The Columbia studies revolutionized the study of democratic politics, inspiring a view of the electorate based on interdependent citizens who reach decisions through a shared process of collective deliberation. This perspective led many to expect that citizens would be imbedded within homogeneous micro-environments of politically like-minded associates, but as we have seen, citizen communication networks demonstrate remarkably high levels of political heterogeneity. Within this context, we examine the implications of disagreement and political heterogeneity for the effectiveness of political communication and deliberation among citizens during a presidential election campaign. In order for communication to be effective, messages conveyed through social interaction must be unambiguous, and the person receiving the communication must readily, confidently, and accurately perceive the intent of the sender. Hence, we address a number of factors that might influence communication effectiveness among individual citizens: the dynamic of the election campaign, the accessibility and extremity of the political preferences held by individual citizens, the distribution of preferences within political communication networks, and the presence of disagreement between the senders and receivers of political messages. The analysis is based on the 1996 Indianapolis–St. Louis election study, based on interviews with citizens and their discussants conducted during the campaign.

Presidential election campaigns are among the most widely recognized events in American politics, inevitably capturing the attention of anyone who watches the evening news, reads the newspaper, or listens to news reports on the car radio.