Individuals, Dyads, and Networks: Autoregressive Patterns of Political Influence

Individual citizens obtain political information through continuing patterns of social interaction with other citizens, but newly obtained information is evaluated in the context of previously obtained information. In particular, citizens are more likely to discount a source of new information that contradicts old information taken from other sources. In this way, political influence is inherently autoregressive – the influence of any information source depends on the influence of every other source. Hence, individuals are insulated from disagreeable information, and the discounting of disagreeable information has several consequences. First, attitudes and opinions are resistant, but not invulnerable, to political change. New information is unlikely to gain acceptance until it is widely communicated from a variety of sources. Second, the autoregressive nature of influence helps to explain the persistence of disagreement among citizens. Two individuals who interact on a regular basis are able to demonstrate sustained disagreement if (1) their remaining networks of contacts are non-overlapping and if (2) these networks transmit divergent political messages. We evaluate these arguments based on social network data taken from the 2000 National Election Study. Political interdependence and communication among citizens has little consequence if individuals reside in self-contained, politically homogeneous groups. In settings such as these, new information cannot easily penetrate the social barriers that surround the individual. If you are a liberal Democrat, and all your friends are liberal Democrats, the odds are very high that you will never hear one of your friends make a passionately convincing argument in favor of tax cuts. Conversely, if you are a conservative Republican, and all your friends are conservative Republicans, the odds are similarly high that you will never hear a friend make a passionately convincing case for eliminating restrictions on abortion. When networks of communication are populated by individuals who share the same political viewpoints and orientations, the information that individuals receive will correspond quite closely to the information they convey, and the information conveyed through one exchange will correspond to the information that is conveyed through every other exchange. In contrast, if citizens are located in communication networks characterized by political heterogeneity, the exchange of information is likely to take on heightened political consequence. As McPhee (1963) recognized, political disagreement gives rise to opportunities for political change. When individuals encounter preferences that are different from their own, they often find it difficult to ignore the event. Either they construct a counter argument to overcome the disagreement, or they discredit the message by dismissing its source, or they reconsider their own position in light of the disagreement. In each of these instances, disagreement forces individuals to engage in a critical examination – to think more deeply and attend more carefully to the substance of the political disagreement. Even when citizens reject the disagreeable preference, they are forced to reconsider the justification for their own position, and in this way political change can be seen to occur regardless of the manner in which disagreement is resolved. This potential for micro-level change carries important macro-level consequences. To the extent that citizens are socially insulated from disagreement, the opportunity for collective deliberation is reduced, as is the opportunity and occasion for political influence. Hence, political change at both the micro and macro levels becomes disembodied from communication among citizens. Indeed, absent communication among citizens with diverse viewpoints, it becomes difficult to offer a compelling account of the role played by communication among citizens in the process of political change. This paper addresses a number of issues related to these problems. First, to what extent are citizens located in politically homogeneous networks of political communication? Second, how is disagreement resolved within these networks? Third, how does disagreement affect the flow of information and influence? In order to address these questions, we construct a set of arguments regarding the manner in which disagreement within dyads is filtered through larger networks of association. These questions and arguments are evaluated in the context of data taken from the 2000 National Election Study. Network Theories of Political Influence Any effort to address informational interdependence among citizens in democratic politics necessarily builds on the foundational work of the Columbia sociologists – work that began with Paul Lazarsfeld's arrival in New York City in the 1930s. In particular, the 1940 election study