Important Matters in Political Context

Abstract

Abstract:The 2004 General Social Survey (GSS) reported significant increases in social isolation and significant decreases in ego network size relative to previous periods. These results have been repeatedly challenged. Critics have argued that malfeasant interviewers, coding errors, or training effects lie behind these results. While each critique has some merit, none precisely identify the cause of decreased ego network size. In this article, we show that it matters that the 2004 GSS-unlike other GSS surveys-was fielded during a highly polarized election period. We find that the difference in network size between nonpartisan and partisan voters in the 2004 GSS is larger than in all other GSS surveys. We further discover that core discussion network size decreases precipitously in the period immediately around the first (2004) presidential debate, suggesting that the debate frames "important matters" as political matters. This political priming effect is stronger where geographic polarization is weaker and among those who are politically interested and talk about politics more often. Combined, these findings identify the specific mechanism for the reported decline in network size, indicate that inferences about increased social isolation in America arising from the 2004 GSS are unwarranted, and suggest the emergence of increased political isolation.

Political isolation in America

“…Additionally, there is evidence that the content of individuals' discussions with others that is identified as "important" is shaped by the survey context (Bailey & Marsden, 1999). 1 Similar contextual effects on the content of discussions individuals report having with others are observed in studies fielded during major elections (Lee & Bearman, 2017). 2 In this study, we use both the important matters and the political matters network name generators to measure how healthy our social networks were during the fall of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.…”

“…But, we also present the raw proportion without excluding relative ties in parenthesis. interviewer effects, survey mode, the role of election context, survey design, the wording of name generators, and so on (Bailey & Marsden, 1999;Brashears, 2011;Fischer, 2009;Lee & Bearman, 2017;Marsden, 1990;Matzat & Snijders, 2010;McPherson et al, 2006;McPherson et al, 2009;Paik & Sanchagrin, 2013). We consider these challenges seriously and explain how we address each challenge below.…”

“It could turn ugly”: Selective disclosure of attitudes in political discussion networks

“…Citizens' scant political interest, knowledge and engagement is often regarded as an obstacle to political deliberation (Converse 1963;Carpini and Keeter 1993;Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995). Indeed, Americans prefer to talk of other matters than politics (Bearman and Parigi 2004;Small 2013, Lee andBearman 2017). However, even occasional political conversations can provide information (Katz and Lazarsfeld 1955;Huckfeldt 2001;Parker, Parker, and McCann 2008) and serve as heuristics for political decision-making (Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier!2011;Baldassarri 2012).…”

Higher Education, Bigger Networks? Differences by Family Socioeconomic Background and Network Measures

“…Could you tell me whether or not you are a member of each type?" The list includes fraternal groups, service clubs, veterans' groups, political clubs, labor unions, sports groups, youth groups, school service groups, hobby or garden clubs, school fraternities or sororities, nationality groups, farm organizations, literary, art, discussion or study groups, 1 The rise in network isolation observed in the 2004 GSS data has been analyzed in great detail (e.g., Lee and Bearman 2016;Paik and Sanchagrin 2013). The present findings concerning personal networks are substantively unchanged if the 2004 data are omitted from multiyear regressions presented here.…”