Search

• Average political network size varies cross-nationally, but is always right skewed. • Socio-demographic predictors have limited impact on political network size. • Political network size is associated with factors such as political involvement and engagement. • There is often cross-national variation in the predictors of political network size. Network size has a fundamental influence on other network properties. As studies of social network size have accumulated beyond the U.S. and Western Europe, diversity in the networks examined and methods used to construct size estimates have hindered the ability to make direct cross-national comparisons. We employ data from a summary political discussion network size measure in 17 surveys conducted in 15 countries between 2012 and 2018. We offer improved cross-national data on political network size distributions and estimate aggregate and country-specific models to understand the factors, both social and political, that predict political network size within countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presidential election campaigns provide opportunities for parents to socialize their children to become politically engaged citizens. However, news coverage of the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign contained inappropriate content, leading parents to possibly restrict or denigrate rather than encourage child campaign news consumption. This study built on literatures in political socialization and parental mediation to explore mediation of campaign news coverage. Data from a representative sample of American parents during the Autumn of 2016 revealed that co-viewing, active mediation, and restrictive mediation were relatively common. The predictors of mediation included political variables, parenting orientations, and child factors, with the latter two often interacting with one another. The results have implications for how we conceptualize both political socialization and parental mediation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary network heterogeneity measures are frequently used and often-cited in work on interpersonal political disagreement, but their properties are not well documented and they produce anomalous results relative to other measures of socially supplied disagreement. This study deconstructs the familiar summary network heterogeneity measure to examine why it produces incongruous results relative to other measures used in the literature. This study pays particular attention to the multiple strategies that exist for handling non-partisans when creating the measure. Additionally, it focuses on the “extreme views” items included in its construction, which are conceptually and methodologically distinct from other items and rarely theoretically justified. Results demonstrate that summary network heterogeneity is best thought of an as index, rather than as a scale, which has implications for how scholars should approach it. Critically, inclusion of the extreme views items and decisions about data exclusion also have substantive consequences; this highlights the need for further inquiry into extremity and for explicit reporting about data-handling decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study focuses on how different features of discussion networks and the contexts in which they reside are related to political ambivalence, participation, and knowledge. Using full sociometric network data derived from 25 different student activity organizations, we reveal complex implications of various facets of discussion networks and their contextual settings. Ambivalence is amplified by being highly central within a discussion network and a political minority within the group. Diversity of one’s egocentric discussion network increases participation, whereas closeness centrality was negatively correlated with participation. High levels of betweenness centrality were most positively associated with knowledge in groups that were relatively political in their orientation compared to those that were apolitical. The results support the argument that communication networks and the contextual settings in which they are situated should be more fully considered in the study of political communication effects. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In this study, we examine the influence of discussion frequency, network size, and 3 variables that together entangle the often misunderstood concept of network heterogeneity: discussion frequency with like-minded individuals (“safe” discussion), discussion frequency with nonlike-minded individuals (“dangerous” discussion), and diversity of discussion based on the proportion of safe and dangerous discussion. Data were gathered via a postelection random-digit dial telephone survey of residents of a battleground state ( N = 600) in November 2004. Three central dependent variables were measured: factual political knowledge, political knowledge structure density, and political participation. The results support the argument that different aspects of political discussion have different implications for different democratic outcomes-and that different conceptualizations and measures of discussion “heterogeneity” produce different results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]