This work explores the influence of social connections on young people’s political knowledge. Extending previous research on individual and interpersonal predictors of political learning, the study examines relational characteristics and their role in informed citizenship. Factors expected to affect social contagion in political behavior include conversation content, interaction frequency, relational closeness, mutual communication partners, and shared ideology. The analyses were based on longitudinal network data from 13 residential student communities. The study found evidence consistent with social contagion. The political knowledge of participants was predicted by the knowledge of their strong social ties. Political discussants were not as influential as high-frequency general conversation partners. These findings have important implications for research exploring social influence on political behavior. They signal that the contacts we tend to identify as political are not necessarily the ones that matter most in shaping our opinions and attitudes.
American National Election Studies. (2018). The ANES guide to public opinion and electoral behavior. Stanford University; University of Michigan.
2.
AndersenK.HopmannD. N. (2018). Compensator, amplifier, or distractor? The moderating role of informal political talk on the effect of news media use on current-affairs learning among first-time voters. Political Communication, 35, 634–654. https://doi.org/10/gfrgk8
AralS.Van AlstyneM. (2011). The diversity-bandwidth trade-off. American Journal of Sociology, 117, 90–171. https://doi.org/10.1086/661238
5.
BoulianneS. (2015). Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication & Society, 18(5), 524–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1008542
BruggemanJ. (2016). The strength of varying tie strength: Comment on Aral and Van Alstyne. American Journal of Sociology, 121, 1919–1930. https://doi.org/10.1086/686267
8.
CarlsonT. N. (2019). Through the grapevine: Informational consequences of interpersonal political communication. American Political Science Review, 113, 325–339. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305541900008X
CentolaD. (2018). How behavior spreads: The science of complex contagions. Princeton University Press.
12.
CentolaD.MacyM. (2007). Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties. American Journal of Sociology, 113, 702–734. https://doi.org/10.1086/521848
13.
Delli CarpiniM. X.KeeterS. (1997). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. Yale University Press.
14.
DeutschM.GerardH. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 51, 629–636. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0046408
15.
EvelandW. P. (2001). The cognitive mediation model of learning from the news: Evidence from nonelection, off-year election, and presidential election contexts. Communication Research, 28, 571–601. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365001028005001
16.
EvelandW. P. (2004). The effect of political discussion in producing informed citizens: The roles of information, motivation, and elaboration. Political Communication, 21, 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600490443877
17.
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01412.x
18.
EvelandW. P.HutchensM. J. (2013). The role of conversation in developing accurate political perceptions: A multilevel social network approach. Human Communication Research, 39, 422–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12011
19.
EvelandW. P.HutchensM. J.MoreyA. C. (2012). Social networks and political knowledge. In SemetkoH. A.ScammellM. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of political communication (pp. 241–252). SAGE.
20.
EvelandW. P.MartonK.SeoM. (2004). Moving beyond “just the facts”: The influence of online news on the content and structure of public affairs knowledge. Communication Research, 31, 82–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650203260203
21.
EvelandW. P.ScheufeleD. (2000). Connecting news media use with gaps in knowledge and participation. Political Communication, 17, 215–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846000414250
22.
EvelandW. P.SchmittJ. B. (2015). Communication content and knowledge content matters: Integrating manipulation and observation in studying news and discussion learning effects. Journal of Communication, 65, 170–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12138
23.
EvelandW. P.ThomsonT. (2006). Is it talking, thinking, or both? A lagged dependent variable model of discussion effects on political knowledge. Journal of Communication, 56, 523–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00299.x
FraileM.IyengarS. (2014). Not all news sources are equally informative: A cross-national analysis of political knowledge in Europe. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 19, 275–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161214528993
26.
GhitzaY.GelmanA. (2014). The great society, Reagan’s revolution, and generations of presidential voting. https://nyti.ms/319LD0b
27.
Gil de ZunigaH.DiehlT. (2019). News finds me perception and democracy: Effects on political knowledge, political interest, and voting. New Media & Society, 21, 1253–1271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818817548
28.
GranovetterM. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469
29.
HuckfeldtR.MendezJ. M.OsbornT. (2004). Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology, 25, 65–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00357.x
30.
IyengarS.WestwoodS. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 690–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12152
KenskiK.StroudN. J. (2006). Connections between internet use and political efficacy, knowledge, and participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50, 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem5002_1
33.
KlofstadC. A. (2010). Civic talk: Peers, politics, and the future of democracy. Temple University Press.
34.
KlofstadC. A. (2015). Exposure to political discussion in college is associated with higher rates of political participation over time. Political Communication, 32, 292–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2014.944322
35.
KlofstadC. A.McClurgS. D.RolfeM. (2009). Measurement of political discussion networks: A comparison of two “name generator” procedures. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73, 462–483. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp032
36.
KrackhardtD. (1999). The ties that torture: Simmelian tie analysis in organizations. In Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 16, pp. 183–210). Emerald Publishing.
LazerD.RubineauB.ChetkovichC.KatzN.NebloM. (2010). The coevolution of networks and political attitudes. Political Communication, 27, 248–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2010.500187
39.
LeeE.-J.OhS. Y. (2013). Seek and you shall find? How need for orientation moderates knowledge gain from Twitter use. Journal of Communication, 63, 745–765. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12041
40.
LiuY.-I.EvelandW. P. (2005). Education, need for cognition, and campaign interest as moderators of news effects on political knowledge: An analysis of the knowledge gap. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82, 910–929. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900508200410
41.
MarksJ.CoplandE.LohE.SunsteinC. R.SharotT. (2019). Epistemic spillovers: Learning others’ political views reduces the ability to assess and use their expertise in nonpolitical domains. Cognition, 188, 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.10.003
42.
MasonL. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. University of Chicago Press.
43.
McClurgS. D. (2006). Political disagreement in context: The conditional effect of neighborhood context, disagreement and political talk on electoral participation. Political Behavior, 28, 349–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-006-9015-4
44.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
45.
MillerM. K. (2018). Who knows more about politics? A dual explanation for the gender gap. American Politics Research, 47, 174–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X18803890
46.
MinozziW.SongH.LazerD. M. J.NebloM. A.OgnyanovaK. (2019). The incidental pundit: Who talks politics with whom, and why?American Journal of Political Science, 64, 135–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12469
47.
MoellerJ.de VreeseC. (2015). Spiral of political learning: The reciprocal relationship of news media use and political knowledge among adolescents. Communication Research, 46, 1078–1094. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215605148
48.
MoreyA. C.EvelandW. P. (2016). Measures of political talk frequency: Assessing reliability and meaning. Communication Methods and Measures, 10, 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2015.1118448
49.
MutzD. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press.
50.
NewcombT. M. (1943). Personality and social change: Attitude formation in a student community. Dryden Press.
51.
OgnyanovaK. (2019). The social context of media trust: A network influence model. Journal of Communication, 69, 544–567. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz031
52.
PietrykaM. T.ReillyJ. L.MaliniakD. M.MillerP. R.HuckfeldtR.RapoportR. B. (2018). From respondents to networks: Bridging between individuals, discussants, and the network in the study of political discussion. Political Behavior, 40, 711–735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-017-9419-3
53.
R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.1.3). www.R-project.org
54.
RogersE. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). Simon & Schuster.
55.
RolfeM.ChanS. (2017). Voting and political participation. In VictorJ. N.MontgomeryA. H.LubellM. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political networks (pp. 357–382). Oxford University Press.
56.
RStudio Team. (2020). RStudio: Integrated development for R (Version 1.2.5033).
57.
SacerdoteB. (2001). Peer effects with random assignment: Results for Dartmouth roommates. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 681–704. https://doi.org/10.1162/00335530151144131
58.
ScheufeleD. A. (2002). Examining differential gains from mass media and their implications for participatory behavior. Communication Research, 29, 46–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365020202900103
59.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600490481389
60.
SinclairB. (2012). The social citizen: Peer networks and political behavior. University of Chicago Press.
61.
StrombackJ. (2005). In search of a standard: Four models of democracy and their normative implications for journalism. Journalism Studies, 6, 331–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616700500131950
62.
TichenorP. J.DonohueG. A.OlienC. N. (1970). Mass media flow and differential growth in knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34, 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-09923-7_10
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
