Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Reexamining Political Discussion and Disagreement in Church Networks: An Exit Poll Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2012

Anand Edward Sokhey
Affiliation:
University of Colorado at Boulder
Stephen T. Mockabee
Affiliation:
University of Cincinnati
Corresponding

Abstract

The workplace has been hailed as a fruitful context for encountering difference, but other institutions of adult life — notably the church — have been downplayed, as it has been argued that self-selection produces political homogeneity within these environments. At the same time, much of what scholars know about social influence has been based on relatively blunt measures of disagreement, typically included in surveys conducted over multiple-week spans either before or after the actual voting has taken place. Inspired by work on the survival, loci, and democratic consequences of political disagreement, we survey voters at the moment when the literature would suggest they should be most likely to report agreement: Election Day. Wedding exit poll methodology with items that capture the major dimensions of networks and the content of discussion, we re-examine the contexts in which discussions take place and untangle issue-specific patterns of disagreement. We find evidence that church-based networks fulfill important democratic roles relative to other contexts, exposing individuals to cross-cutting discourse while serving as unique sources of information in the midst of broader electoral environments.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Religion and Politics Section of the American Political Science Association 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Beck, P.A., Dalton, R.J., Huckfeldt, R., and Nichols, S.. 1994. The Social ‘Embededness’ of Political Cleavages. Paper presented at the Cross-National Election Project Conference, Oxford University, England.Google Scholar
Berelson, B., Lazarsfeld, P., and McPhee, W.. 1954. Voting. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bradburn, N., Sudman, S., and Wansink, B.. 2004. Asking Questions: The Definitive Guide to Questionnaire Design. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Burns, N., Schlozman, K.L., and Verba, S.. 2001. The Private Roots of Public Action: Gender, Equality, and Political Participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Burns, N., Kinder, D.R., Rosenstone, S.J., Sapiro, V., and the National Election Studies. 2002. American National Election Study, 2000: Pre- and Post-Election Survey [Computer file]. 2nd ICPSR version. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Campbell, A., Converse, P.E., Miller, W., and Stokes, D.E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Campbell, D.E. 2002. “The Young and the Realigning: A Test of the Socialization Theory of Realignment.” Public Opinion Quarterly 66:209234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavendish, J.C., Welch, M.R., and Leege, D.C.. 1998. “Social Network Theory and Predictors of Religiosity for Black and White Catholics: Evidence of a ‘Black Sacred Cosmos’?” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 37:397410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, A. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York, NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Djupe, P.A., Sokhey, A.E., and Gilbert, C.P.. 2007. “Present But Not Accounted For? Gender Differences in Civic Resource Acquisition.” American Journal of Political Science 51:906920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djupe, P.A., and Gilbert, C.P.. 2003. The Prophetic Pulpit: Clergy, Churches, and Communities in American Politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Djupe, P.A., and Gilbert, C.P.. 2006. “The Resourceful Believer: Generating Civic Skills in Church.” Journal of Politics 68:116127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djupe, P.A., and Neiheisel, J.R.. 2008. “Clergy Deliberation on Gay Rights and Homosexuality.” Polity 40:411435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eveland, W., Hively, M., and Morey, A.. 2009. Discussing Measures of Political Discussion: An Evaluation of the Measurement of Network Size, Agreement, and Disagreement and Implications for Inferences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Fiske, S.T., and Taylor, S.E.. 1991. Social Cognition. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Gilbert, C.P. 1993. The Impact of Churches on Political Behavior: An Empirical Study. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Green, J.C., Guth, J.L., Smidt, C.E., and Kellstedt, L.A.. 1996. Religion and the Culture Wars: Dispatches from the Front. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Groves, R.M., Fowler, F.J., Couper, M., Lepkowski, J., Singer, E., and Tourangeau, R., 2004. Survey Methodology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Guth, J.L., Jelen, T.G., Kellstedt, L.A., Smidt, C.E., and Wald, K.D.. 1988. “The Politics of Religion in America: Issues for Investigation.” American Politics Quarterly 16:357397.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 39:10251054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, R., and Sprague, J.. 1995. Citizens, Politics, and Social Communication: Information and Influence in an Election Campaign. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jelen, T. 1992. “Political Christianity: A Contextual Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science 36:692714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellstedt, L.A. 1989. “The Meaning and Measurement of Evangelicalism: Problems and Prospects.” In Religion and Political Behavior in the United States, ed. Jelen, T.G.New York, NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
Kellstedt, L.A., and Green, J.C.. 1993. “Knowing God's Many People: Denominational Preference and Political Behavior.” In Rediscovering the Religious Factor in American Politics, eds. Leege, D.C., and Kellstedt, L.A.. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe, pp. 5371.Google Scholar
Kellstedt, L.A., Green, J.C., Guth, J.L., and Smidt, C.E.. 1996. Grasping the Essentials: The Social Embodiment of Religion and Political Behavior. In Religion and the Culture Wars: Dispatches from the Front, eds. Green, J.C., Guth, J.L., Smidt, C.E., and Kellstedt, L.A.. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 174192.Google Scholar
Klofstad, C.A. 2007. “Talk Leads to Recruitment.” Political Research Quarterly 60:180191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohut, A., Green, J.C., Keeter, S., and Toth, R.C.. 2000. The Diminishing Divide: Religion's Changing Role in American Politics. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Kunda, Z. 1990. “The Case for Motivated Reasoning.” Psychological Bulletin 108:480498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lacy, D. 2001. “A Theory of Nonseparable Preferences in Survey Responses.” American Journal of Political Science 45:239258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layman, G. 1997. “Religion and Political Behavior in the United States: The Impact of Beliefs, Affiliations, and Commitment from 1980 to 1994.” Public Opinion Quarterly 61:288316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layman, G. 2001. The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party Politics. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Leege, D.C. 1996. “Religiosity Measures in the National Election Studies: A Guide to Their Use, Part 2.” APSA Votes and Opinions Newsletter 2:3336.Google Scholar
Leege, D.C. 2001. “Religion and Politics: United States.” In The International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, eds. Smelser, N.J., and Baltes, P.B.. New York, NY: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Leege, D.C., and Kellstedt, L.A.. 1993. Rediscovering the Religious Factor in American Politics. New York, NY: ME Sharpe.Google Scholar
Lodge, M., McGraw, K., and Stroh, P.. 1989. “An Impression-Driven Model of Candidate Evaluation.” American Political Science Review 83:399420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makse, Todd, and Sokhey, Anand E.. 2010. “Revisiting the Divisive Primary Hypothesis: 2008 and the Clinton-Obama Nomination Battle.” American Politics Research 38:233265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, P.V. 1987. “Core Discussion Networks of Americans.” American Sociological Review 52:122131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mockabee, S.T., Monson, J.Q., and Grant, J.T.. 2001. “Measuring Religious Commitment among Catholics and Protestants: A New Approach.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40:675690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, D.C. 2002a. “Cross-Cutting Social Networks: Testing Democratic Theory in Practice.” American Political Science Review 96:111126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, D.C. 2002b. “The Consequences of Cross-Cutting Networks for Political Participation.” American Journal of Political Science 46:838855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, D.C. 2006. Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative Versus Participatory Democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, D.C., and Mondak, J.J.. 2006. “The Workplace as a Context for Cross-Cutting Political Discourse.” Journal of Politics 68:140155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, D.C., and Martin, P.S.. 2001. “Facilitating Communication across Lines of Political Difference: The Role of Mass Media.” American Political Science Review 95:97114.Google Scholar
Rokeach, M. 1960. The Open and Closed Mind. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Rolfe, M., McClurg, S., and Klofstad, C.. 2008. “Measurement of Political Discussion Networks: A Comparison of Two “Name Generator” Procedures.” Public Opinion Quarterly 73:462483.Google Scholar
Sokhey, A.E. 2009. Motivation and the Social Information Search. Doctoral Dissertation. Columbus: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Stanley, H.W., and Niemi, R.G.. 2004. “Partisanship, Party Coalitions, and Group Support, 1952–2000.” In Models of Voting in Presidential Elections: The 2000 U.S. Election, eds. Weisberg, H.F., and Wilcox, C.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 123140.Google Scholar
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L.J., and Rasinski, K.. 2000. The Psychology of the Survey Response. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trueheart, Charles. 1996. “Welcome to the Next Church.” The Atlantic 278:3758.Google Scholar
Verba, S., Schlozman, K.L., and Brady, H.E.. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Volunteerism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wald, K.D., Owen, D.E., and Hill, S.S.. 1988. “Churches as Political Communities.” American Political Science Review 82:531548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wald, K., and Sigelman, L.. 1997. “Romancing the Jews.” In Sojourners in the Wilderness, eds. Smidt, C., and Penning, J.. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, pp. 139168.Google Scholar
Wald, K.D., and Wilcox, C.. 2006. “Getting Religion: Has Political Science Rediscovered the Faith Factor?” American Political Science Review 100:523529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wuthnow, R. 1999. Growing Up Religious: Christians and Jews and Their Journeys of Faith. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 3
Total number of PDF views: 41 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 22nd January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-76cb886bbf-pdn9z Total loading time: 0.699 Render date: 2021-01-22T20:28:01.317Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article 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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

Reexamining Political Discussion and Disagreement in Church Networks: An Exit Poll Assessment
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Reexamining Political Discussion and Disagreement in Church Networks: An Exit Poll Assessment
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Reexamining Political Discussion and Disagreement in Church Networks: An Exit Poll Assessment
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *