Political Behavior

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 181–204 | Cite as

Social Networks and the Affective Impact of Political Disagreement

Original Paper

Abstract

Although few studies have explored the link between emotion and political talk, here I argue that political disagreement depolarizes emotional reactions via information exchanged in social networks. Analyzing data from the ANES 2008–2009 Panel Study, several conclusions are drawn. First, disagreement increases negative emotions and decreases positive emotions toward the in-party candidate, and also increases positive emotions and decreases negative emotions toward the out-party candidate. In other words, disagreement depolarizes emotions toward political candidates. Second, the affective impact of disagreement does not vary with political knowledge. Finally, positive emotions toward the out-party candidate and negative emotions toward the in-party candidate reduce political interest, candidate issue placement accuracy, and political participation. Overall, this study develops important theoretical connections between affect and political talk that have implications for the value of political disagreement.

Keywords

Social networks Emotion Affect Political disagreement Political sophistication Political participation 

References

  1. Ahn, T. K., Huckfeldt, R., & Ryan, J. B. (2007). Political expertise, shared biases, and patterns of political communication. Presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  2. Barabas, J. (2004). How deliberation affects policy opinions. American Political Science Review, 98, 687–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baybeck, B., & Huckfeldt, R. (2002). Urban contexts, spatially dispersed networks, and the diffusion of political information. Political Geography, 21, 195–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck, P. A., Dalton, R. J., Greene, S., & Huckfeldt, R. (2002). The social calculus of voting: Interpersonal, media, and organizational influences on presidential choices. American Political Science Review, 96, 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Brader, T. (2005). Striking a responsive chord: How political ads motivate and persuade voters by appealing to emotions. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 388–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brader, T. (2006). Campaigning for hearts and minds: How emotional appeals in political Ads work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cowden, J. A., & McDermott, R. M. (2000). Short-term forces and partisanship. Political Behavior, 22, 197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crigler, A., Just, M., & Belt, T. (2006). Three faces of negative campaigning: The democratic implications of attack ads, cynical news and fear-arousing messages. In D. P. Redlawsk (Ed.), Feelings politics: Emotion in political information processing. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  10. DeBell, M., Krosnick, J. A., Lupia, A., & Roberts, C. (2009). User’s guide to the advance release of the 2008–2009 ANES Panel Study. Palo Alto, CA, and Ann Arbor, MI: Stanford University and University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  11. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  12. Ekman, P., & Rosenberg, E. K. (1998). What the face reveals: Basic and applied studies of spontaneous expression using the facial action coding system. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2004). Why deliberative democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hall, C. (2005). The trouble with passion: Political theory beyond the reign of reason. New York: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
  16. Ho, D. E., Imai, K., King, G., & Stuart, E. A. (2007a). Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis, 15, 199–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ho, D. E., Imai, K., King, G., & Stuart, E. A. (2007b). MatchIt: Nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal inference. Journal of Statistical Software, http://gking.havard.edu/matchit.
  18. Huckfeldt, R. (2001). The social communication of political expertise. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 425–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huckfeldt, R., Johnson, P. E., & Sprague, J. (2004). Political disagreement: The survival of diverse opinions within communication networks. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1987). Networks in context: The social flow of political information. American Political Science Review, 81, 1197–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huddy, L., Feldman, S., & Cassese, E. (2007). On the distinct effects of anxiety and anger. In W. R. Neuman, G. E. Marcus, A. N. Crigler, & M. MacKuen (Eds.), The affect effect: Dynamics of emotion in political thinking and behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Imai, K., King, G., & Lau, O. (2007). Ologit: Ordinal logistic regression for ordered categorical dependent variables. In K. Imai, G. King, & O. Lau (Eds.), Zelig: Everyones statistical software. http://gking.harvard.edu/zeli.
  24. Imai, K., King, G., & Lau, O. (2008). Toward a common frame-work for statistical analysis and development. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 17, 892–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Imai, K., King, G., & Lau, O. (2009). Zelig: Everyones statistical software. http://GKing.Harvard.Edu/zeli.
  26. Imai, K., & van Dyk, D. A. (2004). Causal inference with general treatment regimes: Generalizing the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 99, 854–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kenny, C. B. (1992). Political participation and effects from the social environment. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 259–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. King, G., & Zeng, L. (2007). When can history be our guide? The pitfalls of counterfactual inference. International Studies Quarterly, 51, 183–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klofstad, C. A. (2007). Talk leads to recruitment: How discussion about politics and current events increase civic participation. Political Research Quarterly, 60, 180–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leighley, J. E. (1990). Social interaction and contextual influences on political participation. American Politics Quarterly, 18, 459–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lodge, M., & Taber, C. (2000). Three steps toward a theory of motivated reasoning. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lodge, M., & Taber, C. (2005). The automaticity of affect for political leaders, groups, and issues: An experimental test of the hot cognition hypothesis. Political Psychology, 26, 455–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  34. MacKuen, M. B. (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. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  35. MacKuen, M., Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & Keele, L. (2007). The third way: The theory of affective intelligence and American democracy. In W. R. Neuman, G. E. Marcus, A. N. Crigler, & M. MacKuen (Eds.), The affect effect: Dynamics of emotion in political thinking and behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Marcus, G. E. (2000). Emotions in politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 221–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marcus, G. E., & MacKuen, M. B. (1993). Anxiety, enthusiasm, and the vote: The emotional underpinnings of learning and involvement during presidential campaigns. American Political Science Review, 87, 672–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marcus, G. E., & MacKuen, M. B. (2001). Emotions and politics: The dynamic functions of emotionality. In J. H. Kuklinski (Ed.), Citizens and politics: Perspectives from political psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Marcus, G. E., MacKuen, M., Wolak, J., & Keele, L. (2006). The measure and mismeasure of emotion. In D. P. Redlawsk (Ed.), Feeling politics: Emotion in political information processing. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  40. Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Masters, R. D., & Sullivan, D. G. (1989). Nonverbal behavior and leadership: Emotion and cognition in political information processing. In S. Iyengar & W. J. McGuire (Eds.), Explorations in political psychology. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  42. McClurg, S. D. (2003). Social networks and political participation: The role of social interactions in explaining political participation. Political Research Quarterly, 56, 448–464.Google Scholar
  43. McClurg, S. D. (2006a). Political disagreement in context: The conditional effect of neighborhood context, disagreement and political talk on electoral participation. Political Behavior, 28, 349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McClurg, S. D. (2006b). 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McDermott, R. (2002). Experimental methodology in political science. Political Analysis, 10, 325–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Morgan, S. L., & Winship, C. (2007). Counterfactuals and causal inference: Methods and principles for social research. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Mutz, D. C. (2002a). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review, 96, 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mutz, D. C. (2002b). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 838–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mutz, D. C., & Mondak, J. J. (2006). The workplace as a contest for cross-cutting political discourse. Journal of Politics, 68, 140–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. R Development Core Team. (2009). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.or.
  52. Redlawsk, D. P., Civettini, A. J. W., & Lau, R. R. (2007). Affective intelligence and voting: Information processing and learning in a campaign. In W. R. Neuman, G. E. Marcus, A. N. Crigler, & M. MacKuen (Eds.), The affect effect: Dynamics of emotion in political thinking and behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  53. Schreiber, D. (2007). Political cognition as social cognition: Are we all political sophisticates? In W. R. Neuman, G. E. Marcus, A. N. Crigler, & M. MacKuen (Eds.), The affect effect: Dynamics of emotion in political thinking and behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  54. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Taber, C. S., Glathar, J., & Lodge, M. (2001). The motivated construction of political judgments. In J. H. Kuklinski (Ed.), Citizens and politics: Perspectives from political psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations