Uncovering the structural underpinnings of political discussion networks: Evidence from an exponential random graph model

Journal of Communication

Volumn 65, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 146-169

  Song, Hyunjin ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Exponential Random Graph Models; General Discussion; Meta Analysis; Network Structuring Processes; Political Discussion

Indexed keywords

GRAPHICAL METHOD; META-ANALYSIS; POLITICS; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 84922946360     PISSN: 00219916     EISSN: 14602466     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jcom.12140     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Altemeyer, B. (2002). Dogmatic behavior among students: Testing a new measure of dogmatism. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142(6), 713-721. doi:10.1080/00224540209603931.
2. Barabási, A., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286(5439), 509-512. doi:10.1126/science.286.5439.509.
3. Bello, J., & Rolfe, M. (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.
4. Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1(2), 99-112. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x.
5. Borgatti, S. P., Carley, K., & Krackhardt, D. (2006). On the robustness of centrality measures under conditions of imperfect data. Social Networks, 28(2), 124-136. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2005.05.001.
6. Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., & Christenson, D. P. (2014). The evolution and formation of amicus curiae networks. Social Networks, 36, 82-96. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2012.07.003.
7. Brady, H. E., Verba, S., & Schlozman, K. L. (1995). Beyond SES: A resource model of political participation. American Journal of Political Science Review, 89(2), 271-294.
8. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9. Cappella, J. N., Price, V., & Nir, L. (2002). Argument repertoire as a reliable and valid measure of opinion quality. Political Communication, 19(1), 73-93. doi:10.1080/105846002317246498.
10. Cartwright, D., & Harary, F. (1956). Structural balance: A generalization of Heider's theory. Psychological Review, 63(5), 277-293. doi:10.1037/h0046049.
11. Cho, J., Shah, D. V., McLeod, J. M., McLeod, D. M., Scholl, R. M., & Gotlieb, M. R. (2009). Campaigns, reflection, and deliberation: Advancing an O-S-R-O-R model of communication effects. Communication Theory, 19(1), 66-88. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.01333.x.
12. Conover, P. J., & Searing, D. D. (2005). Studying 'everyday political talk' in the deliberative system. Acta Politica, 40, 269-283. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500113.
13. Delli Carpini, M. X., Cook, F. L., & Jacobs, L. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7(1), 315-344. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630.
14. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). From democratic theory to democratic practice: The case for an informed citizenry. In What Americans know about politics and why it matters (pp. 22-61). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
15. Desmarais, B. A., & Cranmer, S. J. (2012). Micro-level interaction of exponential random graph models with application to estuary networks. Policy Studies Journal, 40(3), 402-434. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2012.00459.x.
16. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
17. Eliasoph, N. (1998). Avoiding politics: How Americans produce apathy in everyday life. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
18. Eveland, W. P., Jr., & Hively, M. H. (2009). Political discussion frequency, network size, and "heterogeneity" of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation. Journal of Communication, 59(2), 205-224. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01412.x.
19. Eveland, W. P., Jr., Hutchens, M. J., & Morey, A. C. (2012). Social networks and political knowledge. In H. Semetko & M. Scammell (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of political communication. London, England: Sage.
20. Eveland, W. P., Jr., Hutchens, M. J., & Morey, A. C. (2013). Political network size and its antecedents and consequences. Political Communication, 30(3), 371-394. doi:10.1080/10584609.2012.737433.
21. Eveland, W. P., Jr., & Kleinman, S. B. (2013). Comparing general and political discussion networks within voluntary organizations using social network analysis. Political Behavior, 35(1), 65-87. doi:10.1007/s11109-011-9187-4.
22. Eveland, W. P., Jr., Morey, A. C., & Hutchens, M. J. (2011). Beyond deliberation: New directions for the study of informal political conversation from a communication perspective. Journal of Communication, 61(6), 1082-1103. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01598.x.
23. Feld, S. L. (1981). The focused organization of social ties. American Journal of Sociology, 86(5), 1015-1035.
24. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
25. Gondal, N., & McLean, P. D. (2013). What makes a network go round? Exploring the structure of a strong component with exponential random graph models. Social Networks, 35(4), 499-513. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2013.06.004.
26. Goodreau, S. M., Kitts, J. A., & Morris, M. (2009). Birds of a feather, or friend of a friend? Using exponential random graph models to investigate adolescent social networks. Demography, 46(1), 103-125. doi:10.1353/dem.0.0045.
27. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.
28. Hammer, M. (1984). Explorations into the meaning of social network interview data. Social Networks, 6(4), 341-371. doi:10.1016/0378-8733(84)90008-X.
29. Handcock, M. S., Hunter, D. R., Butts, C. T., Goodreau, S. M., Krivitsky, P., & Morris, M. (2013). ERGM: Fit, simulate and diagnose exponential-family models for networks. The Statnet Project. R package version 3.1-0. Retrieved from http://www.statnet.org
30. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley.
31. Huckfeldt, R. (2001). The social communication of political expertise. American Journal of Political Science, 45(2), 425-438.
32. Huckfeldt, R., Mendez, J. M., & Osborn, T. L. (2004). Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology, 25(1), 65-95. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00357.x.
33. Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
34. Hunter, D. R., & Handcock, M. S. (2006). Inference in curved exponential family models for networks. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 15(3), 565-583. doi:10.1198/106186006X133069.
35. Hunter, D. R., Handcock, M. S., Butts, C. T., Goodreau, S. M., & Morris, M. (2008). Ergm: A package to fit, simulate and diagnose exponential-family models for networks. Journal of Statistical Software, 24(3), 1-29.
36. Kalish, Y., & Robins, G. (2006). Psychological predispositions and network structure: The relationship between individual predispositions, structural holes and network closure. Social Networks, 28(1), 56-84. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2005.04.004.
37. Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communication. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
38. Kim, J., & Kim, E. J. (2008). Theorizing dialogic deliberation: Everyday political talk as communicative action and dialogue. Communication Theory, 18(1), 51-70. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00313.x.
39. Kim, J., Wyatt, R., & Katz, E. (1999). News, talk, opinion, participation: The part played by conversation in deliberative democracy. Political Communication, 16(4), 361-385. doi:10.1080/105846099198541.
40. Klofstad, C. A., McClurg, S. D., & Rolfe, M. (2009). Measurement of political discussion networks: A comparison of two "name generator" procedures. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(3), 462-483. doi:10.1093/poq/nfp032.
41. Kogovsek, T., & Ferligoj, A. (2005). Effects on reliability and validity of egocentered network measurements. Social Networks, 27(3), 205-229. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2005.01.001.
42. Krivitsky, P. N. (2012). Exponential-family random graph models for valued networks. Electronic Journal of Statistics, 6, 1100-1128. doi:10.1214/12-EJS696.
43. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 951-971.
44. Lazarsfeld, P., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944/1968). The people's choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
45. Lazer, D., Rubineau, B., Chetkovich, C., Katz, N., & Neblo, M. (2010). The coevolution of networks and political attitudes. Political Communication, 27(3), 248-274. doi:10.1080/10584609.2010.500187.
46. Liu, Y.-I., & Eveland, W. P., Jr. (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(4), 910-929. doi:10.1177/107769900508200410.
47. Louch, H. (2000). Personal network integration: Transitivity and homophily in strong-tie relations. Social Networks, 22(1), 45-64. doi:10.1016/S0378-8733(00)00015-0.
48. Lubbers, M. J., & Snijders, T. A. B. (2007). A comparison of various approaches to the exponential random graph model: A reanalysis of 102 student networks in school classes. Social Networks, 29(4), 489-507. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2007.03.002.
49. Lusher, D., Koskinen, J., & Robins, G. (2013). Exponential random graph models for social networks: Theory, methods, and applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
50. Luskin, R. C. (1990). Explaining political sophistication. Political Behavior, 12(4), 331-361.
51. Mansbridge, J. J. (1999). Everyday talk in the deliberative system. In S. Macedo (Ed.), Deliberative politics: Essays on democracy and disagreement (pp. 211-239). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
52. Marsden, P. V. (1987). Core discussion networks of Americans. American Sociological Review, 52(1), 122-131.
53. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415.
54. Mondak, J. (2010). Personality and the foundations of political behavior. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
55. Morey, A. C., Eveland, W. P., Jr., & Hutchens, M. J. (2012). The "who" matters: Types of interpersonal relationships and avoidance of political disagreement. Political Communication, 29(1), 86-103. doi:10.1080/10584609.2011.641070.
56. Mutz, D. C. (2002). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 838-855.
57. Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
58. Newman, M. E. J. (2001). Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks. Physical Review E, 64(2), 025102. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.64.025102.
59. Nir, L. (2011). Disagreement and opposition in social networks: Does disagreement discourage turnout? Political Studies, 59(3), 674-692. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2010.00873.x.
60. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
61. Robins, G., Pattison, P., Kalish, Y., & Lusher, D. (2007). An introduction to exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks. Social Networks, 29(2), 173-191. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2006.08.002.
62. Robins, G., Pattison, P., & Wang, P. (2009). Closure, connectivity and degree distributions: Exponential random graph (p*) models for directed social networks. Social Networks, 31(2), 105-117. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2008.10.006.
63. Rokeach, M. (1954). The nature and meaning of dogmatism. Psychological Review, 61(3), 194-204. doi:10.1037/h0060752.
64. Scheufele, D. A., Hardy, B. W., Brossard, D., Waismel-Manor, I. S., & Nisbet, E. (2006). Democracy based on difference: Examining the links between structural heterogeneity, heterogeneity of discussion networks, and democratic citizenship. Journal of Communication, 56(4), 728-753. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00317.x.
65. Scheufele, D. A., & Shah, D. V. (2000). Personality strength and social capital: The role of dispositional and informational variables in the production of civic participation. Communication Research, 27(2), 107-131. doi:10.1177/009365000027002001.
66. Schudson, M. (1997). Why conversation is not the soul of democracy. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 14(4), 297-309. doi:10.1080/15295039709367020.
67. Shah, D. V., & Scheufele, D. A. (2006). Explicating opinion leadership: Nonpolitical dispositions, information consumption, and civic participation. Political Communication, 23(1), 1-22. doi:10.1080/10584600500476932.
68. Shumate, M., & Palazzolo, E. T. (2010). Exponential random graph (p*) models as a method for social network analysis in communication research. Communication Methods and Measures, 4(4), 341-371. doi:10.1080/19312458.2010.527869.
69. Simmel, G. (1950/1917). The sociology of Georg Simmel. (Wolff, K. H. Trans.). Glencoe, IL: The Free Press (Original work published 1917).
70. Sinclair, B. (2012). The social citizen: Peer networks and political behavior. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
71. Song, H., & Eveland, W. P., Jr. (in press). The structure of communication network matters: How network diversity, centrality, and context influence political ambivalence, participation, and knowledge. Political Communication. doi:10.1080/10584609.2014.882462.
72. Walsh, K. C. (2004). Talking about politics: Informal groups and social identity in American life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
73. Wang, D. J., Shi, X., McFarland, D. A., & Leskovec, J. (2012). Measurement error in network data: A re-classification. Social Networks, 34(4), 396-409. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2012.01.003.
74. Wyatt, R. O., Katz, E., & Kim, J. (2000). Bridging the spheres: Political and personal conversation in public and private spaces. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 71-92. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02834.x.
75. Zuckerman, A. (2005). Returning to the social logic of politics. In A. Zuckerman (Ed.), The social logic of politics: Personal networks as contexts for political behavior (pp. 3-20). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.