Erratum to: Everyday Political Talk with Strangers: Evidence on a Neglected Arena of the Deliberative System (Politische Vierteljahresschrift, (2023), 64, 3, (499-523), 10.1007/s11615-023-00462-6)

Abstract

In Table 1 on p. 18 the author had given values for two columns and asked to “center” the value—what the typesetter did ignore. The relevant value is given for both columns now. The original article has been corrected. (Table presented.) Predicting Involvement in the Public Discursive Sphere of Everyday Political Talk Access Talk frequency Disagreement (M1.1) (M1.2) (M2.1) (M2.2) (M3.1) (M3.2) Political interest (+) 1.736*** 1.652*** 1.533** 0.419 0.824* 0.341 Ideological extremity (+) 0.159 0.188 1.258** 1.088** 0.550+ 0.632* Party identification (+) −0.071 −0.081 −0.471+ −0.391 0.130 0.029 Need for cognition (+) −0.044 −0.016 −0.069 −0.258 0.253 −0.016 Need to evaluate (+) 0.378 0.417 1.470** 1.736** −0.450 −0.499 Social trust (+) 1.508*** 1.488*** 1.076+ 1.172* 0.089 0.101 Need to belong (+) 0.093 0.143 −1.110* −1.351** 0.261 0.165 Need for cognitive closure (−) −0.396 −0.463 1.061* 0.979* −0.183 −0.620+ Social isolation (−) −0.903** −0.912** −0.684 −0.868 −0.345 −0.272 Conflict seeking-avoidance (+) 1.108** 0.975* 0.920 0.620 0.950+ 1.313* Internal efficacy (+) 0.203 0.237 −0.171 −0.368 0.851+ 0.988* Discussion competence (+) 0.297 0.234 −1.021+ −1.060+ −0.666 −0.367 Newspaper (+) 0.183 0.107 −0.023 −0.066 −0.248 −0.216 News public TV (+) −0.363 −0.427* −0.488 −0.806* 0.236 0.161 Upper secondary education (+) −0.257 −0.289* −0.299 −0.444+ 0.367* 0.105 Employed (+) 0.244 0.198 0.404+ 0.268 −0.058 −0.034 Church attendance (+) 0.187 0.204 −0.467 −0.726 0.154 0.397 Trade union member (+) 0.205 0.172 −0.504+ −0.475 0.083 −0.078 Sociability (+) 1.221** 1.059** 0.692 0.159 0.819 0.308 Single household (+) −0.092 −0.124 0.674* 1.002*** −0.126 0.121 Economic well-being (+) −1.088*** −1.051** −0.846+ −0.741 −0.161 −0.157 Population density (+) 0.986*** 0.944*** −0.192 −0.368 −0.117 −0.153 Migration background (−) −0.359* −0.354 −0.024 −0.252 −0.228 −0.210 Talk frequency (+) – – – – 1.614** 1.158* Access strong ties – −2.008* – – – – Access weak ties – 0.931*** – – – – Frequency strong ties – – – 2.360*** – – Frequency weak ties – – – 1.916*** – – Disagreement strong ties – – – – – 0.488 Disagreement weak ties – – – – – 3.511*** Sex: male 0.161 0.172 −0.209 −0.160 0.096 0.056 Age 0.227 0.404 0.628 1.184+ −1.425** −1.417** Constant −2.612*** −1.191*** – – – – cut1 – – 2.661** 3.285** 0.122 0.997 cut2 – – 4.270*** 5.036*** 1.739* 2.756*** cut3 – – 5.436*** 6.260*** 3.004*** 4.128*** cut4 – – – – 4.888*** 6.166*** R2 (McKelvey & Zavoina) 0.223 0.256 0.214 0.355 0.145 0.266 1653.050 1626.907 829.907 775.266 1613.811 1540.112 1788.512 1772.789 951.926 906.001 1742.945 1677.854 1353 1353 577 577 547 547 Signs in parentheses indicate hypothesized directions of effects. M1.1, M1.2: binary logistic regression models including all respondents; M2.1, M2.2, M3.1, M3.2: ordered logistic regression models (including only respondents with access). Entries are unstandardized logit coefficients. Data are weighted by gender, age, and city district (numbers of cases unweighted) +p < 0.10 (M2.1, M2.2, M3.1, M3.2, due to low case numbers), *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.