This study investigates the effects of social network disagreement on candidate preferences. Although much research has explored the effects of disagreement on political tolerance and disengagement, less work has examined the relation between disagreement and political reasoning. We predicted that because disagreement reveals conflicting points of view and motivates people to consider these views, it should promote more effortful reasoning—and thus increased reliance on policy preferences and decreased reliance on party identification when choosing between candidates. Using panel data from the 2008 and 2012 U.S. Presidential elections, we find that respondents in high-disagreement networks tend to shift their candidate preferences to align with their policy preferences regardless of their party identification. In low-disagreement networks, respondents tended to follow party over policy. In sum, the determinants of candidate preferences differ depending on individuals’ social networks. In some cases, disagreement may promote more normatively desirable political decision-making.
AbramowitzA. I. (2010). The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization, and American democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
2.
AlbertsonB.GadarianS. K. (2015). Anxious politics: Democratic citizenship in a threatening world. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BerinskyA. J.HuberG. A.LenzG. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351-368. doi:10.1093/pan/mpr057
4.
CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116
5.
CampbellA.ConverseP. E.MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (1960). The American voter. New York, NY: Wiley.
6.
ChenP. G.ApplebyJ.BorgidaE.CallaghanT. H.EkstromP. D.FarhartC. E.WilliamsA. L. (2014). The Minnesota Multi-Investigator 2012 Presidential Election Panel Study. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 14, 78-104. doi:10.1111/asap.12041
7.
DeBellM.KrosnickJ. A.LupiaA. (2010). Methodology report and user’s guide for the 2008–2009 ANES Panel Study. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.
8.
EaglyA. H.ChaikenS. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
9.
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
10.
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
FestingerL. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
13.
GorenP. (1997). Political expertise and issue voting in presidential elections. Political Research Quarterly, 50, 387-412. doi:10.1177/106591299705000207
14.
GreenM. C.VisserP. S.TetlockP. E. (2000). Coping with accountability cross-pressures: Low-effort evasive tactics and high-effort quests for complex compromises. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1380-1391. doi:10.1177/0146167200263006
15.
HarrisM.ZhaoX. (2007). A zero-inflated ordered probit model, with an application to modelling tobacco consumption. Journal of Econometrics, 14, 1073-1099. doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.01.002
16.
HeiderF. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: John Wiley.
17.
HillygusD. S.ShieldsT. G. (2008). The persuadable voter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
18.
HuckfeldtR.JohnsonP. E.SpragueJ. (2004). Political disagreement: The survival of diverse opinions within communication networks. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
HuckfeldtR.MendezJ. M. (2008). Moths, flames, and political engagement: Managing disagreement within communication networks. The Journal of Politics, 70, 83-96. doi:10.1017/S0022381607080073
21.
HuckfeldtR.MendezJ. M.OsbornT. (2004). Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology, 25, 65-95. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00357.x
22.
HuckfeldtR.SpragueJ. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
23.
KahnK. F.KenneyP. J. (1997). A model of candidate evaluations in senate elections: The impact of campaign intensity. The Journal of Politics, 59, 1173-1205. doi:10.2307/2998597
24.
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
25.
LavineH. G.JohnstonC. D.SteenbergenM. R. (2012). The ambivalent partisan: How critical loyalty promotes democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
26.
MarcusG. E.NeumanW. R.MacKuenM. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
27.
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.
28.
MutzD. C. (2002a). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review, 96, 111-126. doi:10.1017/S0003055402004264
29.
MutzD. C. (2002b). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 838-855. doi:10.2307/3088437
30.
MutzD. C. (2006). Hearing the other side. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
31.
NirL. (2005). Ambivalent social networks and their consequences for participation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 422-442. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh069
32.
ParsonsB. M. (2010). Social networks and the affective impact of political disagreement. Political Behavior, 32, 181-204. doi:10.1007/s11109-009-9100-6
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
36.
SinclairB. (2012). The social citizen: Peer networks and political behavior. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
37.
SnidermanP. M.StiglitzE. H. (2012). The reputational premium: A theory of party identification and policy reasoning. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38.
SnyderM. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537. doi:10.1037/h0037039
39.
StroudN. J. (2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
40.
VisserP. S.MirabileR. R. (2004). Attitudes in the social context: The impact of social network composition on individual-level attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 779-795. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.779
Supplementary Material
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.
