Experiencing political diversity: The mobilizing effect among youth

  • Allison Harell
  • Dietlind Stolle
  • Ellen Quintelier
Original Article
  • 32 Downloads

Abstract

Increasing interest in the political consequences of exposure to politically divergent viewpoints has revealed contrary findings. Although there is reason to believe that politically diverse networks should mobilize people into participation, some research finds inhibiting or negative effects on political participation. In recent work, this discrepancy has been explained by different measures of political diversity. In this article, we reconsider these two perspectives and offer a theoretical synthesis of the effects of political diversity by differentiating between individual and collective characteristics of different participatory acts. Drawing on the Canadian Youth Study, we test these assumptions among young people, who are particularly susceptible to peer influence. The results show that young people, who report higher levels of interpersonal political diversity are more likely to be engaged in a variety of political acts performed individually. However, there is no evidence that political diversity negatively affects more collective forms of political action that are based on face-to-face interactions. Thus, it is important to make distinctions between not only different measures of exposure to political diversity or disagreement but also the different nature of political actions that might be affected.

Keywords

political disagreement political diversity social networks youth political participation 

References

  1. Amadeo, J.A., Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Husfeldt, V. and Nikolova, R. (2002) Civic Knowledge and Engagement: An IEA Study of Upper Secondary Students in Sixteen Countries. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IEA.Google Scholar
  2. Arceneaux, K., Alan, S., Gerber, A. and Green, D. (2006) Comparing experimental and matching methods using a large-scale voter mobilization experiment. Political Analysis 14 (1): 37–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barabas, J. (2004) How deliberation affects policy opinions. American Political Science Review 98 (4): 687–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnes, S. and Kaase, M. (1979) Political Action. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Bélanger, P. and Eagles, M. (2007) Partisan cross-pressure and voter turnout: The influence of micro and macro environments. Social Science Quarterly 88 (3): 850–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blais, A., Gidengil, E., Nevitte, N. and Nadeau, R. (2004) Where does turnout decline come from? European Journal of Political Research 43 (2): 221–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blau, P.M. (1977) Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brady, H. (1999) Political participation. In: J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver and L.S. Wrightsman (eds.) Measures of Political Attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 737–801.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, B.B. (2004) Adolescents’ relationships with peers. In: R.M. Lerner and L. Steinberg (eds.) Handbook of Adolescent Psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 363–394.Google Scholar
  10. Burnstein, E. and Vinokur, A. (1975) What a person thinks upon learning he has chosen differently than others: Nice evidence for the persuasive-arguments explanation of choice shifts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 11 (5): 412–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burnstein, E., Vinokur, A. and Trope, Y. (1973) Interpersonal comparison versus persuasive argumentation: A more direct test of alternative explanations for group-induced shifts in individual choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology 9 (3): 236–245.Google Scholar
  12. Campbell, D. (2006) Why We Vote: How Schools and Communities Shape Our Civic Lives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cialdini, R. and Trost, M. (1998) Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In: D. Gilbert, S. Fiske and G. Lindzey (eds.) The Handbook of Social Psychology Vol. 24th edn. New York: McGraw Hill Press, pp. 151–192.Google Scholar
  14. Coleman, J. (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology 94 (Supplement): S95–S120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Collins, W.A. (1997) Relationships and development during adolescence: Interpersonal adaptation to individual change. Personal Relationships 4 (1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dalton, R. (2002) Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrialized Democracies, 3rd edn. New York: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  17. Dawson, R.E. and Prewitt, K. (1969) Political Socialization. Boston, MA: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  18. Eliasoph, N. (1998) Avoiding Politics: How Americans Produce Apathy in Everyday Life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Festinger, L. (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.Google Scholar
  20. Fiorina, M. (1990) Information and rationality in elections. In: J. Ferejohn and J. Kuklinski (eds.) Information and Democratic Processing. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  21. Fishkin, J. (1995) The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy. New Heaven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gerber, A.S., Green, D. and Shachar, R. (2003) Voting may be habit-forming: Evidence from a randomized field experiment. American Journal of Political Science 47 (3): 540–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Giles, M. and Dantico, M.K. (1982) Political participation and neighborhood social context revisited. American Journal of Political Science 26 (1): 144–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goel, S., Mason, M. and Watts, D. (2010) Real and perceived attitude agreement in social networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99 (4): 611–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Granovetter, M. (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78 (6): 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Granovetter, M. (1983) The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory 1: 201–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hartup, W.W. (1996) The company they keep: Friendships and their developmental significance. Child Development 67 (1): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Henn, M., Weinstein, M. and Forrest, S. (2005) Uninterested youth?: Young people’s attitudes toward party politics in Britain. Political Studies 53 (3): 556–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ho, D., Imai, K., King, G. and Stuart, E. (2007) Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis 15 (3): 199–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Huckfeldt, R. (1979) Political participation and the neighborhood context. American Journal of Political Science 23 (3): 579–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Huckfeldt, R. (2001) The social communication of political expertise. American Journal of Political Science 45 (2): 425–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huckfeldt, R., Beck, P.A., Dalton, R.J. and Levine, J. (1995) Political environments, cohesive social groups, and the communication of public opinion. American Journal of Political Science 39 (4): 1025–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Huckfeldt, R., Johnson, P.E. and Sprague, J.D. (2004) Political Disagreement: The Survival of Diverse Opinions within Communication Networks. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Huckfeldt, R., Mendez, J.M. and Osborn, T. (2004) Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology 25 (1): 65–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Huckfeldt, R. and Sprague, J.D. (1995) Citizens, Politics, and Social Communication: Information and Influence in an Election Campaign. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jang, S.-J. (2009) Are diverse political networks always bad for participatory democracy? Indifference, alienation, and political disagreement. American Politics Research 37 (5): 879–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jaros, D. (1973) Socialization to Politics: Basic Concepts in Political Science. Nairobi, Kenya: Nelson.Google Scholar
  38. Klofstad, C. (2007) Talk leads to recruitment: How discussion about politics and current events increase civic participation. Political Research Quarterly 60 (2): 180–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Klofstad, C. (2009) Civic talk and civic participation: The moderating effect of individual predispositions. American Politics Research 37 (5): 856–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Klofstad, C., Sokhey, A. and McClurg, S. (2012) Disagreeing about disagreement: How conflict in social networks affects political behavior. American Journal of Political Science 57 (1): 120–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Knoke, D. (1990) Networks of political action: Toward theory construction. Social Forces 68 (4): 1041–1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Koopmans, R. (1996) New social movements and changes in political participation in Western Europe. West European Politics 19 (1): 28–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Krueger, J. and Clement, R. (1994) The truly false consensus effect: An ineradicable and egocentric bias in social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 (4): 596–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lake, R.L.D. and Huckfeldt, R. (1998) Social networks, social capital, and political participation. Political Psychology 19 (3): 567–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lazarsfeld, P.F., Berelson, B. and Gaudet, H. (1948) The People’s Choice. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Leighley, J. (1990) Social interaction and contextual influences on political participation. American Politics Research 18 (4): 459–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Marien, S., Hooghe, M. and Quintelier, E. (2010) Inequalities in non-institutionalized forms of political participation. A multilevel analysis for 25 countries. Political Studies 58 (1): 187–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McClurg, S. (2003) Social networks and political participation: The role of social interaction in explaining political participation. Political Research Quarterly 56 (4): 449–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McClurg, S. (2006a) Political disagreement in context: The conditional effect of neighborhood context, disagreement and political talk on electoral participation. Political Behavior 28 (4): 349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McClurg, S. (2006b) 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
  51. McLeod, J.M. et al (1999) Understanding deliberation: The effects of discussion networks on participation in a public forum. Communication Research 26 (6): 743–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McPherson, J.M., Smith-Lovin, L. and Cook, J.M. (2001) Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27 (1): 415–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mutz, D. (2002a) Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review 96 (1): 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mutz, D. (2002b) The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science 46 (4): 838–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mutz, D. (2006) Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mutz, D. and Mondak, J. (2006) The workplace as a context for cross-cutting political discourse. Journal of Politics 68 (1): 140–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nir, L. (2005) Ambivalent social networks and their consequences for participation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 17 (4): 422–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pacheco, J.S. (2008) Political socialization context: The effect of political competition on youth voter turnout. Political Behavior 30 (4): 415–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Parker, S., Parker, G. and McCann, J. (2008) Opinion-taking within friendship networks. American Journal of Political Science 52 (2): 412–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pattie, C.J. and Johnston, R. (2009) Conversation, disagreement and political participation. Political Behavior 31 (2): 261–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Price, V., Cappella, J. and Nir, L. (2002) Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion. Political Communication 19 (1): 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Primo, D., Jacobsmeier, M. and Milyo, J. (2006) Estimating the impact of state policies and institutions with mixed-level data. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 7 (4): 446–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Putnam, R. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Putnam, R. (2007) E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century the 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies 30 (2): 137–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Robbins, J. and Krueger, J. (2005) Social projection to ingroups and outgroups: A review and meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review 9 (1): 32–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rosenbaum, P.R. and Rubin, D.B. (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70 (1): 41–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rubin, D.B. (1973) Matching to remove bias in observational studies. Biometrics 29 (1): 153–183.Google Scholar
  68. Scheufele, D.A., Nisbet, M., Brossard, D. and Nisbet, E. (2004) Social structure and citizenship: Examining the impact of social setting, network heterogeneity, and informational variables on political participation. Scandinavian Political Studies 26 (1): 49–66.Google Scholar
  69. Schlozman, K., Verba, S. and Brady, H. (2012) The Unheavenly Chorus. Unequal Political Voice and the Broken Promise of American Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Steenbergen, M. and Jones, B. (2002) Modeling multilevel data structures. American Journal of Political Science 46 (1): 218–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stolle, D. and Micheletti, M. (2013) Political Consumerism: Global Responsibility in Action. Cambridge, US: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stolle, D., Harell, A. and Maheo, V.-A. (2006) Dataset of the McGill Youth Survey 2006, Wave 1. Montreal: McGill University, Department of Political Science.Google Scholar
  73. Stolle, D., Hooghe, M. and Micheletti, M. (2005) Politics in the supermarket: Political consumerism as a form of political participation. International Political Science Review 26 (3): 245–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Teorell, J. (2003) Linking social capital to political participation: Voluntary associations and networks of recruitment in Sweden. Scandinavian Political Studies 26 (1): 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Torney-Purta, J. (1995) Psychological theory as a basis for political socialization research: individuals’ construction of knowledge. Perspectives on Political Science 24 (1): 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Ulbig, S. and Funk, C. (1999) Conflict avoidance and political participation. Political Behavior 21 (3): 265–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Van Deth, J. (2014) A conceptual map of political participation. Acta Politica 49 (3): 349–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. and Brady, H. (1995) Voice and Equality. Cambridge, US: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Zukin, C., Keeter, S., Andolina, M., Jenkins, K. and Delli Carpini, M. (2006) A New Engagement? Political Participation, Civic Life, and the Changing American Citizen. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allison Harell
    • 1
  • Dietlind Stolle
    • 2
  • Ellen Quintelier
    • 3
  1. 1.Centre for the Study of Democratic Citizenship, Université du Québec à MontréalMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Centre for the Study of Democratic Citizenship, McGill UniversityMontréalCanada
  3. 3.Katholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations