Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T12:57:00.685Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Political Consequences of Gender in Social Networks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 June 2016

Paul Djupe ,
Scott Mcclurg  and
Anand Edward Sokhey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent research on political discussion has focused on whether aspects of interaction create a ‘democratic dilemma’ for the mass public in which people face a choice between political participation and political tolerance. This article argues that there are important variations in how people react to their immediate social contacts. It explores this idea by studying how social disagreement and expertise interact with gender to explain variance in political participation. First, it shows that there are conflicting expectations in the literature about how such dynamics should manifest, despite agreement that men and women should experience different kinds and degrees of social influence. Secondly, it examines these expectations by revisiting prominent, network-based explanations of political participation; it finds that these relationships do not display consistency across sex differences. The results point to the existence of varied ‘social logics’ for men and women, and suggest the need to reconsider how to think about the efficacy of discussion and disagreement in a democratic society.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , July 2018 , pp. 637 - 658
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Department of Political Science, Dennison University (email: [email protected]); Department of Political Science, Southern Illinois University (email: [email protected]); Department of Political Science, University of Colorado, Boulder (email: [email protected]). Authors names are listed alphabetically. We wish to thank Casey Klofstad for comments, Jennifer Wolak for early conversations, and Diana Mutz for several email exchanges. Previous versions of this article were delivered at the 68th and 69th annual meetings of the MPSA, Chicago, IL. All errors remain our own. Data replication sets are available at http://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/BJPolS and online appendices are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0007123416000156.

References

Aldrich, Howard, Reese, Pat R., and Dubini, Paola. 1989. Women on the Verge of a Breakthrough: Networking Among Entrepreneurs in the United States and Italy. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 1 (4):339–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkeson, Lonna Rae, and Rapoport, Ronald B.. 2003. The More Things Change the More They Remain the Same: Examining Gender Differences in Political Attitude Expression, 1952–2000. Public Opinion Quarterly 67:495–521.Google Scholar
Beck, Paul A. 1991. Voters’ Intermediation Environments in the 1988 Presidential Contest. Public Opinion Quarterly 55 (3):371–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belenky, Mary Field, Clinchy, Blyth, Goldberger, Nancy, and Tarule, Jill. 1986. Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Berelson, Bernard R., Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and McPhee, William N.. 1954. Voting. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Berry, William, DeMeritt, Jacqueline H. R., and Esarey, Justin. 2010. Testing for Interaction in Binary Logit and Probit Models: Is a Product Term Essential? American Journal of Political Science 54 (1):248–266.Google Scholar
Berry, William, Golder, Matt, and Milton, Daniel. 2012. Improving Tests of Theories Positing Interaction. Journal of Politics 74 (3):653–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Books, John W., and Prysby, Charles L.. 1991. Political Behavior and the Local Context. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Brambor, Thomas, Clark, William R., and Golder, Matt. 2006. Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses. Political Analysis 14:63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromiley, Philip, and Curley, Shawn P.. 1992. Individual Differences in Risk-Taking. In Risk-Taking Behavior, edited by J. Frank Yates, 87–131. New York: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Burns, Nancy, Schlozman, Kay Lehman, and Verba, Sidney. 2001. The Private Roots of Public Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Burt, Ronald S. 1998. The Gender of Social Capital. Rationality and Society 10 (1):5–46.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Phillip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Conover, Pamela J. 1988. Feminists and the Gender Gap. Journal of Politics 50:985–1010.Google Scholar
Costa, Paul T. Jr., Terracciano, Antonio, and McCrae, Robert R.. 2001. Gender Differences in Personality Traits across Cultures: Robust and Surprising Findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81 (2):322–331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delli-Carpini, Michael X., and Keeter, Scott. 1996. What Americans Know About Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Djupe, Paul A., and Sokhey, Anand E.. 2014. The Distribution and Determinants of Socially-Supplied Political Expertise. American Politics Research 42 (2):199–225.Google Scholar
Djupe, Paul A., Sokhey, Anand E., and Gilbert, Christopher P.. 2007. Present But Not Accounted For? Gender Differences in Civic Resource Acquisition. American Journal of Political Science 51 (4):906–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djupe, Paul A., and Gilbert, Christopher P.. 2009. The Political Influence of Churches. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erickson, Bonnie H. 2006. Persuasion and Perception: New Models of Network Effects on Gendered Issues. In Gender and Social Capital, edited by Brenda O’Neill and Elisabeth Gidengil, 293–322. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Feingold, Alan. 1994. Gender Differences in Personality: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin 116:429–456.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Festinger, Leon. 1957. Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, Christopher P. 1993. The Impact of Churches on Political Behavior. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Huber, Gregory A., Doherty, David, and Dowling, Conor M.. 2012. Disagreement and the Avoidance of Political Discussion: Aggregate Relationships and Differences across Personality Traits. American Journal of Political Science 56 (4):849–874.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Huber, Gregory A., Doherty, David, Dowling, Conor M., and Ha, Shang E.. 2010. Personality and Political Attitudes: Relationships across Issue Domains and Political Contexts. American Political Science Review 104 (1):111–133.Google Scholar
Green, Donald P., and Gerber, Alan S.. 2000. The Effect of a Nonpartisan Get-Out-the-Vote Drive: An Experimental Study of Leafleting. Journal of Politics 62 (3):846–857.Google Scholar
Homans, George C. 1961. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert. 1986. Politics in Context: Assimilation and Conflict in Urban Neighborhoods. New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert. 2001. The Social Communication of Political Expertise. American Journal of Political Science 45 (2):425–438.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, Beck, Paul A., Dalton, Russell J., and Levine, Jeffrey. 1995. Political Environments, Cohesive Social Groups, and the Communication of Public Opinion. American Journal of Political Science 39 (4):1025–1054.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, Beck, Paul A., Dalton, Russell J., Levine, Jeffrey, and Morgan, William. 1998b. Ambiguity, Distorted Messages, and Nested Environmental Effects on Political Communication. Journal of Politics 60 (4):996–1030.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, Johnson, Paul E., and Sprague, John. 2004. Political Disagreement: The Survival of Diverse Opinions within Communication Networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, Levine, Jeffrey, Morgan, William, and Sprague, John. 1998a. Election Campaigns, Social Communication, and the Accessibility of Perceived Discussant Preference. Political Behavior 20 (4):263–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, and Mendez, Jeanette Morehouse. 2008. Moths, Flames, and Political Engagement: Managing Disagreement within Communication Networks. Journal of Politics 70 (1):83–96.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, and Sprague, John. 1987. Networks in Context: The Social Flow of Political Information. American Political Science Review 81:1197–1216.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, and Sprague, John. 1995. Citizens, Politics, and Social Communications: Information and Influence in an Election Campaign. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, Sprague, John, and Levine, Jeffrey. 2000. The Dynamics of Collective Deliberation in the 1996 Election: Campaign Effects on Accessibility, Certainty, and Accuracy. American Political Science Review 94:641–651.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence R., Cook, Fay L., and Carpini, Michael X. Delli. 2009. Talking Together: Public Deliberation and Political Participation in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kam, Cindy D., and Franzese, Robert J.. 2007. Modeling and Interpreting Interactive Hypotheses in Regression Analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Karen M., and Petrocik, John R.. 1999. The Changing Politics of American Men: Understanding the Sources of the Gender Gap. American Journal of Political Science 43 (3):864–887.Google Scholar
Kenny, Christopher B. 1992. Political Participation and Effects from the Social Environment. American Journal of Political Science 36 (1):259–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klofstad, Casey A., McClurg, Scott D., and Rolfe, Meredith. 2009. Measurement of Political Discussion Networks: A Comparison of Two ‘Name Generator’ Procedures. Public Opinion Quarterly 73:462–483.Google Scholar
Klofstad, Casey A., Sokhey, Anand E., and McClurg, Scott D.. 2013. Disagreeing About Disagreement: How Conflict in Social Networks Affects Political Behavior. American Journal of Political Science 57 (1):120–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lake, Ronald La Due, and Huckfeldt, Robert. 1998. Social Capital, Social Networks, and Political Participation. Political Psychology 19 (3):567–584.Google Scholar
Leighley, Jan E. 1990. Social Interaction and Contextual Influences on Political Participation. American Politics Quarterly 18:459–475.Google Scholar
Leighley, Jan E. 1996. Group Membership and the Mobilization of Political Participation. Journal of Politics 58 (2):447–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, J. Scott. 1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Lynn, Richard, and Martin, Terence. 1997. Gender Differences in Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Psychoticism in 37 Countries. Journal of Social Psychology 137 (3):369–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, Jeffrey, McClurg, Scott, Seib, Drew, and Sokhey, Anand E.. Forthcoming. Personality, Interpersonal Disagreement, and Electoral Information. Journal of Politics.Google Scholar
Maddux, William W., and Brewer, Marilynn B.. 2005. Gender Differences in the Relational and Collective Bases for Trust. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 8 (2):159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, Peter V. 1987. Core Discussion Networks of Americans. American Sociological Review 52 (1):122–131.Google Scholar
McClurg, Scott D. 2003. Social Networks and Political Participation: The Role of Social Interaction in Explaining Political Participation. Political Research Quarterly 56 (4):449–464.Google Scholar
McClurg, Scott D. 2006a. The Electoral Relevance of Political Talk: Examining Disagreement and Expertise Effects in Social Networks on Political Participation. American Journal of Political Science 50 (3):737–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClurg, Scott D. 2006b. Political Disagreement in Context: The Conditional Effect of Neighborhood Context, Disagreement, and Political Talk on Electoral Participation. Political Behavior 28 (4):349–366.Google Scholar
McPherson, J. Miller, and Smith-Lovin, Lynn. 1982. Women and Weak Ties: Differences by Sex in the Size of Voluntary Organizations. American Journal of Sociology 87 (4):883–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPherson, J. Miller, and Smith-Lovin, Lynn. 1986. Sex Segregation in Voluntary Associations. American Sociological Review 51 (1):61–79.Google Scholar
McPherson, J. Miller, Smith-Lovin, Lynn, and Cook, James M.. 2001. Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27:415–444.Google Scholar
Mendelberg, Tali. 2005. Bringing the Group Back into Political Psychology: Erik H. Erikson Early Career Award Address. Political Psychology 26 (4):637–650.Google Scholar
Mendez, Jeanette, and Osborn, Tracy. 2010. Gender and the Perception of Knowledge in Political Discussion. Political Research Quarterly 63 (2):269–279.Google Scholar
Mondak, Jeffery J. 2010. Personality and the Foundations of Political Behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, Gwen. 1990. Structural Determinants of Men’s and Women’s Personal Networks. American Sociological Review 55:726–735.Google Scholar
Mutz, Diana C. 2002. The Consequences of Cross-Cutting Networks for Political Participation. American Journal of Political Science 46 (4):838–855.Google Scholar
Mutz, Diana C. 2006. Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative Versus Participatory Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Popielarz, Pamela A. 1999. (In)voluntary Association: A Multilevel Analysis of Gender Segregation in Voluntary Associations. Gender and Society 13 (2):234–250.Google Scholar
Richey, Sean. 2008. The Autoregressive Influence of Social Network Political Knowledge on Voting Behavior. British Journal of Political Science 38 (3):527–542.Google Scholar
Ridgeway, Cecilia L., and Smith-Lovin, Lynn. 1999. The Gender System and Interaction. Annual Review of Sociology 25:191–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolfe, Meredith. 2013. Voter Turnout: A Social Theory of Political Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ryan, John B. 2011. Social Networks as a Shortcut to Correct Voting. American Journal of Political Science 55 (4):753–766.Google Scholar
Schmitt, David P., Realo, Anu, Voracek, Martin, and Allik, Jüri. 2008. Why Can’t a Man be More Like a Woman? Sex Differences in Big Five Personality Traits across 55 Cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 94 (1):168–182.Google Scholar
Sherif, Muzafer, Harvey, O. J., White, B. Jack, Hood, William R., and Sherif, Carolyn W.. 1954. Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The Robber’s Cave Experiment. Norman: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange.Google Scholar
Sokhey, Anand E., and Djupe, Paul A.. 2011. Interpersonal Networks and Democratic Politics. PS: Political Science and Politics 44 (1):55–59.Google Scholar
Sokhey, Anand E., and McClurg, Scott D.. 2012. Social Networks and Correct Voting. Journal of Politics 74 (3):751–764.Google Scholar
Stuhlmacher, Alice F., and Walters, Amy E.. 1999. Gender Differences in Negotiation Outcome: A Meta-Analysis. Personnel Psychology 52:653–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Testa, Paul, Hibbing, Matthew, and Ritchie, Melinda. 2014. Orientations Toward Conflict and the Conditional Effects of Political Disagreement. Journal of Politics 76 (3):770–785.Google Scholar
Ulbig, Stacy G., and Funk, Carolyn L.. 1999. Conflict Avoidance and Political Participation. Political Behavior 21 (3):265–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Wendy, and Eagly, Alice H.. 2002. A Cross-Cultural Comparison of the Behavior of Women and Men: Implications for the Origins of Sex Differences. Psychological Bulletin 128 (5):699–727.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, Alan S., ed. 2005. The Social Logic of Politics: Personal Networks as Contexts for Political Behavior. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Djupe et al. Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/LZMZIF
Link
Supplementary material: File

Djupe supplementary material

Appendix

Download Djupe supplementary material(File)
File 254.7 KB