Anand E. Sokhey

Social Networks and Correct Voting

Work on the nexus between deliberation and democratic practice has considered the normative consequences of socially driven behavior. However, a common criticism of interpersonal networks is that most people have insular social circles and that when they do not they are unlikely to engage in politics. We show that such pessimistic assessments are unwarranted, though for unexpected reasons. Using data from the 1992 Cross-National Election Project and the 2000 ANES, we examine the conditions under which social networks promote interest-based voting in the United States. We find that networks facilitate connections between individuals’ vote decisions and their underlying preferences when they provide unambiguous signals regarding candidates—because many Americans reside in supportive social environments, networks often help citizens make “correct” voting decisions (Lau and Redlawsk 1997 ). Thus, social networks appear to help shoulder the demands of democratic theory, but not by helping people learn about po...

Veni, Vidi, Disseri: Churches and the Promise of Democratic Deliberation

As the most popular voluntary association in the United States, churches are sometimes touted as saviors of democracy. However, those who espouse deliberative models of democracy rarely see churches as nurturing the decision-making abilities of attenders. Thus, the authors examine the extent to which church small group sessions fulfill the conditions for deliberation as set forth by political theorists. Using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, the authors find that churches offer authentic opportunities through small group involvements and, accordingly, tentatively declare the existence of a religious civility, with churches acting in the service of democratic capacity.

Revisiting the Divisive Primary Hypothesis: 2008 and the Clinton—Obama Nomination Battle

The 2008 Democratic primary was marked by divisiveness as notable as its historic candidates. And while Barack Obama won the general election,political scientists would be remiss in studying divisive primary effects only when they are electorally decisive. Accordingly, we examine this largely forgotten storyline, searching for these effects throughout different segments of the electorate. Our analysis pursues evidence at multiple levels, focusing on the illustrative case of Franklin County in the bellwether state of Ohio. First, we use aggregate data and ecological inference to ascertain levels of abstention and defection among Clinton supporters, noting patterns in precincts. Next, we analyze original survey data drawn from individuals observed displaying yard signs, examining rates of participation within this engaged population. Overall, the evidence suggests that the primary produced lasting effects in terms of turnout, defection, and other participatory acts—effects that might have cost Obama the presidency under different circumstances.

Name generation in interpersonal political network data: Results from a series of experiments

Abstract We present results from three large scale survey experiments focused on the manipulation of political name generators. Using syntax that is widely employed outside of political science, we generate interpersonal political network data by varying the roles of alters, the time horizons of relationships, and the specific political nature of social exchanges. Across varying samples and electoral environments, we look for differences in these conditions on a wide range of common interpersonal network items, assess latency data on these treatments, and employ more detailed information on named discussants than most existing political ego-centric studies. We evaluate how well the now standard “compound” political name generator captures interpersonal political networks, finding that it does quite well save a few items of significant political importance. We discuss the implications of this research agenda for theories of social influence and the study of disagreement in democratic politics.

Interpersonal Networks and Democratic Politics

1 1 Interpersonal Networks and Democratic Politics Some of the most fundamental concerns about democratic politics involve information – who has access to it, how do they get it, and of what quality and type is it? The answer to each of these questions invariably involves other people, and it is for this reason that modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of social networks. Fully understanding democratic politics requires us to wrestle with the choices and constraints that individuals face as they navigate the political world and acquire political information. By “choice” we are referring to the decisions that individuals make about what environments to inhabit – what neighborhood to live in, what church to join, and what people to befriend. Individuals frequently make those choices for reasons unrelated to politics and then live within the “constraints,” or range of available information defined by those choices. The distribution of politics in socially-defined contexts – geographical or otherwise – then limits subsequent political decisions; for example, the neighborhood may be politically homogenous but dissimilar to the individual, and the trusted friend might be ignorant of politics. In this essay, we consider the choices individuals make and the constraints that follow as we discuss what social network research has taught us about 1) how citizens form reasoned opinions and attitudes, and 2) acquire the resources and motives necessary to participate in public life. We then move beyond the state of the literature to suggest ways to further integrate a networks approach into the study of political behavior. We note the advantages of a more developed networks approach, including linking disparate research traditions, linking different levels of politics, and ultimately, clarifying what “choice” really means in a democratic society. The Informed Citizen Combining social and psychological perspectives, the scholars of the “Columbia School” viewed social groups as independent bases of political information and pitted interpersonal

Event History Methods

of events is of equal substantive importance, whether it is the dissolu-tion of a government’s cabinet (e.g., King et al. 1990; Warwick 1992; Diermeier and Stevenson 1999), the presence of international military disputes (Jones et al. 1996; Werner 2000; King and Zeng 2001), contributions by political action committees (Box-Steffensmeier et al. 2005), or as we will examine in this paper, when a voter makes up his/her mind in an election campaign. Examining when an event occurs provides additional information and may lead to new insights into the event and process under study. Event history – or survival analysis – is the tool of choice when political scientists find that the answer to “why” necessitates an answer to “when.”

Emotion, Motivation, and Social Information Seeking About Politics

Do citizens engage in disagreeable discussion to acquire novel information about politics, or does such behavior reflect more social/expressive motives? In this article, we use emotion to illuminate why citizens would engage in political discussion across lines of difference. Advancing hypotheses informed by affective intelligence theory, we use two data sets from the American National Election Studies to examine the conditions under which disagreeable discussion is consistent with different models of political discussion. Our findings are twofold. First, overall we find mixed evidence to support information seeking motives. Disagreeable discussion—regardless of conceptualization and operationalization—is poorly predicted by emotions associated with information seeking (e.g., fear), while it is better structured by emotions associated with expression and participation (e.g., enthusiasm). Second, leveraging available temporal information, we find evidence that, although only suggestive, is consistent with emotion leading to disagreeable discussion (rather than disagreement leading to emotion). We discuss the utility and limitations of using emotion to examine interpersonal discussion networks, situating our effort in a broader research agenda on social influence.

The Distribution and Determinants of Socially Supplied Political Expertise

Recent work on social influence has highlighted the importance of socially supplied political expertise, crediting it with strengthening attitudes, resolving ambivalence, and encouraging political participation. However, in focusing on the consequences of socially supplied political expertise, scholars have made the implicit assumption that citizens have equal access to this resource and have largely ignored its distribution. Given that individuals are constrained by their social contexts, we are particularly troubled by this oversight, and thus use two nationally representative data sources to explore the distribution of expertise among and throughout the social networks of citizens. We find consistent evidence that existing resource inequalities reinforce the unequal distribution of expertise in social networks—a gender-moderated pattern that involvement in civil society may help remedy.

The Dynamics of Partisan Identification When Party Brands Change: The Case of the Workers Party in Brazil

What happens to partisanship when a party undergoes rapid and visible elite-led changes that dilute its traditional brand? We address scholarly debates on the stability of mass partisanship by analyzing the consequences of the major brand change (marked by policy moderation and scandal) experienced by the leftist Brazilian Workers Party (PT) between 2002 and 2006. Analyzing a survey panel with interviews spanning this period, we find that many Brazilian citizens alternated between petismo and independence but rarely crossed party lines. They switched, we demonstrate, in response to political events. While the PT’s brand dilution drove away some traditional petistas, we observe two other dynamics: the rise of a new brand associated with the successful incumbent president (Lula) attracted new adherents, and amid this instability, a core of petistas stood by their party. Our findings suggest that scholarship on partisanship has established a false dichotomy between stability and instability.

Expanding the Conversation: Multiplier Effects From a Deliberative Field Experiment

Do formal deliberative events influence larger patterns of political discussion and public opinion? Critics argue that only a tiny number of people can participate in any given gathering and that deliberation may not remedy—and may in fact exacerbate—inequalities. We assess these criticisms with an experimental design merging a formal deliberative session with data on participants’ social networks. We conducted a field experiment in which randomly selected constituents attended an online deliberative session with their U.S. Senator. We find that attending the deliberative session dramatically increased interpersonal political discussion on topics relating to the event. Importantly, after an extensive series of moderation checks, we find that no participant/nodal characteristics, or dyadic/network characteristics, conditioned these effects; this provides reassurance that observed, positive spillovers are not limited to certain portions of the citizenry. The results of our study suggest that even relatively small-scale deliberative encounters can have a broader effect in the mass public, and that these events are equal-opportunity multipliers.