Political Behavior

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 793–816 | Cite as

Social Context and Information Seeking: Examining the Effects of Network Attitudinal Composition on Engagement with Political Information

Original Paper


The people we associate with everyday have an important influence on our exposure and reactions to political stimuli. Social network members in particular can have a dramatic impact on our political views and behavior. Prior research suggests that these attitudinal differences may reflect the information available in a social network: attitudinally congruent networks expose individuals to supporting positions, bolstering their views, while heterogeneous networks provide information on both sides of an issue, generating doubt and ambivalence. In contrast, the current studies examine the effects of individuals’ networks in motivating them to find and engage with new political information on their own. Using ANES panel data, a laboratory-based information board session that examines behavior in detail, and an experimental design that manipulates network composition, we find that individuals in attitudinally heterogeneous social networks are more likely to seek out and attend to political information. They spend more time looking for political information, and then (having found it) spend more time reviewing that new information compared to those whose network members are more like-minded. An experimental study further demonstrates that network composition causally determines these information-seeking preferences. Implications for democratic citizenship in light of these findings are discussed.


Social networks Political cognition 

Supplementary material

11109_2013_9247_MOESM1_ESM.docx (21 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 21 kb)


  1. Bello, J., & Rolfe, M. (in press). Is influence mightier than selection? Forging agreement in discussion networks during a campaign. Social Networks.Google Scholar
  2. Ben-Nun Bloom, P., & Levitan, L. C. (2011). We’re closer than I thought: Social network heterogeneity, morality, and political persuasion. Political Psychology, 32(4), 643–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Burt, R. S. (1985). General social survey network items. Connections, 8(1), 19–23.Google Scholar
  5. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73–96). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  8. Converse, P. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 260–261). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  9. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  10. DeWall, C. N., Visser, P. S., & Levitan, L. C. (2006). Openness to attitude change as a function of temporal perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(8), 1010–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  12. Fishkin, J. S. (1991). Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform. New Haven: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
  14. Goel, S., Mason, W., & Watts, D. J. (2010). Real and perceived attitude agreement in social networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 611–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holbrook, A. L., & Krosnick, J. A. (2010). Social desirability bias in voter turnout reports tests using the item count technique. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(1), 37–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1987). Networks in context: The social flow of political information. American Political Science Review, 81(4), 1197–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huckfeldt, R. R., & Sprague, J. D. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huckfeldt, R., Mendez, J. M., & Osborn, T. (2004). Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology, 25(1), 65–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kramer, M. W., Kuo, C. L., & Dailey, J. C. (1997). The impact of brainstorming techniques on subsequent group processes: Beyond generating ideas. Small Group Research, 28(2), 218–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kunda, Z. (1999). Social cognition: Making sense of people. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2006). How voters decide: Information processing in election campaigns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lavine, H. G., Johnston, C. D., & Steenbergen, M. R. (2012). The ambivalent partisan: How critical loyalty promotes democracy. USA: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lazer, D., Rubineau, B., Chetkovich, C., Katz, N., & Neblo, M. (2010). The coevolution of networks and political attitudes. Political Communication, 27(3), 248–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Levitan, L. C., & Visser, P. S. (2008). The impact of the social context on resistance to persuasion: Effortful versus effortless responses to counter-attitudinal information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 640–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Levitan, L. C., & Visser, P. S. (2009). Social network composition and attitude strength: Exploring the dynamics within newly formed social networks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(5), 1057–1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
  29. Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. The American Political Science Review, 88(1), 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. McClurg, S. 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(3), 737–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mutz, D. C. (2002a). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 838–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mutz, D. C. (2002b). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (2001). Extending the bases of subjective attitudinal ambivalence: Interpersonal and intrapersonal antecedents of evaluative tension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ryan, J. B. (2010). The effects of network expertise and biases on vote choice. Political Communication, 27(1), 44–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Simon, H. A. (1979). Information processing models of cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 30, 363–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Simon, H. A. (1990). Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 526–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Taber, C., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tomz, M., Wittenberg, J., & King, G. (2003). CLARIFY: Software for interpreting and presenting statistical results. Journal of Statistical Software, 8(1), 1–30.Google Scholar
  43. Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. A. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Visser, P. S., & Mirabile, R. 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(6), 779–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Welch, M. J. (1974). Infants’ visual attention to varying degrees of novelty. Child Development, 45, 344–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyShepherd UniversityShepherdstownUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceStony Brook UniversityStony BrookUSA

Personalised recommendations