General consensus concerning the nature of the relationship between political disagreement and turnout has not yet been reached: while several studies have demonstrated the demobilizing effect of disagreement, others have found no significant evidence for this. Recently, scholars have argued that diversity — a situation in which some people are in agreement with ego and some are not — can boost electoral participation. The present article argues that the insights of previous studies are the result of two differentiated effects that depend on the level of intimacy of the discussants to which one is exposed. By employing a set of linear regression models on Italian National Election Study 2013 pre-electoral survey (N > 8,000), we show that mixed political views among friends boost electoral participation. For what concerns relatives, the likelihood to vote decreases linearly with increasing disagreement.
AschS. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgments. In GuetzkowH. (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men (pp. 177-190). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.
2.
BaldassarriD. (2009, September3-6). Social networks, political heterogeneity, and interpersonal influence: Evidence from the 2006 Italian elections. Paper presented at American Political Science Association annual meeting, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
3.
BelangerP.EaglesM. (2007). Partisan cross-pressure and voter turnout: The influence of micro and macro environments. Social Science Quarterly, 88, 850-867. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00486.x
4.
BelloJ. (2012). The dark side of disagreement? Revisiting the effect of disagreement on political participation. Electoral Studies, 31, 782-795. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2012.06.004
5.
BelloJ.RolfeM. (2014). Is influence mightier than selection? Forging agreement in political discussion networks during a campaign. Social Networks, 36, 134-146. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2013.06.001
6.
BerelsonB.LazarsfeldP. F.McPheeW. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
7.
BolsteinR. (1991). Predicting the likelihood to vote in pre-election polls. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D (The Statistician), 40, 277-283. doi:10.2307/2348280
8.
BrehmJ. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Cambridge, UK: Academic Press.
9.
ColemanJ. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120. doi:10.1086/228943
10.
ColemanJ. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11.
Delli CarpiniM. X.KeeterS. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
12.
ErisenE.ErisenC. (2012). The effect of social networks on the quality of political thinking. Political Psychology, 33, 839-865. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00906.x
13.
EvelandW. P.HivelyM. H. (2009). Political discussion frequency, network size, and “heterogeneity” of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation. Journal of Communication, 59, 205-224. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01412.x
14.
EvelandW. P.SongH.BeckP. A. (2015). Cultural variations in the relationships among network political agreement, political discussion frequency, and voting turnout. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 27, 461-480. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edv007
15.
FaasT.Schmitt-BeckR. (2010). Voters’ political conversations during the 2005 German parliamentary election campaign. In WolfM. R.MoralesL.IkedaK. (Eds.), Political discussions in modern democracies: A comparative perspective (pp. 99-116). London, England: Routledge.
16.
FieldhouseE.CuttsD. (2018). Shared partisanship, household norms and turnout: Testing a relational theory of electoral participation. British Journal of Political Science, 48, 807-823. doi:10.1017/S0007123416000089
17.
FowlerJ. H.HeaneyM. T.NickersonD. W.PadgettJ. F.SinclairB. (2011). Causality in political networks. American Politics Research, 39, 437-480. doi:10.1177/1532673x10396310
18.
GranovetterM. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380. doi:10.1086/225469
19.
GuidettiM.CavazzaN.GrazianiA. R. (2016). Perceived disagreement and heterogeneity in social networks: Distinct effects on political participation. The Journal of Social Psychology, 156, 222-242. doi:10.1080/00224545.2015.1095707
20.
HajnalJ. (1982). Two kinds of preindustrial household formation system. Population and Development Review, 8, 449-494. doi:10.2307/1972376
21.
HopmannD. N. (2012). The consequences of political disagreement in interpersonal communication: New insights from a comparative perspective. European Journal of Political Research, 51, 265-287. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.2011.02001.x
22.
HuckfeldtR.BeckP. A.DaltonR. J.LevineJ. (1995). Political environments, cohesive social groups, and the communication of public opinion. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 1025-1054. doi:10.2307/2111668
23.
HuckfeldtR.JohnsonP. E.SpragueJ. (2002). Political environments, political dynamics, and the survival of disagreement. The Journal of Politics, 64, 1-21. doi:10.1111/1468-2508.00115
24.
HuckfeldtR.JohnsonP. E.SpragueJ. (2004). Political disagreement: The survival of diverse opinions within communication networks. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25.
HuckfeldtR.MendezJ. M.OsbornT. (2004). Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology, 25, 65-95.
26.
HuckfeldtR.SpragueJ. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27.
JohnstonR.BradyH. E. (2002). The rolling cross-section design. Electoral Studies, 21, 283-295. doi:10.1016/s0261-3794(01)00022-1
28.
KarpJ. A.BrockingtonD. (2005). Social desirability and response validity: A comparative analysis of overreporting voter turnout in five countries. The Journal of Politics, 67, 825-840. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00341.x
29.
KlofstadC. A. (2007). Talk leads to recruitment: How discussions about politics and current events increase civic participation. Political Research Quarterly, 60, 180-191. doi:10.1177/1065912907301708
30.
KlofstadC. A.McClurgS. D.RolfeM. (2009). Measurement of political discussion networks: A comparison of two “name generator” procedures. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73, 462-483. doi:10.1093/poq/nfp032
31.
KlofstadC. A.SokheyA. E.McClurgS. D. (2013). Disagreeing about disagreement: How conflict in social networks affects political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 120-134. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00620.x
32.
LawtonL.SilversteinM.BengtsonV. (1994). Affection, social contact, and geographic distance between adult children and their parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 56, 57-68. doi:10.2307/352701
33.
LazarsfeldP. F.BerelsonB.GaudetH. (1968). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. (Original work published 1944)
34.
LeeH.KwakN.CampbellS. W. (2015). Hearing the other side revisited: The joint workings of cross-cutting discussion and strong tie homogeneity in facilitating deliberative and participatory democracy. Communication Research, 42, 569-596. doi:10.1177/0093650213483824
35.
LuptonR.ThorntonJ. (2017). Disagreement, diversity, and participation: Examining the properties of several measures of political discussion network characteristics. Political Behavior, 39, 585-608. doi:10.1007/s11109-016-9371-7
36.
MancosuM.VezzoniC. (2017). “Blood is thicker than water”: Interpersonal influence, selection, and the role of family in forging Italians’ political agreement. International Journal of Communication, 11, 647-668.
37.
MannheimerR.SaniG. (2001). La conquista degli astenuti [The conquest of abstainers]. Bologna, Italy: Il Mulino.
38.
McClurgS. D. (2006). The electoral relevance of political talk: Examining disagreement and expertise effects in social networks on political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 737-754. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00213.x
39.
MoreyA. C.EvelandW. P.Jr.HutchensM. J. (2012). The “who” matters: Types of interpersonal relationships and avoidance of political disagreement. Political Communication, 29, 86-103. doi:10.1080/10584609.2011.641070
40.
MutzD. C. (2002). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 838-855. doi:10.2307/3088437
41.
MutzD. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
42.
MutzD. C.MondakJ. J. (2006). The workplace as a context for cross-cutting political discourse. The Journal of Politics, 68, 140-155. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00376.x
43.
NieuwbeertaP.FlapH. (2000). Crosscutting social circles and political choice: Effects of personal network composition on voting behavior in The Netherlands. Social Networks, 22, 313-335. doi:10.1016/S0378-8733(00)00029-0
44.
NirL. (2005). Ambivalent social networks and their consequences for participation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 422-442. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh069
45.
NirL. (2011). Disagreement and opposition in social networks: Does disagreement discourage turnout?Political Studies, 59, 674-692. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2010.00873.x
46.
PattieC. J.JohnstonR. J. (2009). Conversation, disagreement and political participation. Political Behavior, 31, 261-285. doi:10.1007/s11109-008-9071-z
47.
ReherD. S. (1998). Family ties in Western Europe: Persistent contrasts. Population and Development Review, 24, 203-234. doi:10.2307/2807972
48.
RockI. (Ed.). (1990). The legacy of Solomon Asch: Essays in cognition and social psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
49.
RolfeM. (2012). Voter turnout: A social theory of political participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
50.
RosenstoneS. J.HansenJ. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York, NY: Macmillan.
51.
ScheufeleD. A.HardyB. W.BrossardD.Waismel-ManorI. S.NisbetE. (2006). Democracy based on difference: Examining the links between structural heterogeneity, heterogeneity of discussion networks, and democratic citizenship. Journal of Communication, 56, 728-753. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00317.x
52.
ScheufeleD. A.NisbetM. C.BrossardD.NisbetE. C. (2004). Social structure and citizenship: Examining the impacts of social setting, network heterogeneity, and informational variables on political participation. Political Communication, 21, 315-338. doi:10.1080/10584600490481389
53.
SchröderC. (2008). The influence of parents on cohabitation in Italy—Insights from two regional contexts. Demographic Research, 19, 1693-1726. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2008.19.48
54.
SokheyA. E.DjupeP. A. (2014). Name generation in interpersonal political network data: Results from a series of experiments. Social Networks, 36, 147-161. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2013.02.002
55.
TuortoD. (2006). Apatia o protesta? L’astensionismo elettorale in Italia [Apathy of protest? The electoral abstention in Italy]. Bologna, Italy: Il Mulino.
56.
UlbigS. G.FunkC. L. (1999). Conflict avoidance and political participation. Political Behavior, 21, 265-282. doi:10.1023/A:1022087617514
57.
VerbaS.SchlozmanK. L.BradyH. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
58.
VezzoniC. (2014). Italian National Election Survey 2013: A further step in a consolidating tradition. Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica, 44, 81-108.
59.
WagnerM.JohannD.KritzingerS. (2012). Voting at 16: Turnout and the quality of vote choice. Electoral Studies, 31, 372-383. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2012.01.007
60.
ZuckermanA. S. (2005). The social logic of politics: Personal networks as contexts for political behavior. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
61.
ZuckermanA. S.DasovicJ.FitzgeraldJ. (2007). Partisan families: The social logic of bounded partisanship in Germany and Britain. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
