Political Network Size and Its Antecedents and Consequences

Political Communication

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 371-394

  Eveland, William P ^a   Hutchens, Myiah J ^b   Morey, Alyssa C ^c  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^c STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

name generator; network hubs; network size; political discussion; political knowledge; political participation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84880631794     PISSN: 10584609     EISSN: 10917675     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10584609.2012.737433     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Altemeyer, B. 2002. Dogmatic behavior among students: Testing a new measure of dogmatism. Journal of Social Psychology, 142: 713 - 721.
2. Barabási, A. 2003. Linked: How everything is connected to everything else and what it means for business, science, and everyday life, New York, NY: Plume.
3. Bell, D. C., Belli-McQueen, B. and Haider, A. 2007. Partner naming and forgetting: Recall of network members. Social Networks, 29: 279 - 299.
4. Burt, R. S. 2005. Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
5. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E. and Kao, C. 1984. The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48: 306 - 307.
6. Cappella, J. N., Price, V. and Nir, L. 2002. Argument repertoire as a reliable and valid measure of opinion quality: Electronic dialogue during campaign 2000. Political Communication, 19: 73 - 93.
7. Centola, D. and Macy, N. 2007. Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties. American Journal of Sociology, 113: 702 - 734.
8. Christakis, N. A. and Fowler, J. 2009. Connected: The surprising power of our social networks and how they shape our lives, New York, NY: Little, Brown.
9. Clark, R. A. and Goldsmith, R. 2005. Market mavens: Psychological influences. Psychology & Marketing, 22: 289 - 312.
10. Clifton, A., Turkheimer, E. and Oltmanns, T. 2009. Personality disorder in social networks: Network position as a marker of interpersonal dysfunction. Social Networks, 31: 26 - 32.
11. DiPrete, T. A., Gelman, A., McCormick, T., Teitler, J. and Zheng, T. 2011. Segregation in social networks based on acquaintanceship and trust. American Journal of Sociology, 116: 1234 - 1283.
12. Eveland, W. P. Jr. and Hively, M. 2009. Political discussion frequency, network size, and 'heterogeneity' of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation. Journal of Communication, 59: 205 - 224.
13. Eveland, W. P. Jr. and Kleinman, S. 2013. Comparing general and political discussion networks within voluntary organizations using social network analysis. Political Behavior, 35: 65 - 87.
14. Fischer, C. S. 1982. To dwell among friends: Personal networks in town and city, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
15. Fowler, J. H. 2005. " Turnout in a small world ". In The social logic of politics: Personal networks as contexts for political behavior, Edited by: Zuckerman, A. S. 269 - 287. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
16. Fowler, J. H., Heaney, M., Nickerson, D., Padgett, J. and Sinclair, B. 2011. Causality in political networks. American Politics Research, 39: 437 - 480.
17. Franks, D. W., Noble, J., Kaufmann, P. and Stagl, S. 2008. Extremism propagation in social networks with hubs. Adaptive Behavior, 16: 264 - 274.
18. Gil de Zúñiga, H. and Valenzuela, S. 2011. The mediating path to a stronger citizenship: Online and offline networks, weak ties, and civic engagement. Communication Research, 38: 397 - 421.
19. Granovetter, M. S. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78: 1360 - 1380.
20. Hayes, A. F., Glynn, C. and Shanahan, J. 2005. Willingness to self-censor: A construct and measurement tool for public opinion research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17: 289 - 323.
21. Hayes, A. F., Matthes, J. and Eveland, W. P. Jr. (2013). Stimulating the quasi-statistical organ: Fear of social isolation motivates the quest for knowledge of the opinion climate. Communication Research, 40, 439-462.
22. Himelboim, I. 2011. Civil society and online political discourse: The network structure of unrestricted discussions. Communication Research, 38: 634 - 659.
23. Himelboim, I., Gleave, E. and Smith, M. 2009. Discussion catalysts in online political discussions: Content importers and conversation starters. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14: 771 - 789.
24. Hindman, M. 2009. The myth of digital democracy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25. Hoffman, L. H. and Eveland, W. P. Jr. 2010. Assessing causality in the relationship between community attachment and local news media use. Mass Communication & Society, 13: 174 - 195.
26. Huckfeldt, R. and Sprague, J. 1995. Citizens, politics, and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
27. Jackson, M. O. 2008. Social and economic networks, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28. Jang, S. 2009. Are diverse political networks always bad for participatory democracy? Indifference, alienation, and political disagreements. American Politics Research, 37: 879 - 898.
29. Kwak, N., Williams, A., Wang, X. and Lee, H. 2005. Talking politics and engaging politics: An examination of the interactive relationships between structural features of political talk and discussion engagement. Communication Research, 32: 87 - 111.
30. Lake, R. and Huckfeldt, R. 1998. Social capital, social networks, and political participation. Political Psychology, 19: 567 - 584.
31. Lin, N., Fu, Y. and Hsung, R. 2001. " The position generator: Measurement techniques for investigations of social capital ". In Social capital: Theory and research, Edited by: Lin, N., Cook, K. and Burt, R. S. 57 - 81. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
32. Long, J. S. 1997. Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33. Marin, A. 2004. Are respondents more likely to list alters with certain characteristics? Implications for name generator data. Social Networks, 26: 289 - 307.
34. Marsden, P. V. 2003. Interviewer effects in measuring network size using a single name generator. Social Networks, 25: 1 - 16.
35. Marsden, P. V. 2005. " Recent developments in network measurement ". In Models and methods in social network analysis, Edited by: Carrington, P. J., Scott, J. and Wasserman, S. 8 - 30. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
36. McCarty, C., Killworth, P., Bernard, H., Johnsen, E. and Shelley, G. 2001. Comparing two methods for estimating network size. Human Organization, 60: 28 - 39.
37. McCormick, T. H., Salganik, M. and Zheng, T. 2010. How many people do you know?: Efficiently estimating personal network size. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 105: 59 - 70.
38. McLeod, J. M., Scheufele, D. A., Moy, P., Horowitz, E. M., Holbert, R. L., Zhang, W. and Zubric, J. 1999. Understanding deliberation: The effects of discussion networks on participation in a public forum. Communication Research, 26: 743 - 774.
39. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L. and Brashears, M. 2009. Models and marginals: Using survey evidence to study social networks. American Sociological Review, 74: 670 - 681.
40. Mondak, J. J., Hibbing, M. V., Canache, D., Seligson, M. A. and Anderson, M. R. 2010. Personality and civic engagement: An integrative framework for the study of trait effects on political behavior. American Political Science Review, 104: 85 - 110.
41. Morey, A. C., Eveland, W. P. Jr. and Hutchens, M. J. 2012. The who matters: Types of interpersonal relationships and avoidance of political disagreement. Political Communication, 29: 86 - 103.
42. Moy, P. and Gastil, J. 2006. Predicting deliberative conversation: The impact of discussion networks, media use, and political cognitions. Political Communication, 23: 443 - 460.
43. Mutz, D. C. 2002a. Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review, 96: 111 - 126.
44. Mutz, D. C. 2002b. The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46: 838 - 855.
45. Nir, L. 2005. Ambivalent social networks and their consequences for participation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17: 422 - 442.
46. Pattie, C. J. and Johnston, R. J. 2009. Conversation, disagreement and political participation. Political Behavior, 31: 261 - 285.
47. Pool, I. and Kochen, M. 1978. Contacts and influence. Social Networks, 1: 5 - 51.
48. Putnam, R. D. 2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community, New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
49. Roberts, J. M. Jr. and Brewer, D. 2001. Measures and tests of heaping in discrete quantitative distributions. Journal of Applied Statistics, 28: 887 - 896.
50. Roberts, S., Dunbar, R., Pollet, T. and Kuppens, T. 2009. Exploring variation in active network size: Constraints and ego characteristics. Social Networks, 31: 138 - 146.
51. Roch, C. H. 2005. The dual roots of opinion leadership. Journal of Politics, 67: 110 - 131.
52. Rojas, H. 2008. Strategy versus understanding: How orientations toward political conversation influence political engagement. Communication Research, 35: 452 - 480.
53. Rojas, H., Shah, D. V. and Friedland, L. 2011. A communicative approach to social capital. Journal of Communication, 61: 689 - 712.
54. Scott, J. 1991. Social network analysis: A handbook, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
55. Shah, D. V. and Scheufele, D. A. 2006. Explicating opinion leadership: Nonpolitical dispositions, information consumption, and civic participation. Political Communication, 23: 1 - 22.
56. Siegel, D. A. 2009. Social networks and collective action. American Journal of Political Science, 53: 122 - 138.
57. Son, J. and Lin, N. 2008. Social capital and civic action: A network-based approach. Social Science Research, 37: 330 - 349.
58. Vallabhajosyula, R. R., Chakravarti, D., Lutfeali, S., Ray, A. and Raval, A. 2009. Identifying hubs in protein interaction networks. PLoS One, 4: e5344
59. Weimann, G. 1994. The influentials: People who influence people, Albany: State University of New York Press.
60. Zheng, T., Salganik, M. J. and Gelman, A. 2006. How many people do you know in prison?: Using overdispersion in count data to estimate social structure in networks. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101: 409 - 423.