Civic Talk: Peers, Politics, and the Future of Democracy by Casey A. Klofstad

Author:Casey A. Klofstad
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: ISBN 9781439902721 (cloth : alk. paper)

personal characteristics mediate the effect that civic talk has on

civic participation. Specifically, the preponderance of the data shows, perhaps disappointingly to those concerned with civic disengagement, that individuals who are willing and able to participate in civic activities will be more positively affected by engaging in civic talk. This issue, and its normative consequences, will be considered in greater detail in Chapter 8.

Given that who we are matters, the next question to address is whether the characteristics of our peers matter. The data presented in this chapter show that the relationship between civic talk and civic participation varies based on the characteristics of the people with whom we engage in discussion. In this analysis I examine three types of peer characteristics: social intimacy, disagreement, and civic expertise. With regard to intimacy, the C-SNIP data show that trust between peers enhances the effect of civic talk. The evidence also shows that civic talk is more influential when peers are similar to one another, both in general and with regard to political preferences. Finally, the C-SNIP data show that civic talk has a larger influence on our behavior when we think that the person we are engaged in discussion with is knowledgeable about politics and current events.

Should the Characteristics of Our Peers Matter?

Social Intimacy

Existing scholarship in political science, sociology, and social psychology shows that for one person to influence another, the two must share a certain level of social connectedness. Moreover, these literatures suggest that the deeper that social connection is, the greater the effect peers will have on an individual’s patterns of behavior.

One reason social influence is enhanced by social intimacy is that individuals are more likely to comply with the preferences of a peer group to continue to be a part of that group (Dawson et al. 1977; Mendelberg 2002; Putnam 2000). For example, in a review of the extant literature on deliberation, Mendelberg (2002) finds that when individuals identify emotionally with the group they are attempting to deliberate with, they are more willing to cooperate and accept the will of the group during the deliberation process. Social intimacy facilitates compliance with the group because the tighter the social bond is between an individual and his or her peer group, the more the individual has to lose from the dissolution of his or her membership in the group. In turn, the more he or she has to lose, the greater the individual’s incentive is to comply with the will of the group. This is especially the case in small groups, such as peer networks, where social bonds are more intimate and individuals have a greater capacity to monitor the actions of their peers to make sure they comply with group norms.

The role of information is another way in which social intimacy might affect the relationship between civic talk and civic participation (Brady et al. 1999; Brehm et al. 2002). For example, in a study of how political parties and interest groups recruit individuals to work on their behalf, Brady and

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.