive emotion	215	0.16	83	0.08
Negative emotions	127	0.09	155	0.15
Network property
Network density	32.38 (19.10)		24.24 (19.26)
	t-value = 3.83, p < 0.001
Note: Centrality measures (Freeman 1979) calculated via UCINET 6.00 (Borgatti et al. 2002). Correlation matrices in Table 2 are used as similarity matrices in network analysis. While ‘Degree (D c )’ is raw similarity measure (i.e., sum of similarity), ‘share (d c )’ is relative similarity measure (i.e., proportion of each node's D c ).

Table

sources	both deliberators (n = 82)	total (n = 1,501)
Social demographics
Gender (percent)
Male	55	45
Race (percent)
White	79	78
Non-white (percent)	16	18
Age
Mean of year	42.36	46.84
Education (percent)
HS graduation or less	7	23
College	27	29
College degree	31	27
Above college degree	33	18
Income (percent)
Below $30,000	17	20
$30,000∼$50,000	9	17
$50,000∼$75,000	24	18
$75,000∼$100,000	15	12
Above $100,000	21	13
Party identification (percent)
Democrats	40	33
Republicans	23	29
Others	37	37
Strength of ideology (percent)
Strong conservative/liberals	40	40
Weak conservatives/liberals	18	26
Moderates	40	25
Note: Descriptive statistics include missing cases (not represented) and thus the sum of percent might not be 100.

Borgatti , S. P. , Everett , M. G. and Freeman , L. C. 2002 . Ucinet 6 for Windows , Harvard : Analytic Technologies .

 Google Scholar

Freeman , L. C. 1979 . Centrality in social networks: conceptual clarification . Social Networks , 1 ( 3 ) : 215 – 239 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar