Disagreement, Ambivalence, and Engagement: The Political Consequences of Heterogeneous Networks
Abstract
Individuals with similar political orientations may find themselves in dissimilar social and political surroundings, with important consequences for the flow of political information among citizens. Analyses of data from the post‐election survey of the 1900 National Election Study show that some individuals reside within extensive networks of political discussion and communication, whereas others are politically isolated. With respect to presidential candidate preference in 1900, some citizens in networks were surrounded by discussants who agreed with their preference, others by discussants who held ambiguous and undetermined preferences, and still others by discussants who held politically divergent preferences. These preference distributions have various implications for the formation of political opinion and for levels of political engagement and turnout.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
If a person is exposed to counter-attitudinal information, her attitudinal ambivalence would increase, thereby reducing affective polarization.
“If a person is exposed to counter-attitudinal information, her attitudinal ambivalence would increase, thereby reducing affective polarization (Huckfeldt et al., 2004;Mutz, 2006).”
From Do Search Algorithms Endanger Democracy? An Experimental Investigation of Algorithm Effects on Political Polarization (2020) · cites this paper as Huckfeldt et al., 2004
Whether offline or online, people tend to share information and discuss politics with like-minded others, but they are seldom completely cut off from disagreement.
“Whether offline202–204 or online205–207, people tend to share information and discuss politics with like-minded others, but they are seldom completely cut off from disagreement208.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [203]
Exposure to cross-cutting political views is associated with diminished political participation.
“exposure to cross-cutting political views is associated with diminished political participation25–27.”
From No echo in the chambers of political interactions on Reddit (2021) · cites this paper as [27]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 47 · Cited by 576
- Authors
- Huckfeldt, R., Mendez, J. M., & Osborn, T.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Davis (US)
- University of Houston (US)
- Indiana University (US)
- ORCID
- Osborn, Tracy
- Venue
- Political Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-01-14
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 65-95
- ISSN
- 0162-895X (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9221
- OpenAlex
- W2020040181
- Cited by
- 576
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 68 · 2021: 94 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 20
- FWCI
- 58.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Political Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
- Keywords
- political networks, political debate, political socialization, political opinion formation, political participation, voter turnout, 1900 presidential election, American National Election Studies, political conflict, political ambivalence, social networks
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
