Americans are more exposed to difference than we think: Capturing hidden exposure to political and racial difference

Abstract Use of name generators (NG) in assessing exposure to political difference has led to the conclusion that disagreement is uncommon. Data from two representative surveys tested a NG modification to probe for exposure to difference. Over half for whom NG results suggest no exposure to difference were able to name an alter who supported an alternative candidate. Over a quarter whose NG results indicate no exposure to a racial difference were able to name someone of the opposite race with whom they’d talked politics. These findings demonstrate that mixed or diverse networks are more common than prior NG research suggests.

[1]  Anand E. Sokhey,et al.  Disagreeing About Disagreement: How Conflict in Social Networks Affects Political Behavior , 2013 .

[2]  P. V. Marsden,et al.  Core Discussion Networks of Americans , 1987 .

[3]  Rae Jean Proeschold-Bell,et al.  Methodological considerations in the use of name generators and interpreters , 2015, Soc. Networks.

[4]  Patricia M. Odell,et al.  Cross-Racial Friendships and Social Distance Between Racial Groups on a College Campus , 2005 .

[5]  C. Daniel Batson,et al.  Using Empathy to Improve Intergroup Attitudes and Relations , 2009 .

[6]  C. Fischer,et al.  To Dwell among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City. , 1984 .

[7]  J. Bello.  The dark side of disagreement?: Revisiting the effect of disagreement on political participation , 2012 .

[8]  R. Huckfeldt,et al.  Citizens, Politics and Social Communication: Information and Influence in an Election Campaign , 1995 .

[9]  Walter G. Stephan,et al.  Improving Intergroup Relations: The Effects of Empathy on Racial Attitudes1 , 2000 .

[10]  Mario Luis Small,et al.  Weak ties and the core discussion network: Why people regularly discuss important matters with unimportant alters , 2013, Soc. Networks.

[11]  William P. Eveland,et al.  Comparing General and Political Discussion Networks Within Voluntary Organizations Using Social Network Analysis , 2013 .

[12]  M. Small.  Racial Differences in Networks: Do Neighborhood Conditions Matter? , 2007 .

[13]  Camille Z. Charles,et al.  The Dynamics of Racial Residential Segregation , 2003 .

[14]  William P. Eveland,et al.  The Impact of Individual and Interpersonal Factors on Perceived News Media Bias , 2003 .

[15]  Diana C. Mutz.  Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy , 2006 .

[16]  D. Lichter,et al.  National estimates of racial segregation in rural and small-town America , 2007, Demography.

[17]  William P. Eveland,et al.  Political Discussion Frequency, Network Size, and “Heterogeneity” of Discussion as Predictors of Political Knowledge and Participation , 2009 .

[18]  Yuli Patrick Hsieh,et al.  Check the phone book: Testing information and communication technology (ICT) recall aids for personal network surveys , 2015, Soc. Networks.

[19]  M. McPherson,et al.  Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks , 2001 .

[20]  F. Kreuter,et al.  Social Desirability Bias in CATI, IVR, and Web Surveys The Effects of Mode and Question Sensitivity , 2008 .

[21]  Anthony Paik,et al.  Social Isolation in America: An Artifact , 2013 .

[22]  William P. Eveland,et al.  The “Who” Matters: Types of Interpersonal Relationships and Avoidance of Political Disagreement , 2012 .

[23]  Jose Manuel Sánchez-Santos,et al.  Individual social capital: Accessibility and mobilization of resources embedded in social networks , 2017, Soc. Networks.

[24]  P. V. Marsden,et al.  Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis: Recent Developments in Network Measurement , 2005 .

[25]  Claude S. Fischer,et al.  Is America Fragmenting , 2009 .

[26]  Lynn Smith-Lovin,et al.  Social Distance in the United States , 2014 .

[27]  G. Āllport.  The Nature of Prejudice , 1954 .

[28]  William P. Eveland,et al.  Political Network Size and Its Antecedents and Consequences , 2013 .

[29]  Anand E. Sokhey,et al.  Name generation in interpersonal political network data: Results from a series of experiments , 2014, Soc. Networks.

[30]  P. Bearman,et al.  Cloning Headless Frogs and Other Important Matters: Conversation Topics and Network Structure , 2004 .

[31]  Peter V. Marsden,et al.  Interviewer effects in measuring network size using a single name generator , 2003, Soc. Networks.

[32]  Dominique Brossard,et al.  Social Structure and Citizenship: Examining the Impacts of Social Setting, Network Heterogeneity, and Informational Variables on Political Participation , 2004 .

[33]  Tom A. B. Snijders,et al.  The Resource Generator: social capital quantification with concrete items , 2005, Soc. Networks.

[34]  Mark S. Granovetter.  The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[35]  B. A. Nagda,et al.  Breaking Barriers, Crossing Borders, Building Bridges: Communication Processes in Intergroup Dialogues , 2006 .

[36]  William P. Eveland,et al.  The Role of Conversation in Developing Accurate Political Perceptions: A Multilevel Social Network Approach , 2013 .

[37]  William P. Eveland,et al.  The Structure of Communication Networks Matters: How Network Diversity, Centrality, and Context Influence Political Ambivalence, Participation, and Knowledge , 2015 .

[38]  Lilach Nir,et al.  Disagreement and Opposition in Social Networks: Does Disagreement Discourage Turnout? , 2011 .

[39]  Casey A. Klofstad,et al.  Measurement of Political Discussion Networks A Comparison of Two “Name Generator” Procedures , 2009 .

[40]  R. Huckfeldt,et al.  Political Disagreement: The Survival of Diverse Opinions within Communication Networks , 2004 .