[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v81y1987i04p1197-1216_20.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Networks in Context: The Social Flow of Political Information

Author

Listed:
  • Huckfeldt, Robert
  • Sprague, John
Abstract
We examine the effects of individual political preferences and the distribution of such preferences on the social transmission of political information. Our data base combines a 1984 election survey of citizens in South Bend, Indiana with a subsequent survey of people with whom these citizens discuss politics. Several findings emerge from the effort. First, individuals do purposefully construct informational networks corresponding to their own political preferences, and they also selectively misperceive socially supplied political information. More important, both of these individual-level processes are shown to be conditioned by constraints imposed due to the distribution of political preferences in the social context. Thus, individual control over socially supplied political information is partial and incomplete. Finally, these information-transmitting processes interact with the social context in a manner that favors partisan majorities while undermining political minorities.

Suggested Citation

  • Huckfeldt, Robert & Sprague, John, 1987. "Networks in Context: The Social Flow of Political Information," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(4), pages 1197-1216, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:81:y:1987:i:04:p:1197-1216_20
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400204401/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rupert Sausgruber & Jean-Robert Tyran, 2008. "Tax Salience, Voting, and Deliberation," Discussion Papers 08-21, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    2. Lucas Higuera, 2009. "Reporte de resultados de las encuestas LAPOP 2008," Research Department Publications 4612, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    3. Yosef Bhatti & Kasper M. Hansen, 2016. "The Effect of Residential Concentration on Voter Turnout among Ethnic Minorities," International Migration Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(4), pages 977-1004, December.
    4. Paweł Kamiński & Marta Kołczyńska & Bogdan W. Mach, 2022. "Support for democracy in ego‐centered social contexts," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(5), pages 1155-1167, September.
    5. Lynn Bennie & Patrick Bernhagen & Neil J. Mitchell, 2007. "The Logic of Transnational Action: The Good Corporation and the Global Compact," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55(4), pages 733-753, December.
    6. Su-Min & Alexandru, 2022. "Do Labels Polarise? Theory and Evidence from the Brexit Referendum," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2227, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    7. Denise L. Anthony & Douglas D. Heckathorn & Steven M. Maser, 1994. "Rational Rhetoric in Politics," Rationality and Society, , vol. 6(4), pages 489-518, October.
    8. Shane Fudge & Michael Peters & Steven M. Hoffman & Walter Wehrmeyer (ed.), 2013. "The Global Challenge of Encouraging Sustainable Living," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14851.
    9. Samadi, Mohammadreza & Nagi, Rakesh & Semenov, Alexander & Nikolaev, Alexander, 2018. "Seed activation scheduling for influence maximization in social networks," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 96-114.
    10. Browne, Teri, 2011. "The relationship between social networks and pathways to kidney transplant parity: Evidence from black Americans in Chicago," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(5), pages 663-667, September.
    11. Camila F. S. Campos & Shaun Hargreaves Heap & Fernanda Leite Lopez de Leon, 2017. "The political influence of peer groups: experimental evidence in the classroom," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(4), pages 963-985.
    12. Ann M. (Ann Martina) Carlos & Karen Maguire & Larry Neal, 2008. "“A knavish people ... so dextrous in bargaining that it is impossible for Christians to expect any advantage in their dealings with them” : London Jewry and the stockmarket during the South Sea Bubble," Working Papers 200806, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    13. Jackson, Matthew O. & Golub, Benjamin, 2007. "Naive Learning in Social Networks: Convergence, Influence and Wisdom of Crowds," Coalition Theory Network Working Papers 9101, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    14. Karel Kouba & Michael Haman, 2021. "When do voters boycott elections with participation quorums?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 189(1), pages 279-300, October.
    15. Florian Foos & Eline A. de Rooij, 2017. "All in the Family: Partisan Disagreement and Electoral Mobilization in Intimate Networks—A Spillover Experiment," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 61(2), pages 289-304, April.
    16. Finan, Frederico & Seira, Enrique & Simpser, Alberto, 2021. "Voting with one’s neighbors: Evidence from migration within Mexico," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    17. Karamychev, Vladimir A. & Swank, Otto H., 2022. "A social image theory of information acquisition, opinion formation, and voting," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    18. Sausgruber, Rupert & Tyran, Jean-Robert, 2011. "Are we taxing ourselves?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 164-176.
    19. Andrew R. Binder & Dietram A. Scheufele & Dominique Brossard & Albert C. Gunther, 2011. "Interpersonal Amplification of Risk? Citizen Discussions and Their Impact on Perceptions of Risks and Benefits of a Biological Research Facility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(2), pages 324-334, February.
    20. Elliott, Catherine S. & Fitzgerald, Keith & Hayward, Donald M. & Krasteva, Stela, 2009. "Some indications of limits to framing the policy preferences of the civically engaged: Interplay of social capital, race attitudes, and social justice frames," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 96-103, January.
    21. Lauren Ratliff Santoro & Elias Assaf & Robert M Bond & Skyler J Cranmer & Eloise E Kaizar & David J Sivakoff, 2021. "Exploring the direct and indirect effects of elite influence on public opinion," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-15, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:81:y:1987:i:04:p:1197-1216_20. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.