Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:10:02.600Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political disagreement and vote volatility: the role of familism across different European countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2019

Moreno Mancosu  and
David N. Hopmann
Moreno Mancosu*
Affiliation:
Department of Cultures, Politics, and Society, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
David N. Hopmann
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and Public Management, Southern Denmark University, Odense, Denmark
*
*E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Interpersonal influence shapes political behavior and attitudes. So far, however, little efforts have been devoted to testing this mechanism comparatively in Europe. This paper aims at explaining differences in influence patterns in three European countries (Italy, Germany, and the UK). Based on works in demography, we argue that in Mediterranean cultures (characterized by high degrees of familism), people are more prone to be affected by attitudes and behaviors of their relatives with respect to other strong ties (e.g., spouses), while in continental, northern Europe, and the UK, this effect is less important. We test this argument using longitudinal data. Consistent with expectations, results show that the influence of relatives in familistic contexts is stronger than in non-familistic ones. At the same time, the spouse effect (namely, the effect of an intimate, non-relative discussant) is particularly strong in non-familistic contexts (and vice versa). In sum, we demonstrate that public opinion studies can be strengthened by theories developed in other social sciences, such as demography.

Keywords

comparative politicsinterpersonal communicationinterpersonal influencefirst-difference modelsfamily regimes
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , August 2019 , pp. 301 - 317
Copyright
© European Consortium for Political Research 2019 

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

Alesina, A. and Giuliano, P. (2010), ‘The power of the family’, Journal of Economic growth 15(2): 93–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bello, J. and Rolfe, M. (2014), ‘Is influence mightier than selection? Forging agreement in political discussion networks during a campaign’, Social Networks 36: 134–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berelson, B., Lazarsfeld, P.F. and McPhee, W.N. (1954), Voting: A study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brandt, M., Haberkern, K. and Szydlik, M. (2009), ‘Intergenerational help and care in Europe’, European Sociological Review 25(5): 585–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, R.S. (1986), ‘A note on sociometric order in the general social survey network data’, Social Networks 8(2): 149–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christakis, N.A. and Fowler, J.H. (2007), ‘The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years’, New England Journal of Medicine 357(4): 370–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christakis, N.A. and Fowler, J.H. (2008), ‘The collective dynamics of smoking in a large social network’, New England Journal of Medicine 358(21): 2249–2258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eveland, W.P. Jr. Song, H.. and Beck, P.A. (2015), ‘Cultural variations in the relationships among network political agreement, political discussion frequency,and voting turnout’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research 27(4): 461–480.Google Scholar
Festinger, L. (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Fieldhouse, E., Green, J. Evans, J. Schmitt, H. van der Eijk, C. Mellon, J. and Prosser, C. (2015), British Election Study Internet Panel Wave 5–6. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.it/scholar?cites=12081371319468546185&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=itGoogle Scholar
Fowler, J.H., Heaney, M.T. Nickerson, D.W. Padgett, J.F. and Sinclair, B. (2011), ‘Causality in political networks’, American Politics Research 39(2): 437–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granovetter, M.S. (1973), ‘The strength of weak ties’, American Journal of Sociology 78(6): 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guetto, R., Mancosu, M. Scherer, S. and Torricelli, G. (2016), ‘The spreading of cohabitation as a diffusion process: evidence from Italy’, European Journal of Population 32(5): 661–686.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guidetti, M., Cavazza, N. and Graziani, A.R. (2016), ‘Perceived disagreement and heterogeneity in social networks: distinct effects on political participation’, Journal of Social Psychology 156(2): 222–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hajnal, J. (1982), ‘Two kinds of preindustrial household formation system’, Population and Development Review 8(3): 449–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hank, K. (2007), ‘Proximity and contacts between older parents and their children: a European comparison’, Journal of Marriage and Family 69(1): 157–173.Google Scholar
Hopmann, D.N. (2012), ‘The consequences of political disagreement in interpersonal communication: new insights from a comparative perspective, European Journal of Political Research 51(2): 265–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopmann, D.N., Matthes, J. and Nir, L. (2015), ‘Informal political conversation across time and space: setting the research agenda’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research 27(4): 448–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, R. and Sprague, J. (1991), ‘Discussant effects on vote choice: intimacy, structure, and interdependence’, The Journal of Politics 53(1): 122–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, R., Beck, P.A. Dalton, R.J. and Levine, J. (1995), ‘Political environments, cohesive social groups, and the communication of public opinion’, American Journal of Political Science 39: 1025–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, R., Ikeda, K.I. and Pappi, F.U. (2005), ‘Patterns of disagreement in democratic politics: comparing Germany, Japan, and the United States’, American Journal of Political Science 49(3): 497–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, R.R. (1979), ‘Political participation and the neighborhood social context’, American Journal of Political Science 23: 579–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, R.R. Johnson, P.E. and Sprague, J.D. (2004), Political Disagreement: The Survival of Diverse Opinions Within Communication Networks. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ikeda, K.I. and Huckfeldt, R. (2001), ‘Political communication and disagreement among citizens in Japan and the United States’, Political Behavior 23(1): 23–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackman, S. and Vavreck, L. (2010), ‘Primary politics: race, gender, and age in the 2008 democratic primary’, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 20(2): 153–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, E. (1957), ‘The two-step flow of communication: an up-to-date report on an hypothesis’, Public Opinion Quarterly 21(1): 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klofstad, C.A. (2007), ‘Talk leads to recruitment: how discussions about politics and current events increase civic participation’, Political Research Quarterly 60(2): 180–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klofstad, C.A., Sokhey, A.E. and McClurg, S.D. (2013), ‘Disagreeing about disagreement: how conflict in social networks affects political behavior’, American Journal of Political Science 57(1): 120–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kussmaul, A. (1981), Servants in Husbandry in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laslett, P. (1977), Family Life and Illicit Love in Earlier Generations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawton, L., Silverstein, M. and Bengtson, V. (1994), ‘Affection, social contact, and geographic distance between adult children and their parents’, Journal of Marriage and the Family 56: 57–68.Google Scholar
Liao, T.F. and Stevens, G. (1994), ‘Spouses, homogamy, and social networks’, Social Forces 73(2): 693–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lup, O. (2016), ‘Interpersonal political communication in election campaigns in a comparative perspective’, in Tenscher, J. and Rußmann, U. (eds.), Vergleichende Wahlkampfforschung, Wiesbaden: Springer VS, pp. 259–281.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. and Sokhey, A.E. (2017), ‘Discussion networks, issues, and perceptions of polarization in the American electorate’, Political Behavior 39(4): 967–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mancosu, M. (2017), ‘Interpersonal communication, voting behaviour and influence in an election campaign: the 2009 German elections’, Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 46(3): 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mancosu, M. and Vezzoni, C. (2017), ‘“Blood Is Thicker Than Water”: interpersonal influence, selection, and the role of family in forging italians’ political agreement’, International Journal of Communication 11: 22.Google Scholar
Mancosu, M. and Vezzoni, C. (2018), ‘Actor-partner interdependence models (APIM) and voting behavior: methodology and applications’, Political Psychology 39(1): 163–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, P.V. (1987), ‘Core discussion networks of Americans’, American Sociological Review 52(1): 122–131.Google Scholar
Morey, A.C., Eveland, W.P. Jr. and Hutchens, M.J. (2012), ‘The “who” matters: types of interpersonal relationships and avoidance of political disagreement’, Political Communication 29(1): 86–103.Google Scholar
Nazio, T. and Blossfeld, H.P. (2003), ‘The diffusion of cohabitation among young women in West Germany, East Germany and Italy’, European Journal of Population 19(1): 47–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neugebauer, G. (2007), Politische Milieus in Deutschland – Die Studie der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. Bonn: J.H.W. Dietz Nachf. GmbH.Google Scholar
Nir, L. (2011), ‘Disagreement and opposition in social networks: does disagreement discourage turnout?’, Political Studies 59(3): 674–692.Google Scholar
Noel, H. and Nyhan, B. (2011), ‘The “unfriending” problem: the consequences of homophily in friendship retention for causal estimates of social influence’, Social Networks 33(3): 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pescosolido, B.A. (1992), ‘Beyond rational choice: the social dynamics of how people seek help’, American Journal of Sociology 97(4): 1096–1138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rattinger, H., Roßteutscher, S. Schmitt-Beck, R. Weßels, B. Wolf, C. and Partheymüller, J. (2017), Rolling Cross-Section Campaign Survey with Post-election Panel Wave (GLES 2013). GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5703 Data file Version 2.0.1.Google Scholar
Reher, D.S. (1998), ‘Family ties in Western Europe: persistent contrasts’, Population and Development Review 24: 203–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogowski, J.C. and Sinclair, B. (2012), ‘Estimating the causal effects of social interaction with endogenous networks’, Political Analysis 20(3): 316–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt-Beck, R. and Partheymüller, J. (2016), ‘A two-stage theory of discussant influence on vote choice in multiparty systems’, British Journal of Political Science 46(2): 321–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schröder, C. (2008), ‘The influence of parents on cohabitation in Italy: insights from two regional contexts’, Demographic Research 19: 1693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Small, M.L. (2013), ‘Weak ties and the core discussion network: why people regularly discuss important matters with unimportant alters’, Social Networks 35(3): 470–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snijders, T.A. and Bosker, R.J. (1999), Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Traunmüller, R. (2010), ‘Moral communities? Religion as a source of social trust in a multilevel analysis of 97 German regions’, European Sociological Review 27(3): 346–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vezzoni, C. (2014), ‘Italian national election survey 2013: a further step in a consolidating tradition’, Rivista italiana di scienza politica 44(1): 81–108.Google Scholar