Matthew T. Pietryka

Noise, bias, and expertise in political communication networks

Abstract A central focus in the study of social networks and politics centers on the dynamics of diffusion and persuasion, as well as the manner in which these processes are affected by expert “opinion leaders.” The role of experts is particularly important in communication processes characterized by noisy, biased information – processes in which people with variable levels of expertise and strength of preference select informants, as well as being influenced by them. We employ an experimental approach that addresses these problems at multiple levels of observation in a highly dynamic context – small groups of individuals communicating with one another in real time. The analysis shows that participants formulate candidate judgments that decay in time, but the decay occurs at a significantly lower rate among the better informed. Moreover, the better informed are less affected by socially communicated messages regarding the candidates. Hence the influence of experts is not only due to their powers of persuasion, but also to the durability of their own privately formulated opinions. Their role in the communication process is further heightened by the higher value placed by participants on expert opinion, which in turn exposes the recipient to a heterogeneous and hence potentially influential stream of information.

The Roles of District and National Opinion in 2010 Congressional Campaign Agendas

A primary goal of congressional elections is to create a link between constituent opinion and representative behavior. Explanations of congressional campaign agendas, however, have focused on national measures of issue salience and ownership, ignoring opinion within districts. Moreover, no study has systematically assessed the relative influence of issue salience and ownership. This article seeks to address these gaps using several public opinion surveys and a content analysis of 2010 House campaign websites. The analysis demonstrates significant across-district variation in citizens’ priorities and preferences, yet finds no discernible relationship between district opinion and campaign issue agendas. In contrast, the analysis suggests that campaign issue emphasis is positively associated with the issue’s national salience and party ownership, but salience appears to be the stronger predictor. Together, the results suggest that the 2010 candidates used their campaign issue agendas to forge a national strategy, rather than emphasize identification with their constituents.

It’s Not Just What You Have, but Who You Know: Networks, Social Proximity to Elites, and Voting in State and Local Elections

Individual-level studies of electoral turnout and vote choice have focused largely on personal attributes as explanatory variables. We argue that scholars should also consider the social network in which individuals are embedded, which may influence voting through variation in individuals’ social proximity to elites. Our analysis rests on newly discovered historical records revealing the individual votes of all electors in the 1859 statewide elections in Alexandria, Virginia and the 1874 municipal elections in Newport, Kentucky, paired with archival work identifying the social relations of the cities’ populations. We also replicate our core findings using survey data from a modern municipal election. We show that individuals more socially proximate to elites turn out at a higher rate and individuals more socially proximate to a given political party’s elites vote disproportionately for that party. These results suggest an overlooked social component of voting and provide a rare nineteenth-century test of modern voting theories.