Partisan Cross‐Pressure and Voter Turnout: The Influence of Micro and Macro Environments<sup>*</sup>

Bélanger, Paul; Eagles, Munroe

doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00486.x

Cited by 20 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Feldman and Price (2008), for instance, showed that discussion leads to increases in political knowledge mainly when disagreement within discussion network is low. More directly pertinent to this study, a number of studies have demonstrated the negative impact of disagreement on participation (Belanger & Eagles, 2007;McClurg, 2006aMcClurg, , 2006bMutz, 2006).…”

Section: Impact Of Disagreement On Participation and Type Of Participmentioning

confidence: 97%

Does Discussion With Disagreement Discourage All Types of Political Participation? Survey Evidence From Hong Kong

Lee

2011

Communication Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Past studies have found contradicting evidence regarding the influence of political discussion with disagreeing others on political participation. This study argues that the impact of discussion with disagreement is likely to depend on the type of parti cipatory activities involved. It conceptualizes a distinction between position-taking and nonposition-taking activities. The former refers to activities designed to have potential participants taking up a set position on a specific matter, whereas the latter refers to activities not designed as such. It is argued that discussion with disagreeing others is likely to suppress participation in position-taking activities, since such activities leave lesser room for participants to express the complexities of and possible ambivalence in their views. In contrast, discussion with disagreeing others may encourage parti cipation in nonposition-taking activities. Relevant hypotheses are tested with a survey conducted in Hong Kong examining the impact of discussion and disagreement on voting, protest participation, and calling into talk radio.

show abstract

Section: Impact Of Disagreement On Participation and Type Of Participmentioning

confidence: 97%

Does Discussion With Disagreement Discourage All Types of Political Participation? Survey Evidence From Hong Kong

Lee

2011

Communication Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is important to note that much of this current debate does not explicitly address households (for notable exceptions, see Bélanger and Eagles ; Bello and Rolfe ). Yet family or household members are regularly named as the most important or frequent discussion partners (Mutz , 126; Sinclair , 27).…”

Section: Social Influence In Partisan Householdsmentioning

confidence: 99%

All in the Family: Partisan Disagreement and Electoral Mobilization in Intimate Networks—A Spillover Experiment

Foos

Rooij

2016

American J Political Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We advance the debate about the impact of political disagreement in social networks on electoral participation by addressing issues of causal inference common in network studies, focusing on voters' most important context of interpersonal influence: the household. We leverage a randomly assigned spillover experiment conducted in the United Kingdom, combined with a detailed database of pretreatment party preferences and public turnout records, to identify social influence within heterogeneous and homogeneous partisan households. Our results show that intrahousehold mobilization effects are larger as a result of campaign contact in heterogeneous than in homogeneous partisan households, and larger still when the partisan intensity of the message is exogenously increased, suggesting discussion rather than behavioral contagion as a mechanism. Our results qualify findings from influential observational studies and suggest that within intimate social networks, negative correlations between political heterogeneity and electoral participation are unlikely to result from political disagreement. Forthcoming in the American Journal of Political ScienceFinal pre-publication version: June 10, 2016 AbstractWe advance the debate about the impact of political disagreement in social networks on electoral participation by addressing issues of causal inference common in network studies, focusing on voters' most important context of interpersonal influence: the household. We leverage a randomly assigned spillover experiment conducted in the UK, combined with a detailed database of pre-treatment party preferences and public turnout records, to identify social influence within heterogeneous and homogeneous partisan households. Our results show that intra-household mobilization effects are larger as a result of campaign contact in heterogeneous than in homogeneous partisan households, and larger still when the partisan intensity of the message is exogenously increased, suggesting discussion rather than behavioral contagion as a mechanism.Our results qualify findings from influential observational studies, and suggest that within intimate social networks, negative correlations between political heterogeneity and electoral participation are unlikely to result from political disagreement.

show abstract

“…The issue of social pressure on the decision making of youth is something of significant interest. Social pressures refer to the motivation to blend in with a group's norms, characteristics and attributes (Huang, Phau & Lin, 2008).According to Belanger and Eagles (2007), individuals exposed to contrasting views in their interpersonal relationships are likely to find themselves accountable to different constituencies, and therefore making it socially awkward for them to maintain strong views. Furthermore, the presence of a perceived threat from a source is likely to increase commonality and cohesion from the "threatened" group (Huang, Phau, & Lin, 2008).…”

Section: Social Pressuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

To Vote or Not To Vote: Marketing Factors Influencing the Voting Intention of University Students in Johannesburg

Morar¹,

Chuchu²

2015

JEBS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Voting intention has become an issue of concern worldwide with regard to successful political elections. With only 6% of South Africaâ€™s youth having registered to vote in the 2014 elections, it is of vital importance to get a better understanding of the main reasons behind these statistics and factors that have influenced voting intentions. Although several studies have explored this area of research, it remains a topic of interest. This research paper aims to examine the factors behind voting intention of the youth in South Africa, as most are in their first or second democratic election. This study adds to existing literature on political parties as brands and factors influencing the youthâ€™s intention to vote. These factors include advertising mediums, convenience factors of location and registration, and social pressures from peers or family on voting intention. By means of quantitative research, two hundred and fifty questionnaires were distributed amongst students from the University of Witwatersrand. The findings indicate that five of the six hypotheses are insignificant with the exception of radio advertising. The results of this study provide political parties with a better understanding of the factors that prove to be ineffective when targeting Generation Y consumers in South Africa. It further provides political parties with an opportunity to more successfully reach such individuals through other media platforms.

show abstract

Partisan Cross‐Pressure and Voter Turnout: The Influence of Micro and Macro Environments^*

Abstract: This article explores the impact of the partisan homogeneity/heterogeneity of a variety of group environments on patterns of voter turnout for recent presidential elections in Erie County, New York. Copyright (c) 2007 by the Southwestern Social Science Association.

Cited by 20 publications

References 7 publications

Does Discussion With Disagreement Discourage All Types of Political Participation? Survey Evidence From Hong Kong

Does Discussion With Disagreement Discourage All Types of Political Participation? Survey Evidence From Hong Kong

All in the Family: Partisan Disagreement and Electoral Mobilization in Intimate Networks—A Spillover Experiment

To Vote or Not To Vote: Marketing Factors Influencing the Voting Intention of University Students in Johannesburg

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Partisan Cross‐Pressure and Voter Turnout: The Influence of Micro and Macro Environments*

Abstract: This article explores the impact of the partisan homogeneity/heterogeneity of a variety of group environments on patterns of voter turnout for recent presidential elections in Erie County, New York. Copyright (c) 2007 by the Southwestern Social Science Association.

Cited by 20 publications

References 7 publications

Does Discussion With Disagreement Discourage All Types of Political Participation? Survey Evidence From Hong Kong

Does Discussion With Disagreement Discourage All Types of Political Participation? Survey Evidence From Hong Kong

All in the Family: Partisan Disagreement and Electoral Mobilization in Intimate Networks—A Spillover Experiment

To Vote or Not To Vote: Marketing Factors Influencing the Voting Intention of University Students in Johannesburg

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Partisan Cross‐Pressure and Voter Turnout: The Influence of Micro and Macro Environments^*