Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:31:50.632Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Experimental Political Science

Examining Motivations in Interpersonal Communication Experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2022

Elizabeth C. Connors ,
Matthew T. Pietryka  and
John Barry Ryan
Elizabeth C. Connors
Affiliation:
University of South Carolina
Matthew T. Pietryka
Affiliation:
Florida State University
John Barry Ryan
Affiliation:
Stony Brook University, State University of New York

Summary

Does interpersonal political communication improve the quality of individual decision making? While deliberative theorists offer reasons for hope, experimental researchers have demonstrated that biased messages can travel via interpersonal social networks. We argue that the value of interpersonal political communication depends on the motivations of the people involved, which can be shifted by different contexts. Using small-group experiments that randomly assign participants' motivations to seek or share information with others as well as their motivations for evaluating the information they receive, we demonstrate the importance of accounting for motivations in communication. We find that when individuals with more extreme preferences are motivated to acquire and share information, collective civic capacity is diminished. But if we can stimulate the exchange of information among individuals with stronger prosocial motivations, such communication can enhance collective civic capacity. We also provide advice for other researchers about conducting similar group-based experiments to study political communication.
Get access

Keywords

interpersonal communicationgroup experimentsmotivations
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Experimental Political Science
Online ISBN: 9781009110327
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 03 November 2022

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.)

References

Ahn, T. K., Huckfeldt, R., Mayer, A. K., & Ryan, J. B. (2013, April). Expertise and Bias in Political Communication Networks. American Journal of Political Science, 57(2), 357–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00625.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahn, T. K., Huckfeldt, R., & Ryan, J. B. (2010). Communication, Influence, and Informational Asymmetries among Voters. Political Psychology, 31(5), 763–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahn, T. K., Huckfeldt, R., & Ryan, J. B. (2014). Experts, Activists, and Interdependent Citizens: Are Electorates Self-Educating? New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ahn, T. K., & Ryan, J. B. (2015, July). The Overvaluing of Expertise in Discussion Partner Choice. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 27(3), 380–400. http://jtp.sagepub.com/content/27/3/380. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951629814531672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anselin, L. (2010, March). Thirty Years of Spatial Econometrics. Papers in Regional Science, 89(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5957.2010.00279.x.Google Scholar
Bafumi, J., & Herron, M. C. (2010). Leapfrog Representation and Extremism: A Study of American Voters and Their Members in Congress. American Political Science Review, 104(3), 519–542. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055410000316.Google Scholar
Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., et al. (2018, September). Exposure to Opposing Views on Social Media Can Increase Political Polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), 9216–9221. www.pnas.org/content/115/37/9216. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115.Google Scholar
Barabas, J. (2004). How Deliberation Affects Policy Opinions. American Political Science Review, 98(4), 687–701. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055404041425.Google Scholar
Baron, D. P. (1994). Electoral Competition with Informed and Uninformed Voters. American Political Science Review, 88(1), 33–47. www.jstor.org/stable/2944880.Google Scholar
Batson, C. D. (2016, October). Empathy and Altruism. In Brown, K. W. & Leary, M. R. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Hypo-egoic Phenomena (pp. 161–174). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Batson, C. D., Ahmad, N., Powell, A. A., & Stocks, E. L. (2008). Prosocial Motivation. In Shah, J. Y. & Gardner, W. L. (eds.), Handbook of Motivation Science (pp. 135–149). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Batson, C. D., & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for Altruism: Toward a Pluralism of Prosocial Motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2(2), 107–122. www.jstor.org/stable/1449242.Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., & Newman, L. S. (1994, February). Self-Regulation of Cognitive Inference and Decision Processes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294201001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayes, R., Druckman, J. N., Goods, A., & Molden, D. C. (2020, October). When and How Different Motives Can Drive Motivated Political Reasoning. Political Psychology, 41(5), 1031–1052. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12663.Google Scholar
Bond, R. M., Fariss, C. J., Jones, J. J., et al. (2012, September). A 61-Million-Person Experiment in Social Influence and Political Mobilization. Nature, 489(7415), 295–298. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11421.Google Scholar
Brutger, R., Kertzer, J. D., Renshon, J., Tingley, D., & Weiss, C. M. (2020, September). Abstraction and Detail in Experimental Design. https://people.fas.harvard.edu/~jkertzer/Research_files/AbstractConcrete%20091620_Website.pdf.Google Scholar
Budge, I. (1994, October). A New Spatial Theory of Party Competition: Uncertainty, Ideology and Policy Equilibria Viewed Comparatively and Temporally. British Journal of Political Science, 24(4), 443–467. www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/abs/new-spatial-theory-of-party-competition-uncertainty-ideology-and-policy-equilibria-viewed-comparatively-and-temporally/85720AA3AF1595792CE6BD95E79C38E9. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400006955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvert, R. L. (1985, June). The Value of Biased Information: A Rational Choice Model of Political Advice. Journal of Politics, 47(2), 530–555. https://doi.org/10.2307/2130895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, T. N. (2018). Modeling Political Information Transmission As a Game of Telephone. Journal of Politics, 80(1), 348–352. https://doi.org/10.1086/694767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, T. N. (2019, May). Through the Grapevine: Informational Consequences of Interpersonal Political Communication. American Political Science Review, 113(2), 325–339. www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/through-the-grapevine-informational-consequences-of-interpersonal-political-communication/6CBBDCAD4AF791DA8C446F9B502FDD90/core-reader. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305541900008X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, T. N. (2021, October 29). Through the Grapevine: Political Conversations and Distorted Democracy.Google Scholar
Carlson, T. N., & Settle, J. E. (2016, December). Political Chameleons: An Exploration of Conformity in Political Discussions. Political Behavior, 38(4), 817–859. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9335-y.Google Scholar
Carlson, T. N., & Settle, J. E. (2022). What Goes Without Saying: Navigating Political Discussion in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connors, E. C., Krupnikov, Y., & Ryan, J. B. (2019, July). How Transparency Affects Survey Responses. Public Opinion Quarterly, 83(S1), 185–209. https://academic.oup.com/poq/article/83/S1/185/5520299. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conover, P. J., Searing, D. D., & Crewe, I. M. (2002, January). The Deliberative Potential of Political Discussion. British Journal of Political Science, 32(1), 21–62. www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/deliberative-potential-of-political-discussion/22C246909942D4AE3B0D21B5826501D9. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123402000029.Google Scholar
Converse, P. (1964). The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Politics. In Apter, D. E. (ed.), Ideology and Discontent, (pp. 206–261). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Crawford, V. P., & Sobel, J. (1982). Strategic Information Transmission. Econometrica, 50(6), 1431–1451. www.jstor.org/stable/1913390. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913390.Google Scholar
Crossley, N., Bellotti, E., Edwards, G., Everett, M. G., et al. (2015). Social Network Analysis for Ego-Nets: Social Network Analysis for Actor-Centred Networks. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Dalton, R. J. (2008, March). Citizenship Norms and the Expansion of Political Participation. Political Studies, 56(1), 76–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00718.x.Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Boles, T. L. (1998, December). Share and Share Alike or Winner Take All? The Influence of Social Value Orientation upon Choice and Recall of Negotiation Heuristics. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(3), 253–276. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597898928060. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2806.Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W., Weingart, L. R., & Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of Social Motives on Integrative Negotiation: A Meta-analytic Review and Test of Two Theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 889–905. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.889.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Del Ponte, A., Kline, R., & Ryan, J. (2020, May). Behavioral Analysis in the Study of Politics: The Conflict Laboratory. In Redlawsk, D. P. (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Political Decision Making. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1003.Google Scholar
Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
DePaulo, B. M., & Kashy, D. A. (1998). Everyday Lies in Close and Casual Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 63–79. http://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/1997-38342-005.html. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.63.Google Scholar
Dickson, E. (2011). Economics vs. Psychology Experiments. In Druckman, J. N., Greene, D. P., Kuklinski, J. H. & Lupia, A. (eds.), The Handbook of Experimental Political Science (pp. 58–70). New York: Cambridge University Press. https://nyuseholars.nyu.edu/en/publications/economics-vs-psychology-experiments.Google Scholar
Downs, A. (1957). An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy. Journal of Political Economy, 65(2), 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, J. N. (2012, June). The Politics of Motivation. Critical Review, 24(2), 199–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2012.711022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, J. N., & Kam, C. D. (2012). Students As Experimental Participants: A Defense of the “Narrow Data Base.” In Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P., Kuklinski, J. H., & Lupia, A. (eds.), Handbook of Experimental Political Science (pp. 41–57). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M., & Ryan, J. B. (2021, June). (Mis-)Estimating Affective Polarization. Journal of Politics, 715603. https://doi.org/10.1086/715603.Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N., & Leeper, T. J. (2012, October). Learning More from Political Communication Experiments: Pretreatment and Its Effects. American Journal of Political Science, 56(4), 875–896. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00582.x.Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N., Levendusky, M. S., & McLain, A. (2018). No Need to Watch: How the Effects of Partisan Media Can Spread via Interpersonal Discussions. American Journal of Political Science, 62(1), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12325.Google Scholar
Esterling, K. M., Neblo, M. A., & Lazer, D. M. J. (2011, September). Means, Motive, and Opportunity in Becoming Informed about Politics: A Deliberative Field Experiment with Members of Congress and Their Constituents. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(3), 483–503. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr001.Google Scholar
Eveland, W. P. (2004). The Effect of Political Discussion in Producing Informed Citizens: The Roles of Information, Motivation, and Elaboration. Political Communication, 21(2), 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600490443877.Google Scholar
Eveland, W. P., Appiah, O., & Beck, P. A. (2017, August). Americans Are More Exposed to Difference than We Think: Capturing Hidden Exposure to Political and Racial Difference. Social Networks. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378873317302113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2017.08.002.Google Scholar
Eveland, W. P., & Kleinman, S. B. (2013, March). Comparing General and Political Discussion Networks within Voluntary Organizations Using Social Network Analysis. Political Behavior, 35(1), 65–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-011-9187-4.Google Scholar
Eveland, W. P., Morey, A. C., & Hutchens, M. J. (2011, December). Beyond Deliberation: New Directions for the Study of Informal Political Conversation from a Communication Perspective. Journal of Communication, 61(6), 1082–1103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01598.x.Google Scholar
Fehr, E., Goette, L., & Zehnder, C. (2009). A Behavioral Account of the Labor Market: The Role of Fairness Concerns. Annual Review of Economics, 1(1), 355–384. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.economics.050708.143217.Google Scholar
Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999, August). A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817–868. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355399556151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishkin, J., Siu, A., Diamond, L., & Bradburn, N. (2021). Is Deliberation an Antidote to Extreme Partisan Polarization? Reflections on “America in One Room.” American Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055421000642.Google Scholar
Fowler, J. H., Heaney, M. T., Nickerson, D. W., Padgett, J. F., & Sinclair, B. (2011, March). Causality in Political Networks. American Politics Research, 39(2), 437–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X10396310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., & Dowling, C. M. (2012, October). Disagreement and the Avoidance of Political Discussion: Aggregate Relationships and Differences across Personality Traits. American Journal of Political Science, 56(4), 849–874. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00571.x.Google Scholar
Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational Job Design and the Motivation to Make a Prosocial Difference. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 393–417. www.jstor.org/stable/20159308. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2011, February). The Necessity of Others Is The Mother of Invention: Intrinsic and Prosocial Motivations, Perspective Taking, and Creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(1), 73–96. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.59215085.Google Scholar
Greene, W. H. (2012). Econometric Analysis (Seventh ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Groenendyk, E., & Krupnikov, Y. (2021). What Motivates Reasoning? A Theory of Goal-Dependent Political Evaluation. American Journal of Political Science, 65(1), 180–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. (1975). Legitimation Crisis. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Hersh, E. (2020). Politics Is for Power: How to Move beyond Political Hobbyism, Take Action, and Make Real Change. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, R. (1983). Social Contexts, Social Networks, and Urban Neighborhoods: Environmental Constraints on Friendship Choice. American Journal of Sociology, 89(3), 651–669.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, R. (2001). The Social Communication of Political Expertise. American Journal of Political Science, 45(2), 425–438.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, R. (2007, October). Unanimity, Discord, and the Communication of Public Opinion. American Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 978–995. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00292.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, R., Johnson, P. E., & Sprague, J. D. (2004). Political Disagreement: the Survival of Diverse Opinions within Communication Networks. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, R., Levine, J., Morgan, W., & Sprague, J. (1999). Accessibility and the Political Utility of Partisan and Ideological Orientations. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 888–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, R., & Mendez, J. M. (2008). Moths, Flames, and Political Engagement: Managing Disagreement within Communication Networks. Journal of Politics, 70(01), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381607080073.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, R., Mendez, J. M., & Osborn, T. (2004, February). Disagreement, Ambivalence, and Engagement: The Political Consequences of Heterogeneous Networks. Political Psychology, 25(1), 65–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00357.x.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, R., Pietryka, M. T., & Reilly, J. (2014, January). Noise, Bias, and Expertise in Political Communication networks. Social Networks, 36, 110–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2013.02.003.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, Politics, and Social Communication: Information and Influence in an Election Campaign. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jackman, S., & Sniderman, P. M. (2006, May). The Limits of Deliberative Discussion: A Model of Everyday Political Arguments. Journal of Politics, 68(2), 272–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00405.x.Google Scholar
Jonas, E., & Frey, D. (2003, July). Information Search and Presentation in Advisor-Client Interactions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91(2), 154–168. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597803000591. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00059-1.Google Scholar
Jonas, E., Schulz-Hardt, S., & Frey, D. (2005, July). Giving Advice or Making Decisions in Someone Else’s Place: The Influence of Impression, Defense, and Accuracy Motivation on the Search for New Information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(7), 977–990. http://psp.sagepub.com/content/31/7/977. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204274095.Google Scholar
Kam, C. D. (2007, February). When Duty Calls, Do Citizens Answer? Journal of Politics, 69(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00491.x.Google Scholar
Kamenica, E. (2012). Behavioral Economics and Psychology of Incentives. Annual Review of Economics, 4(1), 427–452.Google Scholar
Katz, E. (1957, April). The Two-Step Flow of Communication: An Up-to-Date Report on an Hypothesis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 21(1), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.2307/2746790.Google Scholar
Kenny, D. A., & Judd, C.M. (1986). Consequences of Violating the Independence Assumption in Analysis of Variance. Psychological Bulletin, 99(3), 422–431. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.99.3.422.Google Scholar
Kinder, D. R., & Kalmoe, N. P. (2017). Neither Liberal nor Conservative: Ideological Innocence in the American Public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Klar, S. (2014, July). Partisanship in a Social Setting. American Journal of Political Science, 58(3), 687–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12087.Google Scholar
Klar, S., & Krupnikov, Y. (2016). Independent Politics: How American Disdain for Parties Leads to Political Inaction. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., & Ryan, J. B. (2018, June). Affective Polarization or Partisan Disdain? Untangling a Dislike for the Opposing Party from a Dislike of Partisanship. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(2), 379–390. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfy014.Google Scholar
Klofstad, C. A., McClurg, S. D., & Rolfe, M. (2009, September). Measurement of Political Discussion Networks: A Comparison of Two “Name Generator” Procedures. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(3), 462–483. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp032.Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W., & Boyatzi, L. M. (2012, June). The Psychology of Closed and Open Mindedness, Rationality, and Democracy. Critical Review, 24(2), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2012.711023.Google Scholar
Krupnikov, Y., & Levine, A. S. (2014). Cross-Sample Comparisons and External Validity. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1(1), 59–80. www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-experimental-political-science/article/crosssample-comparisons-and-external-validity/B11437F96788A7F01653A7C1C9E87F34. https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2014.7.Google Scholar
Krupnikov, Y., & Levine, A. S. (2019, April). Political Issues, Evidence, and Citizen Engagement: The Case of Unequal Access to Affordable Health Care. Journal of Politics, 81(2), 385–398. https://doi.org/10.1086/701722.Google Scholar
Krupnikov, Y., Milita, K., Ryan, J. B., & Connors, E. C. (2020, April). How Gender Affects the Efficacy of Discussion As an Information Shortcut. Political Science Research and Methods, 8(2), 268–284. www.cambridge.org/core/journals/political-science-resear-ch-and-methods/article/abs/how-gender-affects-the-effica-cy-of-discussion-as-an-information-shortcut/A1542EAFF4C2D7B71AF0637172FEA954. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2019.26.Google Scholar
Krupnikov, Y., & Ryan, J. B. (2022). The Other Divide: Polarization and Disengagement in American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kunda, Z. (1990). The Case for Motivated Reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.Google Scholar
Lake, R. L. D., & Huckfeldt, R. (1998). Social Capital, Social Networks, and Political Participation. Political Psychology, 19(3), 567–584. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00118.Google Scholar
Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (1997, September). Voting Correctly. American Political Science Review, 91(3), 585–598. Retrieved 2021-09-03, from www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/voting-correctly/DS6FFS4431588C9BA7675A4A92SA8SSC, https://doi.org/10.2307/2952076.Google Scholar
Lazer, D., Rubineau, B., Chetkovich, C., Katz, N., & Neblo, M. (2010). The Coevolution of Networks and Political Attitudes. Political Communication, 27(3), 248–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2010.500187.Google Scholar
Leeper, T. J., & Slothuus, R. (2014, February). Political Parties, Motivated Reasoning, and Public Opinion Formation. Political Psychology, 35, 129–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12164.Google Scholar
Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2013). The Rationalizing Voter. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J., & Sokhey, A. (2014, April). Emotion, Motivation, and Social Information Seeking about Politics. Political Communication, 31(2), 237–258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2013.828138.Google Scholar
Makse, T., Minkoff, S., & Sokhey, A. (2019). Politics on Display: Yard Signs and the Politicization of Social Spaces. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makse, T., Minkoff, S. L., & Sokhey, A. E. (2014, September). Networks, Context, and the Use of Spatially Weighted Survey Metrics. Political Geography, 42, 79–91. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0962629814000596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2014.07.003.Google Scholar
Maxwell, S. E., Delaney, H. D., & Kelley, K. (2017). Designing Experiments and Analyzing Data: A Model Comparison Perspective, Third Edition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
McClurg, S. D. (2006, July). 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00213.x.Google Scholar
Mendelberg, T. (2002). The Deliberative Citizen: Theory and Evidence. In Delli Carpini, M. X., Huddy, L., & Shapiro, R. (eds.), Political Decision Making, Deliberation and Participation (Vol. 6, pp. 151–193). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Miller, J. M., Saunders, K. L., & Farhart, C. E. (2016, October). Conspiracy Endorsement As Motivated Reasoning: The Moderating Roles of Political Knowledge and Trust. American Journal of Political Science, 60(4), 824–844. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12234.Google Scholar
Minozzi, W., Song, H., Lazer, D. M. J., Neblo, M. A., & Ognyanova, K. (2020). The Incidental Pundit: Who Talks Politics with Whom, and Why? American Journal of Political Science, 64(1), 135–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12469.Google Scholar
Montgomery, J. M., Nyhan, B., & Torres, M. (2018, July). How Conditioning on Posttreatment Variables Can Ruin Your Experiment and What to Do about It. American Journal of Political Science, 62(3), 760–775. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12357.Google Scholar
Mullinix, K. J. (2018, March). Civic Duty and Political Preference Formation. Political Research Quarterly, 71(1), 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917729037.Google Scholar
Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mutz, D. C., & Mondak, J. J. (2006, February). The Workplace As a Context for Cross-Cutting Political Discourse. Journal of Politics, 68(1), 140–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00376.x.Google Scholar
Neblo, M. A. (2015). Deliberative Democracy between Theory and Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, M. B., Skov, M., Serritzlew, S., & Ramsoy, T. (2013). Motivated Reasoning and Political Parties: Evidence for Increased Processing in the Face of Party Cues. Political Behavior, 35(4), 831–854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-012-9213-1.Google Scholar
Pietryka, M. T. (2016, June). Accuracy Motivations, Predispositions, and Social Information in Political Discussion Networks. Political Psychology, 37(3), 367–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12255.Google Scholar
Pietryka, M. T., Reilly, J. L., Maliniak, D. M., Miller, P. R., Huckfeldt, R., & Rapoport, R. B. (2018). From Respondents to Networks: Bridging Between Individuals, Discussants, and the Network in the Study of Political Discussion. Political Behavior, 40(3), 711–735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-017-9419-3.Google Scholar
Preston, S. D., & Waal, F. B. M. D. (2002, February). Empathy: Its Ultimate and Proximate Bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(1), 1–20. www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/empathy-its-ultimate-and-proximate-bases/953ESDS92176FEE351ED81E933FE646D. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X02000018.Google Scholar
Prior, M. (2005). News vs. Entertainment: How Increasing Media Choice Widens Gaps in Political Knowledge and Turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 577–592. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540–5907.2005.00143.x/abstract.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, R. P. (2000). Bowling Alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Robison, J., Stevenson, R. T., Druckman, J. N., Jackman, S., Katz, J. N., & Vavreck, L. (2018, July). An Audit of Political Behavior Research. SAGE Open, 8(3), 2158244018794769. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018794769.Google Scholar
Roese, N. J., & Vohs, K. D. (2012, September). Hindsight Bias. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 411–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612454303.Google Scholar
Rolfe, M. (2012). Voter Turnout: A Social Theory of Political Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ryan, J. B. (2010). The Effects of Network Expertise and Biases on Vote Choice. Political Communication, 27(1), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600903481893.Google Scholar
Ryan, J. B. (2011a, June). Accuracy and Bias in Perceptions of Political Knowledge. Political Behavior, 33(2), 335–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9130-0.Google Scholar
Ryan, J. B. (2011b, October). Social Networks As a Shortcut to Correct Voting. American Journal of Political Science, 55(4), 753–766. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00528.x.Google Scholar
Sanders, L. M. (1997). Against Deliberation. Political Theory, 25(3), 347–376. www.jstor.org/stable/191984.Google Scholar
Sears, D. O. (1986). College Sophomores in the Laboratory: Influences of a Narrow Data Base on Social Psychology’s View of Human Nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(3), 515–530. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.3.515.Google Scholar
Settle, J. E. (2018). Frenemies: How Social Media Polarizes America. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Settle, J. E., & Carlson, T. N. (2019, July). Opting Out of Political Discussions. Political Communication, 36(3), 476–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2018.1561563.Google Scholar
Shepsle, K. A. (1972, June). The Strategy of Ambiguity: Uncertainty and Electoral Competition. American Political Science Review, 66(2), 555–568. www.jstor.org/stable/1957799. https://doi.org/10.2307/1957799.Google Scholar
Siegel, D. A. (2009, January). Social Networks and Collective Action. American Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 122–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00361.x.Google Scholar
Sinclair, B., McConnell, M., & Green, D. P. (2012, October). Detecting Spillover Effects: Design and Analysis of Multilevel Experiments. American Journal of Political Science, 56(4), 1055–1069. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00592.x.Google Scholar
Smith, V. L. (1982). Microeconomic Systems As an Experimental Science. American Economic Review, 72(5), 923–955. www.jstor.org/stable/1812014.Google Scholar
Snijders, T. A. B., & Roel, J. Bosker. (2012). Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling (Second ed.). London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Sokhey, A. E., & McClurg, S. D. (2012, July). Social Networks and Correct Voting. Journal of Politics, 74(03), 751–764. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381612000461.Google Scholar
Song, H., & Eveland, W. P. (2015, January). The Structure of Communication Networks Matters: How Network Diversity, Centrality, and Context Influence Political Ambivalence, Participation, and Knowledge. Political Communication, 32(1), 83–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2014.882462.Google Scholar
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.Google Scholar
Tappin, B. M., Pennycook, G, & Rand, D. G. (2020). Rethinking the Link between Cognitive Sophistication and Politically Motivated Reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000974.Google ScholarPubMed
Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: The Neglected Social Context of Judgment and Choice. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7(1), 297–332.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E., & Kim, J. I. (1987, April). Accountability and Judgment Processes in a Personality Prediction Task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(4), 700–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, K. C. (2004). Talking about Politics: Informal Groups and Social Identity in American Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ward, M. D., & Gleditsch, K. S. (2008). Spatial Regression Models (First ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Warren, M. (1992, March). Democratic Theory and Self-Transformation. American Political Science Review, 86(01), 8–23. https://doi.org/10.2307/1964012.Google Scholar
Weingart, L. R., Bennett, R. J., & Brett, J. M. (1993). The Impact of Consideration of Issues and Motivational Orientation on Group Negotiation Process and Outcome. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(3), 504–517. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/apl/78/3/504.html. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.3.504.Google Scholar
Zaller, J. R. (1992). The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Examining Motivations in Interpersonal Communication Experiments
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Examining Motivations in Interpersonal Communication Experiments
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Examining Motivations in Interpersonal Communication Experiments
Available formats
×