Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Incidental Pundit: Who Talks Politics with Whom, and Why?

The Incidental Pundit: Who Talks Politics with Whom, and Why? Informal discussion plays a crucial role in democracy, yet much of its value depends on diversity. We describe two models of political discussion. The purposive model holds that people typically select discussants who are knowledgeable and politically similar to them. The incidental model suggests that people talk politics for mostly idiosyncratic reasons, as by‐products of nonpolitical social processes. To adjudicate between these accounts, we draw on a unique, multisite, panel data set of whole networks, with information about many social relationships, attitudes, and demographics. This evidence permits a stronger foundation for inferences than more common egocentric methods. We find that incidental processes shape discussion networks much more powerfully than purposive ones. Respondents tended to report discussants with whom they share other relationships and characteristics, rather than based on expertise or political similarity, suggesting that stimulating discussion outside of echo chambers may be easier than previously thought. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png American Journal of Political Science Wiley

The Incidental Pundit: Who Talks Politics with Whom, and Why?

Download PDF
17 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/the-incidental-pundit-who-talks-politics-with-whom-and-why-S0IZFGSWS4
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© 2020 by the Midwest Political Science Association
ISSN
0092-5853
eISSN
1540-5907
DOI
10.1111/ajps.12469
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Informal discussion plays a crucial role in democracy, yet much of its value depends on diversity. We describe two models of political discussion. The purposive model holds that people typically select discussants who are knowledgeable and politically similar to them. The incidental model suggests that people talk politics for mostly idiosyncratic reasons, as by‐products of nonpolitical social processes. To adjudicate between these accounts, we draw on a unique, multisite, panel data set of whole networks, with information about many social relationships, attitudes, and demographics. This evidence permits a stronger foundation for inferences than more common egocentric methods. We find that incidental processes shape discussion networks much more powerfully than purposive ones. Respondents tended to report discussants with whom they share other relationships and characteristics, rather than based on expertise or political similarity, suggesting that stimulating discussion outside of echo chambers may be easier than previously thought.

Journal

American Journal of Political Science – Wiley

Published: Jan 1, 2020

References

  • Political Attitudes over the Life Span: The Bennington Women after Fifty Years
    Alwin, Duane F.; Cohen, Ronald L.; Newcomb, Theodore M.
  • Exposure to Opposing Views on Social Media Can Increase Political Polarization
    Bail, Christopher A.; Lisa, P. Argyle; Taylor, W. Brown; John, P. Bumpus; Haohan, Chen; M. B. Fallin, Hunzaker; Jaemin, Lee; Marcus, Mann; Friedolin, Merhout; Alexander, Volfovsky
  • Is Influence Mightier than Selection? Forging Agreement in Political Discussion Networks during a Campaign
    Bello, Jason; Rolfe, Meredith
  • The Value of Biased Information: A Rational Choice Model of Political Advice
    Calvert, Randall L.
  • The Deliberative Potential of Political Discussion
    Conover, Pamela J.; Searing, Donald D.; Crewe, Ivor M.
  • What Can We Learn from Predictive Modeling?
    Cranmer, Skyler J.; Desmarais, Bruce A.
  • Public Deliberation, Discursive Participation, and Citizen Engagement: A Review of the Empirical Literature
    Carpini, Delli; X., Michael; Cook, Fay L.; Jacobs, Lawrence R.
  • Statistical Mechanics of Networks: Estimation and Uncertainty
    Desmarais, Bruce A.; Cranmer, Skyler J.
  • Avoiding Politics: How Americans Produce Apathy in Everyday Life
    Eliasoph, Nina
  • Americans Are More Exposed to Difference Than We Think: Capturing Hidden Exposure to Political and Racial Difference
    Eveland, William P.; Appiah, Osei; Beck, Paul A.
  • Political Discussion Frequency, Network Size, and ‘Heterogeneity’ of Discussion as Predictors of Political Knowledge and Participation
    Eveland, William P.; Hively, Myiah H.
  • Beyond Deliberation: New Directions for the Study of Informal Political Conversation from a Communication Perspective
    Eveland, William P.; Morey, Alyssa C.; Hutchens, Myiah J.
  • Social Structural Determinants of Similarity among Associates
    Feld, Scott L.
  • The Friendship Group as a Protective Environment for Political Deviants
    Finifter, Ada W.
  • When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation
    Fishkin, James S.
  • Causality in Political Networks
    Fowler, James H.; Heaney, Michael T.; Nickerson, David W.; Padgett, John F.; Sinclair, Betsy
  • A Turn toward Avoidance? Selective Exposure to Online Political Information, 2004–2008
    Garrett, R. Kelly; Carnahan, Dustin; Lynch, Emily K.
  • Disagreement and the Avoidance of Political Discussion: Aggregate Relationships and Differences across Personality Traits
    Gerber, Alan S.; Huber, Gregory A.; Doherty, David; Dowling, Conor M.
  • Real and Perceived Attitude Agreement in Social Networks
    Goel, S.; Mason, W.; Watts, D. J.
  • Discrete Temporal Models of Social Networks
    Hanneke, Steve; Fu, Wenjie; Xing, Eric P.
  • Amelia II: A Program for Missing Data
    Honaker, James; King, Gary; Blackwell, Matthew
  • The Social Communication of Political Expertise
    Huckfeldt, Robert
  • Disagreement, Ambivalence, and Engagement: The Political Consequences of Heterogeneous Networks
    Huckfeldt, Robert; Mendez, Jeanette M.; Osborn, Tracy
  • Noise, Bias, and Expertise in Political Communication Networks
    Huckfeldt, Robert; Pietryka, Matthew T.; Reilly, Jack
  • Citizens, Politics, and Social Communication: Information and Influence in an Election Campaign
    Huckfeldt, Robert; Sprague, John
  • ergm: A Package to Fit, Simulate and Diagnose Exponential‐Family Models for Networks
    Hunter, David R.; Handcock, Mark S.; Butts, Carter T.; Goodreau, Steven M.; Morris, Martina
  • Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications
    Katz, Elihu; Lazarsfeld, Paul F.
  • Theorizing Dialogic Deliberation: Everyday Political Talk as Communicative Action and Dialogue
    Kim, Joohan; Kim, Eun Joo
  • Measurement of Political Discussion Networks: A Comparison of Two ‘Name Generator’ Procedures
    Klofstad, Casey A.; McClurg, Scott D.; Rolfe, Meredith
  • QAP Partialling as a Test of Spuriousness
    Krackardt, David
  • Expanding the Conversation: Multiplier Effects from a Deliberative Field Experiment
    Lazer, David M.; Sokhey, Anand E.; Neblo, Michael A.; Esterling, Kevin M.; Kennedy, Ryan
  • The Coevolution of Networks and Political Attitudes
    Lazer, David M. J.; Rubineau, Brian; Chetkovich, Carol; Katz, Nancy; Neblo, Michael A.
  • Temporal Exponential Random Graph Models with btergm: Estimation and Bootstrap Confidence Intervals
    Leifeld, Philip; Cranmer, Skyler J.; Desmarais, Bruce A.
  • Exponential Random Graph Models for Social Networks: Theory, Methods, and Applications
    Lusher, Dean; Koskinen, Johan; Robins, Garry
  • Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement
    Mansbridge, Jane
  • Core Discussion Networks of Americans
    Marsden, Peter V.
  • The Electoral Relevance of Political Talk: Examining Disagreement and Expertise Effects in Social Networks on Political Participation
    McClurg, Scott D.
  • Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks
    McPherson, Miller; Smith‐Lovin, Lynn; Cook, James M.
  • College Socialization and the Economic Views of Affluent Americans
    Mendelberg, Tali; McCabe, Katherine T.; Thal, Adam
  • Field Experiment Evidence of Substantive, Attributional, and Behavioral Persuasion by Members of Congress in Online Town Halls
    Minozzi, William; Neblo, Michael A.; Esterling, Kevin M.; Lazer, David M. J.
  • The ‘Who’ Matters: Types of Interpersonal Relationships and Avoidance of Political Disagreement
    Morey, Alyssa C.; Eveland, William P.; Hutchens, Myiah J.
  • Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy
    Mutz, Diana C.
  • The Workplace as a Context for Cross‐Cutting Political Discourse
    Mutz, Diana C.; Mondak, Jeffrey J.
  • Deliberative Democracy between Theory and Practice
    Neblo, Michael A.
  • Politics with the People: Building a Directly Representative Democracy
    Neblo, Michael A.; Esterling, Kevin M.; Lazer, David M. J.
  • Who Wants to Deliberate—and Why?
    Neblo, Michael A.; Esterling, Kevin M.; Kennedy, Ryan P.; Lazer, David M. J.; Sokhey, Anand E.
  • Personality and Social Change: Attitude and Social Formation in a Student Community
    Newcomb, Theodore M.
  • The Difference
    Page, Scott E.
  • Conversation, Disagreement and Political Participation
    Pattie, Charles J.; Johnston, Ron J.
  • From Respondents to Networks: Bridging between Individuals, Discussants, and the Network in the Study of Political Discussion
    Pietryka, Matthew T.; Reilly, Jack Lyons; Maliniak, Daniel M.; Miller, Patrick R.; Huckfeldt, Robert; Rapoport, Ronald B.
  • Why Conversation Is Not the Soul of Democracy
    Schudson, Michael
  • The Social Citizen: Peer Networks and Political Behavior
    Sinclair, Betsy
  • Weak Ties and the Core Discussion Network: Why People Regularly Discuss Important Matters with Unimportant Alters
    Small, Mario L.
  • Uncovering the Structural Underpinnings of Political Discussion Networks: Evidence from an Exponential Random Graph Model
    Song, Hyunjin
  • Polarization and Partisan Selective Exposure
    Stroud, Natalie J.
  • Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs
    Taber, Charles S.; Lodge, Milton
  • Conflict Avoidance and Political Participation
    Ulbig, Stacy G.; Funk, Carolyn L.
  • Online Groups and Political Discourse: Do Online Discussion Spaces Facilitate Exposure to Political Disagreement?
    Wojcieszak, Magdalena E.; Mutz, Diana C.