POLI 100M: Poli-cal Psychology Lecture 9: Social Networks, Poli-cal - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

POLI 100M: Poli-cal Psychology Lecture 9: Social Networks, Poli-cal Discussion, and Social Media Taylor N. Carlson Deenstr@ucsd.edu

Announcements • Final project is due Saturday, Sept. 9, 11:30am – Submit to Turn it In on TritonEd – Review the rubric and detailed assignment guidelines on TritonEd • Office hours this week: Tuesday and Thursday 2:30-4:30. Email me if you want to meet, but can’t make it to office hours. • I will get you feedback on your rough draVs as quickly as I can

Last Time • Different types of polariza-on – Issue – Sor-ng – Affec-ve • Social iden-ty theory and moral founda-ons theory as explana-ons for at least affec-ve polariza-on • Apoli-cal differences between liberals and conserva-ves

What ques-ons do you have?

Today: Driving Ques-ons • How do individuals experience poli-cal discussions? • Why and with whom do individuals discuss (or avoid discussing) poli-cs? • How do individuals engage with poli-cs on social media?

Today: Learning Outcomes • Explain some of the ways in which social networks impact poli-cal behavior • Define the following key terms: poli-cal discussion network, name generator, homophily, homogeneous discussion network, heterogeneous discussion network, conflict avoidance, social anxiety, poli-cal discussant, echo chamber, opinion leader, poli-cal informant • Explain how social media has (or has not) changed the way in which individuals learn about and discuss poli-cs • Propose ideas for how campaigns and elected officials can use social media to engage with ci-zens

Social Networks

Social Networks • An organized set of people that consists of two kinds of elements: human beings and the connec-ons between them (Christakis & Fowler 2010)

Social Networks • Influen-al on lots of behaviors and adtudes – Health behaviors (exercise, weight, smoking, etc.) – Emo-ons (smiling/happiness is contagious) – Adtudes – Good Read: Connected: How Your Friends’ Friends’ Friends Affect Everything You Feel, Think, and Do (Christakis & Fowler) • As discussed on the Colbert Report • TED Talk • Impact on poli%cal behaviors and adtudes too!

Poli-cal Networks • Consists of the social network members with whom an individual discusses poli-cs, elec-ons, or government (Sinclair 2012)

How do we examine poli-cal networks? • Please list the first and last names of the people with whom you have discussed poli-cs, campaigns, elec-ons, or government in the past three months. • Next to each person’s name, please write the poli-cal party with which they iden-fy

Poli-cal Networks • Low Density: Rare for poli-cal discussion partners of one person to be socially connected to another • Asymmetric: Individual iden-fies someone as a poli-cal discussant, but s/he may not reciprocate – Richard and Emily say that they discuss poli-cs with Lorelai, but Lorelai doesn’t say that she discusses poli-cs with Richard and Emily • Small: Only 18% name four people with whom they discuss poli-cs • Strong Ties: mostly rela-ves, close friends

Poli-cal Networks: Homophily • Homophily: the tendency of an individual to associate with similar others • In what ways might poli-cal networks be homophilous?

Poli-cal Networks: Homophily • Looking at par-sanship, are networks homophilous? • Homogeneous network: A poli-cal network in which discussants have the same poli-cal opinions, party iden-fica-ons, etc. • Heterogeneous network: A poli-cal network in which discussants have different poli-cal opinions, party iden-fica-ons, etc.

Homogeneous Network Heterogeneous Network = Democrat = Republican

Par-san Homophily in Poli-cal Networks • Generally, poli-cal networks are homogeneous • But , the degree of (dis)agreement in networks depends on what we do with Independents – If Independents are considered copar-sans: ~84-90% of discussants in a network are copar-sans à preky homogeneous – If Independents are not considered copar-sans: ~73-80% of discussants in a network are copar-sans à s-ll preky homogeneous, but much less so

How much choice do we have over our discussants? • Generally, we get to decide with whom we discuss poli-cs, but our op-ons can be constrained by: – Geography – Workplace – Psychological pressures

Psychological Factors • Consistency theory • Personality traits – Social Anxiety – Conflict Avoidance • Physiological reac-vity

Why do we care about homophily? • Informa-on Sharing • Poli-cal Engagement – Mobiliza-on Theory: Individuals in heterogeneous networks (exposed to disagreement) are more likely to seek informa-on à other forms of par-cipa-on – Ambivalence Theory: Individuals in heterogeneous networks (exposed to disagreement) experience “cross-pressure” and become ambivalent à do not par-cipate

Can Personality Condi-on the Effects of Disagreement? • Lyons et al. (2016) argue yes • When exposed to disagreement… – Extraversion à more informa-on seeking – Openness à more informa-on seeking* – Agreeableness à less informa-on seeking

Poli-cal Networks Summary • Poli-cal Networks: the people with whom we discuss poli-cs • Generally measured by asking individuals to name their discussants (some limita-ons with this) • Networks are generally: – Homogeneous (similar) – Small – Strong -es • Personality characteris-cs might impact – The people with whom we choose to discuss poli-cs – How we are affected by disagreement in our networks

Ques-ons?

Social Media

Social Media and Poli-cs • What percent of social media users report oVen discussing, commen-ng, or pos-ng about poli-cs or government? • What percent of all Facebook posts are poli-cal?

Echo Chambers or Diversity? Homogeneous or Heterogeneous Online Networks?

Homogenous Online Networks? • Individuals do appear to opt in to following informa-on sources that are consistent with their ideological beliefs • But , because we are also exposed to informa-on that our friends post, we are exposed to a lot more diverse informa-on than you might expect • Our online social networks have a lot more diversity than our offline social networks

Source: Barbera et al. (2015)

What are the key advantages and disadvantages of social media’s role in communica-ng poli-cal informa-on?

Social Media and Affec-ve Polariza-on Excerpts from Jaime Sekle’s forthcoming Frenemies: How Social Media Polarizes America

Central Argument • The defining characteris-cs of poli-cal communica-on on Facebook are uniquely suited to facilitate the psychological processes of polariza-on: – Iden-ty recogni-on and reinforcement – Biased informa-on processing – Out-group stereotyping

How do individuals learn about the poli-cal views of their social connec-ons online?

Social Media Summary • Overall, very likle content is poli-cal – Though this may be growing and it may be more memorable • Our online networks are more poli-cally heterogeneous than our offline networks, but… – Selec-ve exposure to news sources – Curate our networks to be more homogeneous • Social media is uniquely suited to facilitate affec-ve polariza-on

Ques-ons?