Skip Navigation



International Journal of Public Opinion Research Advance Access published online on February 17, 2005

International Journal of Public Opinion Research, doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh069
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
17/4/422    most recent
edh069v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nir, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

International Journal of Public Opinion Research © The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The World Associationfor Public Opinion Research. All rights reserved.
Received October 5, 2004

Article

Ambivalent Social Networks and their Consequences for Participation

Lilach Nir 1*

1 University of Pennsylvania

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Lilach Nir, E-mail: LNir{at}asc.upenn.edu


   Abstract

Does perceived disagreement in political discussion help or hinder citizens’ political participation? Some argue that disagreement prompts reflection, perspective-taking, and tolerance. Challengers argue that disagreement fosters ambivalence and hinders participatory activities and turnout. One seminal study that tackled this dilemma formulated the ‘cross-pressures’ hypothesis (Lazarsfeld, Berelson, & Gaudet, 1944/1968), which posited that the more individuals are betwixt and between conflicting social positions, the longer the time for their vote intention to crystallize (and the lower the likelihood they would vote). This paper offers a critique and refinement of the cross-pressures hypothesis. First, previous studies confounded intra-individual and structural sources of cross-pressures. Second, past operationalizations of exposure to disagreement focused on the sheer amount of opposition to the individual’s point of view, rather than his or her exposure to two conflicting points of view. A new measure--network ambivalence--is proposed to capture the latter dynamic. Conceptual and methodological refinements of the cross-pressures hypothesis are tested on a representative sample of voting-age respondents in the United States, interviewed on the American National Election Study 2000 panel (N = 1,555). Results suggest that not only were these pressures hardly detrimental to participation, but they also facilitated the formation of considered electoral preferences.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Communication ResearchHome page
F. L. F. Lee
The Impact of Political Discussion in a Democratizing Society: The Moderating Role of Disagreement and Support for Democracy
Communication Research, June 1, 2009; 36(3): 379 - 399.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Int J Public Opin ResHome page
F. L. F. Lee and J. M. Chan
The Political Consequences of Ambivalence: The Case of Democratic Reform in Hong Kong
Int. J. Public Opin. Res., March 1, 2009; 21(1): 47 - 64.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Science CommunicationHome page
J. C. Besley, V. L. Kramer, Qingjiang Yao, and C. Toumey
Interpersonal Discussion Following Citizen Engagement About Nanotechnology: What, If Anything, Do They Say?
Science Communication, December 1, 2008; 30(2): 209 - 235.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Int J Public Opin ResHome page
L. Nir and J. N. Druckman
Campaign Mixed-Message Flows and Timing of Vote Decision
Int. J. Public Opin. Res., September 1, 2008; 20(3): 326 - 346.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.