The connection between the individual and his or her aggregate geographic environment, usually defined as the neighborhood, is a key component of the contextual model of social influence. However, there is substantial anecdotal evidence that people have very little knowledge or connection to their neighborhood. In this article, the authors explore the connection by using data from the South Bend Study to answer two questions: What do people know about objective conditions of their neighborhoods? Second, do these conditions influence perceptions people have of their neighborhoods?The authors find that (a) people have a good deal of knowledge about the objective conditions, and (b) even after controlling for individual factors, these conditions positively influence how people perceive their status within the neighborhood. In short, there is a connection between the individual and the geographic context.
Achen, C., & Shively, W. P. (1995). Cross-level inference. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
2.
Baybeck, B., & Huckfeldt, R. (2002). Urban contexts, spatially dispersed networks, and the diffusion of political information. Political Geography, 21, 195-220.
3.
Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential election. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4.
Books, J. W., & Prysby, C. L. (1991). Political behavior and the local context. New York: Praeger.
5.
Boyd, L. H., & Iversen, G. R. (1979). Contextual analysis: Concepts and statistical techniques. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
6.
Cairncross, F. (1997). The death of distance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
7.
Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
8.
Finifter, A. (1974). The friendship group as a protective environment for political deviants. American Political Science Review, 68, 607-625.
9.
Highton, B. (2000). Residential mobility, community mobility, and electoral participation. Political Behavior, 22, 109-120.
10.
Huckfeldt, R. (1979). Political participation and the neighborhood social context. American Journal of Political Science, 23, 579-592.
11.
Huckfeldt, R. (1983). Social contexts, social networks, and urban neighborhoods: Environmental constraints on friendship choice. American Journal of Sociology, 89, 651-669.
12.
Huckfeldt, R. (1984).Political loyalties and social class ties: the mechanisms of contextual influence. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 399-417.
13.
Huckfeldt, R. (1986). Politics in context: Assimilation and conflictin urban neighborhoods. New York: Agathon.
14.
Huckfeldt, R. (2001). The social communication of political expertise. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 425-438.
15.
Huckfeldt, R., Plutzer, E., & Sprague, J. (1993). Alternative contexts of political behavior: Churches, neighborhoods, and individuals. Journal of Politics, 55, 365-381.
16.
Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1985). Presidential Election Campaign Study, 1984: South Bend, Indiana [Computer file, Indiana University, Center for Survey Research version]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.
17.
Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1987). Networks in context: The social flow of political information. American Political Science Review, 81, 1197-1216.
18.
Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1988). Choice, social structure, and political information: The information coercion of minorities. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 467-482.
19.
Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1992). Political parties and electoral mobilization: Political structure, social structure, and the party canvass. American Political Science Review, 86, 70-86.
20.
Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21.
King, G. (1996). Why context should not count. Political Geography, 15, 159-164.
22.
King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23.
MacKuen, M. (1990).Speaking of politics: Individual conversational choice, public opinion, and the prospects for deliberative democracy. In J. A. Ferejohn & J. H. Kuklinski (Eds.), Information and democratic processes (pp. 59-99). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
24.
McClurg, S. (2004). Indirect mobilization: The social consequences of party contacts in an election campaign. American Politics Research, 32, 406-443.
25.
McPhee, W. N. (1963). Formal theories of mass behavior. New York: MacMillan.
26.
Oliver, J. E. (2001). Democracy in suburbia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27.
Orbell, J. M. (1970). An information-flow theory of community influence. Journal of Politics, 32, 322-338.
28.
Putnam, R. (1966). Political attitudes and the local community. American Political Science Review, 60, 640-654.
29.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
30.
Tiebout, C. M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64, 416-424.
31.
Wuthnow, R. (1998). Loose connections: Joining together in America’s fragmented communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
32.
Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
