Talking Politics on Facebook: Network Centrality and Political Discussion Practices in Social Media
This study examines the relationship between political discussion on Facebook and social network location. It uses a survey name generator to map friendship ties between students at a university and to calculate their centralities in that network. Social connectedness in the university network posit...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Political research quarterly 2015-06, Vol.68 (2), p.377-391 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 391 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 377 |
container_title | Political research quarterly |
container_volume | 68 |
creator | Miller, Patrick R. Bobkowski, Piotr S. Maliniak, Daniel Rapoport, Ronald B. |
description | This study examines the relationship between political discussion on Facebook and social network location. It uses a survey name generator to map friendship ties between students at a university and to calculate their centralities in that network. Social connectedness in the university network positively predicts more frequent political discussion on Facebook. But in political discussions, better connected individuals do not capitalize equally on the potential influence that stems from their more central network locations. Popular individuals who have more direct connections to other network members discuss politics more often but in politically safer interactions that minimize social risk, preferring more engaged discussion with like-minded others and editing their privacy settings to guard their political disclosures. Gatekeepers who facilitate connections between more pairs of otherwise disconnected network members also discuss politics more frequently, but are more likely to engage in risk-tolerant discussion practices such as posting political updates or attempting political persuasion. These novel findings on social connectedness extend research on offline political discussion into the social media sphere, and suggest that as social network research proliferates, analysts should consider how various types of network location shape political behavior. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/1065912915580135 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1835019975</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>24371839</jstor_id><sage_id>10.1177_1065912915580135</sage_id><sourcerecordid>24371839</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-f6455f2593f341f75503a631c764c197b1db9ca0698ab483c6261b3862795cd43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMFLwzAUxosoOKd3L0LAi5dqXtMkjTeZToWpAyd4K2majmxdM5MW2X9vRlVk4OmF9_2-Lx8vik4BXwJwfgWYUQGJAEozDITuRQMQJIsTnr7vh3eQ461-GB15v8AYEkjpIFIzWS9NM0dTW5vWKI9sg8ZS6cLa5TV61u2ndUs00k3rZCA2SDblDyxrdGu86rw3wTV1UoWl9sg06NUqE-QnXRp5HB1Usvb65HsOo7fx3Wz0EE9e7h9HN5NYEeBtXLGU0iqhglQkhYpTiolkBBRnqQLBCygLoSRmIpNFmhHFEgYFyVjCBVVlSobRRZ-7dvaj077NV6GdrmvZaNv5HDJCMQjBaUDPd9CF7VwT2uXAMkHDH1gECveUctZ7p6t87cxKuk0OON9ePd-9erDEvcXLuf4T-j9_1vML31r3m5-khIe6gnwBQjiJYg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1689569809</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Talking Politics on Facebook: Network Centrality and Political Discussion Practices in Social Media</title><source>Access via SAGE</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>EBSCOhost Political Science Complete</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Miller, Patrick R. ; Bobkowski, Piotr S. ; Maliniak, Daniel ; Rapoport, Ronald B.</creator><creatorcontrib>Miller, Patrick R. ; Bobkowski, Piotr S. ; Maliniak, Daniel ; Rapoport, Ronald B.</creatorcontrib><description>This study examines the relationship between political discussion on Facebook and social network location. It uses a survey name generator to map friendship ties between students at a university and to calculate their centralities in that network. Social connectedness in the university network positively predicts more frequent political discussion on Facebook. But in political discussions, better connected individuals do not capitalize equally on the potential influence that stems from their more central network locations. Popular individuals who have more direct connections to other network members discuss politics more often but in politically safer interactions that minimize social risk, preferring more engaged discussion with like-minded others and editing their privacy settings to guard their political disclosures. Gatekeepers who facilitate connections between more pairs of otherwise disconnected network members also discuss politics more frequently, but are more likely to engage in risk-tolerant discussion practices such as posting political updates or attempting political persuasion. These novel findings on social connectedness extend research on offline political discussion into the social media sphere, and suggest that as social network research proliferates, analysts should consider how various types of network location shape political behavior.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1065-9129</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1938-274X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/1065912915580135</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Facebook Inc ; Friendship ; Hyperlinks ; Online social networking ; Persuasion ; Political behavior ; Political candidates ; Political influence ; Political networks ; Political partisanship ; Political research ; Politics ; Social media ; Social networks</subject><ispartof>Political research quarterly, 2015-06, Vol.68 (2), p.377-391</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2015 The University of Utah</rights><rights>2015 University of Utah</rights><rights>Copyright SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC. Jun 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-f6455f2593f341f75503a631c764c197b1db9ca0698ab483c6261b3862795cd43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24371839$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/24371839$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,12845,21819,27866,27924,27925,43621,43622,58017,58250</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Miller, Patrick R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bobkowski, Piotr S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maliniak, Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rapoport, Ronald B.</creatorcontrib><title>Talking Politics on Facebook: Network Centrality and Political Discussion Practices in Social Media</title><title>Political research quarterly</title><description>This study examines the relationship between political discussion on Facebook and social network location. It uses a survey name generator to map friendship ties between students at a university and to calculate their centralities in that network. Social connectedness in the university network positively predicts more frequent political discussion on Facebook. But in political discussions, better connected individuals do not capitalize equally on the potential influence that stems from their more central network locations. Popular individuals who have more direct connections to other network members discuss politics more often but in politically safer interactions that minimize social risk, preferring more engaged discussion with like-minded others and editing their privacy settings to guard their political disclosures. Gatekeepers who facilitate connections between more pairs of otherwise disconnected network members also discuss politics more frequently, but are more likely to engage in risk-tolerant discussion practices such as posting political updates or attempting political persuasion. These novel findings on social connectedness extend research on offline political discussion into the social media sphere, and suggest that as social network research proliferates, analysts should consider how various types of network location shape political behavior.</description><subject>Facebook Inc</subject><subject>Friendship</subject><subject>Hyperlinks</subject><subject>Online social networking</subject><subject>Persuasion</subject><subject>Political behavior</subject><subject>Political candidates</subject><subject>Political influence</subject><subject>Political networks</subject><subject>Political partisanship</subject><subject>Political research</subject><subject>Politics</subject><subject>Social media</subject><subject>Social networks</subject><issn>1065-9129</issn><issn>1938-274X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kMFLwzAUxosoOKd3L0LAi5dqXtMkjTeZToWpAyd4K2majmxdM5MW2X9vRlVk4OmF9_2-Lx8vik4BXwJwfgWYUQGJAEozDITuRQMQJIsTnr7vh3eQ461-GB15v8AYEkjpIFIzWS9NM0dTW5vWKI9sg8ZS6cLa5TV61u2ndUs00k3rZCA2SDblDyxrdGu86rw3wTV1UoWl9sg06NUqE-QnXRp5HB1Usvb65HsOo7fx3Wz0EE9e7h9HN5NYEeBtXLGU0iqhglQkhYpTiolkBBRnqQLBCygLoSRmIpNFmhHFEgYFyVjCBVVlSobRRZ-7dvaj077NV6GdrmvZaNv5HDJCMQjBaUDPd9CF7VwT2uXAMkHDH1gECveUctZ7p6t87cxKuk0OON9ePd-9erDEvcXLuf4T-j9_1vML31r3m5-khIe6gnwBQjiJYg</recordid><startdate>20150601</startdate><enddate>20150601</enddate><creator>Miller, Patrick R.</creator><creator>Bobkowski, Piotr S.</creator><creator>Maliniak, Daniel</creator><creator>Rapoport, Ronald B.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88F</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>M1Q</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150601</creationdate><title>Talking Politics on Facebook: Network Centrality and Political Discussion Practices in Social Media</title><author>Miller, Patrick R. ; Bobkowski, Piotr S. ; Maliniak, Daniel ; Rapoport, Ronald B.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-f6455f2593f341f75503a631c764c197b1db9ca0698ab483c6261b3862795cd43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Facebook Inc</topic><topic>Friendship</topic><topic>Hyperlinks</topic><topic>Online social networking</topic><topic>Persuasion</topic><topic>Political behavior</topic><topic>Political candidates</topic><topic>Political influence</topic><topic>Political networks</topic><topic>Political partisanship</topic><topic>Political research</topic><topic>Politics</topic><topic>Social media</topic><topic>Social networks</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Miller, Patrick R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bobkowski, Piotr S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maliniak, Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rapoport, Ronald B.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Military Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>Military Database</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Political research quarterly</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Miller, Patrick R.</au><au>Bobkowski, Piotr S.</au><au>Maliniak, Daniel</au><au>Rapoport, Ronald B.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Talking Politics on Facebook: Network Centrality and Political Discussion Practices in Social Media</atitle><jtitle>Political research quarterly</jtitle><date>2015-06-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>68</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>377</spage><epage>391</epage><pages>377-391</pages><issn>1065-9129</issn><eissn>1938-274X</eissn><abstract>This study examines the relationship between political discussion on Facebook and social network location. It uses a survey name generator to map friendship ties between students at a university and to calculate their centralities in that network. Social connectedness in the university network positively predicts more frequent political discussion on Facebook. But in political discussions, better connected individuals do not capitalize equally on the potential influence that stems from their more central network locations. Popular individuals who have more direct connections to other network members discuss politics more often but in politically safer interactions that minimize social risk, preferring more engaged discussion with like-minded others and editing their privacy settings to guard their political disclosures. Gatekeepers who facilitate connections between more pairs of otherwise disconnected network members also discuss politics more frequently, but are more likely to engage in risk-tolerant discussion practices such as posting political updates or attempting political persuasion. These novel findings on social connectedness extend research on offline political discussion into the social media sphere, and suggest that as social network research proliferates, analysts should consider how various types of network location shape political behavior.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/1065912915580135</doi><tpages>15</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1065-9129 |
ispartof | Political research quarterly, 2015-06, Vol.68 (2), p.377-391 |
issn | 1065-9129 1938-274X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1835019975 |
source | Access via SAGE; PAIS Index; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; Jstor Complete Legacy; EBSCOhost Political Science Complete; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Facebook Inc Friendship Hyperlinks Online social networking Persuasion Political behavior Political candidates Political influence Political networks Political partisanship Political research Politics Social media Social networks |
title | Talking Politics on Facebook: Network Centrality and Political Discussion Practices in Social Media |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-20T11%3A33%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Talking%20Politics%20on%20Facebook:%20Network%20Centrality%20and%20Political%20Discussion%20Practices%20in%20Social%20Media&rft.jtitle=Political%20research%20quarterly&rft.au=Miller,%20Patrick%20R.&rft.date=2015-06-01&rft.volume=68&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=377&rft.epage=391&rft.pages=377-391&rft.issn=1065-9129&rft.eissn=1938-274X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/1065912915580135&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E24371839%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1689569809&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=24371839&rft_sage_id=10.1177_1065912915580135&rfr_iscdi=true |