The positive relationship between cross-cutting exposure and tolerance has long been a topic in the political communication field. By reinvestigating this issue, this study further explores whether hasty discussion moderates the relationship from a cross-cultural perspective by comparing South Korea with the United States. The authors posit that hasty discussion—a term that was coined to explain South Korean’s fast lifestyle as reflected in discussion processes—is a South Korean characteristic that can have deleterious effects on deliberative democracy. Nine hundred and sixty survey participants (480 South Koreans and 480 Americans) showed meaningful results: (1) Hasty discussion comprises two factors (ignoring discussion processes and pursuing discussion efficiency). (2) Americans are exposed to more cross-cutting opinions than South Koreans, but the positive relationship between cross-cutting exposure and tolerance is more significant in the South Korean sample. (3) In the South Korean sample, ignoring discussion processes negatively affected tolerance. (4) An interaction effect of ignoring discussion processes and cross-cutting exposure on tolerance was found among South Koreans. That is, ignoring the discussion process lowered tolerance.
AronAAronEN (1999) Statistics for Psychology, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2.
BerelsonBLarzarsfeldPMcPheeW (1954) Voting, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
3.
BloomPBNBagno-MoldavskyO (2015) The conditional effect of network diversity and values on tolerance. Political Behavior37(3): 623–651.
4.
BohmanJ (1996) Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
BohmanJ (2003) Deliberative toleration. Political Theory31(6): 757–779.
6.
BrewerMB (1999) The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate?Journal of Social Issues55(3): 429–444.
7.
CalhounC (1988) Populist politics, communications media and large scale societal integration. Sociological Theory6(2): 219–241.
8.
ChauPYColeMMasseyAPet al.(2002) Cultural differences in the online behavior of consumers. Communications of the ACM45(10): 138–143.
9.
ChenGMChungJ (1994) The impact of Confucianism on organizational communication. Communication Quarterly42(2): 93–105.
10.
ChesneauxJ (2000) Speed and democracy: An uneasy dialogue. Social Science Information39(3): 407–420.
11.
Choi SM, Kim Y, Sung Y, et al. (2008) Motivations and social relationships: A comparative study of social network sites in the US and Korea. In: International communication association convention, Montreal, Canada.
12.
Choi Y and Kim H (2005) What makes deliberation possible? Structural Equation Models of online and face-to-face deliberation process. In: Association for education in journalism and mass communication, San Antonio, Texas.
13.
Choi Y and Lee J (2012a) 토론속도주의가 숙의적(deliberative) 인터넷토론에 미치는 영향[Effects of ‘hasty discussion’ tendency on deliberative Internet discussion: Analyses of mediation and moderation]. 한국언론학보[Korean Journal Of Journalism and Communication Studies] 56(1): 388–417. [In Korean].
14.
Choi Y and Lee J (2012b) 인터넷 토론에서 이견(異見) 노출이 정치적 관용에 이르는 경로 분석: 의견 조정과 의견 공고화를 중심으로[Cross-cutting exposure on the Internet discussion forums and its influence on political tolerance: A mediation analysis of opinion modification and opinion polarization]. 한국언론학보[Korean Journal Of Journalism and Communication Studies] 56(2): 301–330. [In Korean].
15.
CohenBH (2001) Explaining Psychological Statistics, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.
16.
DjupePACalfanoBR (2012) American Muslim investment in civil society political discussion, disagreement, and tolerance. Political Research Quarterly65(3): 516–528.
17.
Festinger L (1962) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Vol. 2. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
18.
GalstonWA (2001) Political knowledge, political engagement, and civic education. Annual Review of Political Science4(1): 217–234.
19.
Gastil J (2008) Political Communication and Deliberation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
20.
GibsonJL (2006) Enigmas of intolerance: Fifty years after Stouffer's communism, conformity, and civil liberties. Perspectives on Politics4(1): 21–34.
21.
Granovetter M (1982) The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Social Structure and Network Analysis. Beverly Hills: SAGE.
22.
GutmannAThompsonD (1996) Democracy and Disagreement, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
23.
HabermasJ (1984) The Theory of Communicative ActionVol. 1, Boston: Beacon.
24.
HallET (1976) Beyond Culture, NY: Anchor.
25.
HaythornthwaiteC (2005) Social networks and Internet connectivity effects. Information, Community and Society8(2): 125–147.
26.
HeoMParkJ (2016) Presidential rhetoric of South Korea and the United States: The case of Lee and Obama. Asian Journal of Communication26(4): 301–318.
27.
Hofstede G (1980) Culture’s Consequences: Understanding Differences in Work Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
28.
IkedaKIRicheyS (2009) The impact of diversity in informal social networks on tolerance in Japan. British Journal of Political Science39(3): 655–668.
29.
KangJ (2010) ‘빨리빨리’의문화정치학[The cultural politics of ‘Ppallippalli': A study on the ‘speed communication' in Korea]. 언론과학연구[Journal of Communication Science]10(3): 47–80. [In Korean].
30.
KellyEMcPhersonL (2001) On tolerating the unreasonable. Journal of Political Philosophy9(1): 38–55.
31.
KimM (2005) 한국인의전통적커뮤니케이션가치관에대한연구 : 말에대한속담을중심으로[A study on the traditional communication values in Korean: Analysis on Korean proverbs]. 언론과학연구[Journal of Communication Science]5(3): 63–91. [In Korean].
32.
KimYSohnDChoiSM (2011) Cultural difference in motivations for using social network sites: A comparative study of American and Korean college students. Computers in Human Behavior27(1): 365–372.
33.
KimYYangJ (2011) The influence of Chemyon on facework and conflict styles: Searching for the Korean face and its impact. Public Relations Review37(1): 60–67.
34.
LazarsfeldPBerelsonBGaudetH (1944) The People’s Choice, NewYork: Columbia University Press.
35.
Lee D (2002) 우리 커뮤니케이션 문화의 연구동향과 과제[Korean cultural communication studies and its future]. 한국스피치커뮤니케이션학회[A Proceeding of Korean Speech Communication Conference] 4: 97–117. [In Korean].
36.
Lint TS and Choi SH (1996) Interpersonal relationships in Korea. In: Communication in personal relationships across cultures, p. 122.
37.
MacKuen M (1990) Speaking of politics: Individual conversational choice, public opinion, and the prospects for deliberative democracy. Information and Democratic Processes 59–99. Champaign-Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
38.
Manin B (1987) On legitimacy and political deliberation. Political theory 15(3): 338–368.
39.
Marquardt DW (1970) Generalized inverses, ridge regression, biased linear estimation, and nonlinear estimation. Technometrics 12: 591–256.
40.
Mathews FD (1999). Politics for People: Finding a Responsible Public Voice. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
41.
Merkin RS (2009) Cross-cultural communication patterns-Korean and American Communication. Journal of Intercultural Communication (20). Available at: http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr20/merkin.htm.
42.
Mill JS (1859) On Liberty. Reprinted in John Stuart Mill: Three Essays & Etc. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975, 1 –141.
43.
MinSJ (2007) Online vs. face-to-face deliberation: Effects on civic engagement. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication12(4): 1369–1387.
44.
Moore RW and Ishak ST (1989) The influence of culture on recruitment and training: Hofstede s cultural consequences as applied to the Asian Pacific and Korea. Research in personnel and human resources management 1: 277–300.
45.
Mutz DC (2001) Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. In: American Political Science Association, Vol. 95, No. 01, pp. 97–114, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
46.
MutzDC (2002) Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review96(1): 111–126.
47.
Mutz DC (2006) Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative Versus Participatory Democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
48.
MutzDCMondakJJ (2006) The workplace as a context for cross-cutting political discourse. Journal of politics68(1): 140–155.
49.
NieNHJunnJStehlik-BarryK (1996) Education and Democratic Citizenship in America, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
50.
Nisbett R (2010) The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently… and. New York: Simon and Schuster.
51.
ParkH (1997) Organizing principles of family and publicity in Korea. Hosuhnonchong (Seowon University)11: 55–88.
52.
ParkH (2004) The influences of familism on interpersonal trust of Korean public officials. International Review of Public Administration9(1): 121–135.
53.
ParkHSDaileyRLemusD (2002) The use of exploratory factor analysis and principal components analysis in communication research. Human Communication Research28(4): 562–577.
54.
PattieCJJohnstonRJ (2008) It’s good to talk: Talk, disagreement and tolerance. British Journal of Political Science38(4): 677–698.
55.
PengKNisbettRE (1999) Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American psychologist54(9): 741.
56.
PetrocelliJV (2003) Hierarchical multiple regression in counseling research: Common problems and possible remedies. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development36(1): 9–22.
57.
PriceVCappellaJNNirL (2002) Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion?Political communication19(1): 95–112.
58.
Putnam RD (2001) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
59.
RawlsJ (1971/1999) Goodness as rationality. A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press, pp. 347–396.
60.
RobinsonC (2010) Cross-cutting messages and political tolerance: An experiment using evangelical protestants. Political Behavior32(4): 495–515.
61.
ScheufeleDANisbetMCBrossardD (2003) Pathways to political participation? Religion, communication contexts, and mass media. International Journal of Public Opinion Research15(3): 300–324.
62.
Scorza JA (1998) Uncivil friendship: Emersonian lessons for democratic disagreement. In annual meetings of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA.
63.
Stouffer SA (1955) Communism, Conformity, and Civil Liberties: A Cross-Section of the Nation Speaks Its Mind. New York: Transaction Publishers.
64.
StroudNJ (2010) Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication60(3): 556–576.
65.
SullivanJLPieresonJMarcusGE (1993) Political Tolerance and American Democracy, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
TadmorCTTetlockPEPengK (2009) Acculturation strategies and integrative complexity the cognitive implications of biculturalism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology40(1): 105–139.
68.
TakJKaidLLKhangH (2007) The reflection of cultural parameters on videostyles of televised political spots in the US and Korea. Asian Journal of Communication17(1): 58–77.
69.
WaldmanP (2001) Deliberation in practice: Connecting theory to the lives of citizens. In: HartRPSparrowBH (eds) Politics, Discourse, and American Society: New Agendas, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 151–171.
70.
WaltonD (1999) Rethinking the fallacy of hasty generalization. Argumentation13: 161–182.
71.
WaltonD (2004) Relevance in Argumentation, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
72.
WaltonDGordonTF (2009) Jumping to a conclusion: Fallacies and standards of proof. Informal Logic29(2): 215–243.
