Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T01:32:47.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The perceived legitimacy of deliberative minipublics: taking the perspective of polarized citizens – CORRIGENDUM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2024

Lisa van Dijk Open the ORCID record for Lisa van Dijk [Opens in a new window] ,
James Pow Open the ORCID record for James Pow [Opens in a new window]  and
Emma Turkenburg Open the ORCID record for Emma Turkenburg [Opens in a new window]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Keywords

deliberative minipublicslegitimacy perceptionspolarizationcorrigendum
Type
Corrigendum
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , May 2024 , pp. 315
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that no alterations are made and the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained prior to any commercial use and/or adaptation of the article.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of European Consortium for Political Research

The authors apologise for the error in the paper The perceived legitimacy of deliberative minipublics: taking the perspective of polarized citizens. On page 419 of the PDF, it should read: ‘A one-point increase in ideological polarization (on a seven-point scale) is associated with approximately a 0.1 decrease in the perceived legitimacy of the minipublic and its outcome (on eleven-point scales). A one-point increase in affective polarization (on an eleven-point scale) is associated with about a 0.1 decrease in outcome acceptance (also on an eleven-point scale).’

The published version mistakenly stated a one-point decrease – rather than the correct 0.1 decreases – as above.