Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-rcd7l Total loading time: 0.329 Render date: 2021-10-18T09:22:10.863Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

A Two-Stage Theory of Discussant Influence on Vote Choice in Multiparty Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2014

Abstract

This article addresses two aspects of social network influence on voters’ electoral choices that are not well understood: the role of party systems as institutional contexts and the relationship between social pressure and information sharing as mechanisms of influence. It argues that in the cleavage-based multiparty systems of Western Europe, discussant influence at elections occurs in two stages. First, discussants place social pressure on voters to opt for parties from the same ideological camp. Secondly, by providing information, discussants influence which parties voters eventually choose out of these restricted ‘consideration sets’. The study tests these assumptions using a panel survey conducted at the 2009 German federal election. The first proposition is clearly confirmed, and the evidence supports the second proposition, although less unequivocally.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2014 

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.)

Footnotes

*

University of Mannheim (emails: schmitt-beck@uni-mannheim.de, julia.partheymueller@mzes.uni-mannheim.de). For important inspiration and support in preparing this article we are indebted to Hans Hassell, Josephine Hörl, Oana Lup, Patricia Moy, Thomas Plischke, Thomas Poguntke, Anne Schäfer, Richard Traunmüller, Bernhard Weßels, Line Winterhoff as well as three anonymous reviewers. The data used in this article are available for free download at http://www.gesis.org/gles. Online appendices and data replication sets are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi: 10.1017/S0007123414000301

References

Abrams, Samuel, Iversen, Torben, and Soskice, David. 2011. Informal Social Networks and Rational Voting. British Journal of Political Science 41:229257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alford, John R., Hatemi, Peter K., Hibbing, John R., Martin, Nicholas G., and Eaves, Lindon J.. 2011. The Politics of Mate Choice. Journal of Politics 73:362379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldassarri, Delia. 2013. The Simple Art of Voting. The Cognitive Shortcuts of Italian Voters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bartolini, Stefano, and Mair, Peter. 1990. Identity, Competition and Electoral Availability: The Stabilisation of European Electorates, 1885–1985. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baumeister, Roy F., and Leary, Mark R.. 1995. The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation. Psychological Bulletin 117 (3):497529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bello, Jason, and Rolfe, Meredith. 2014. Is Influence Mightier Than Selection? Forging Agreement in Political Discussion Networks During a Campaign. Social Networks 36:134146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berelson, Bernard R., Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and McPhee, William N.. 1954. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brandt, Patrick T., and Schneider, Christiana J.. 2007. So the Reviewer Told You to Use a Selection Model? Selection Models and the Study of International Relations. Unpublished manuscript. Available from http://polisci2.ucsd.edu/cjschneider/working_papers/pdf/Selection-W041.pdf, accessed 25 March 2013.Google Scholar
Bytzek, Evelin, and Roßteutscher, Sigrid. 2011. Holpriger Start einer Wunschehe? Die Regierungsbildung der schwarz-gelben Koalition (Bumpy Start of a Desired Marriage? Government Formation of the Black-yellow Coalition). In Zwischen Langeweile und Extremen: Die Bundestagswahl 2009 (Between Boredom and Extremes: The 2009 German Federal Election), edited by Hans Rattinger, Sigrid Roßteutscher, Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck and Bernhard Weßels, 265–80. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Campus, Donatella, Pasquino, Gianfranco, and Vaccari, Cristian. 2008. Social Networks, Political Discussion, and Voting in Italy: A Study of the 2006 Election. Political Communication 25:423444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffé, Hilde, and Need, Ariana. 2010. Similarity in Husbands’ and Wives’ Party Family Preference in The Netherlands. Electoral Studies 29:259268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, Russell J. 2008. The Quantity and Quality of Party Systems. Comparative Political Studies 41 (7):899920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, Russell J., Farrell, David M., and McAllister, Ian. 2011. Political Parties and Democratic Linkage: How Parties Organize Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vries, Catherine E., and Rosema, Martin. 2009. Taking Voters’ Consideration Set into Consideration: Modelling Electoral Choice in Two Stages. Paper presented at the 5th ECPR General Conference, 10–12 September, Potsdam, Germany.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1965. An Economic Theory of Democracy. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Eveland, William P., Morey, Alyssa C., and Hutchens, Myiah J.. 2011. Beyond Deliberation: New Directions for the Study of Informal Political Conversation from a Communication Perspective. Journal of Communication 61 (6):10821103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eveland, William P. Jr., and Hively, Myiah H.. 2009. Political Discussion Frequency, Network Size, and ‘Heterogeneity’ of Discussion as Predictors of Political Knowledge and Participation. Journal of Communication 59 (2):205224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleury, Christopher J., and Lewis-Beck, Michael S.. 1993. Anchoring the French Voter: Ideology Versus Party. Journal of Politics 55 (4):11001109.Google Scholar
Fowler, James H., Heaney, Michael T., Nickerson, David W., Padgett, John F., and Sinclair, Betsy. 2011. Causality in Political Networks. American Politics Research 39:437480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gertzen, Heiner. 1992. Component Processes of Phased Decision Strategies. Acta Psychologica 80 (1–3):229246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanmer, Michael J., and Kalkan, Kerem O.. 2013. Behind the Curve: Clarifying the Best Approach to Calculating Predicted Probabilities and Marginal Effects from Limited Dependent Variable Models. American Journal of Political Science 57 (1):263277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopmann, David N. 2012. The Consequences of Political Disagreement in Interpersonal Communication: New Insights from a Comparative Perspective. European Journal of Political Research 51 (2):265287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert. 2001. The Social Communication of Political Expertise. American Journal of Political Science 45 (2):425438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, and Sprague, John. 1991. Discussant Effects on Vote Choice: Intimacy, Structure, and Interdependence. Journal of Politics 53 (1):122158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, and Sprague, John. 1995. Citizens, Politics, and Social Communication. Information and Influence in an Election Campaign. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, Beck, Paul A., Dalton, Russell J., and Levine, Jeffrey. 1995. Political Environments, Cohesive Social Groups, and the Communication of Public Opinion. American Journal of Political Science 39 (4):10251054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, Beck, Paul A., Dalton, Russell J., Levine, Jeffrey, and Morgan, William. 1998. Ambiguity, Distorted Messages, and Nested Environmental Effects on Political Communication. Journal of Politics 60:9961030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, Ikeda, Ken’ichi, and Pappi, Franz U.. 2005. Patterns of Disagreement in Democratic Politics: Comparing Germany, Japan, and the United States. American Journal of Political Science 49 (3):497514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, Johnson, Paul, and Sprague, John. 2004. Political Disagreement. The Survival of Diverse Opinions within Communication Networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, Sprague, John, and Levine, Jeffrey. 2000. The Dynamics of Collective Deliberation in the 1996 Election: Campaign Effects on Accessibility, Certainty, and Accuracy. American Political Science Review 94:641651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ikeda, Ken’ichi. 2010. Social Networks, Voting and Campaign Participation in Japan. The Interpersonal Political Environment and the Autonomous Dimension of Social Networks. In Political Discussion in Modern Democracies. A Comparative Perspective, edited by Michael R. Wolf, Laura, Morales and Ken’ichi Ikeda, 162182. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ikeda, Ken’ichi, and Richey, Sean. 2009. The Impact of Diversity in Informal Social Networks on Tolerance in Japan. British Journal of Political Science 39 (3):655668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Ron, and Pattie, Charles. 2006. Putting Voters in Their Place. Geography and Elections in Great Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Karlsen, Rune, and Aardal, Bernt. 2012. Political Values, Party Set, and Issue Ownership: How Stable and Dynamic Factors Affect Vote Choice in Multiparty Systems. Paper presented at the 2nd EPSA Annual Conference, Berlin, Germany, 21–23 June.Google Scholar
Kenny, Christopher B. 1994. The Microenvironment of Attitude Change. Journal of Politics 56:715728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, Christopher B.. 1998. The Behavioral Consequences of Political Discussion: Another Look at Discussant Effects on Vote Choice. Journal of Politics 60 (1):231244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingemann, Hans-Dieter. 2005. Political Parties and Party Systems. In The European Voter. A Comparative Study of Modern Democracies , edited by Jacques Thomassen, 2263. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klofstad, Casey A. 2011. Civic Talk. Peers Politics, and the Future of Democracy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Klofstad, Casey A., Sokhey, Anand, and McClurg, Scott D.. 2013. Disagreeing About Disagreement: How Conflict in Social Networks Affects Political Behavior. American Journal of Political Science 57 (1):120134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klofstad, Casey A., McDermott, Rose, and Hatemi, Peter K.. 2012. Do Bedroom Eyes Wear Political Glasses? The Role Politics in Human Mate Attraction. Evolution and Human Behavior 33:100108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klofstad, Casey A., McDermott, Rose, and Hatemi, Peter K.. 2013. The Dating Preferences of Liberals and Conservatives. Political Behavior 35:519538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knoke, David. 1990. Networks of Political Action: Toward Theory Construction. Social Forces 68 (4):10411063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knutsen, Oddbjørn. 1995. Value Orientations, Political Conflicts and Left-Right Identification: A Comparative Study. European Journal of Political Research 28 (1):6393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knutsen, Oddbjørn. 1998. Expert Judgements of the Left-Right Location of Political Parties: A Comparative Longitudinal Study. West European Politics 21 (2):6394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koßmann, Ingo. 1996. Meinungsbildungsprozesse in egozentrierten Netzwerken (Opinion-formation Processes in Egocentric Networks). Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Berelson, Bernard, and Gaudet, Hazel. 1968. The People’s Choice. How the Voter Makes up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. 3rd edition. New York and London: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Lazer, David, Rubineau, Brian, Chetkovich, Carol, Katz, Nancy, and Neblo, Michael. 2010. The Coevolution of Networks and Political Attitudes. Political Communication 27:248274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leighley, Jan E. 1990. Social Interaction and Contextual Influence on Political Participation. American Politics Quarterly 18:459475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, Jeffrey. 2005. Choosing Alone? The Social Network Basis of Modern Political Choice. In The Social Logic of Politics. Personal Networks as Contexts for Political Behavior, edited by Alan Zuckerman, 132151. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Little, Roderick J. A. 1985. A Note About Models for Selectivity Bias. Econometrica 53 (6):14691474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, Roderick J. A., and Rubin, Donald B.. 1987. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Lup, Oana. 2010. The Role of Political Discussion in Developing Democracies. Evidence from Hungary. In Political Discussion in Modern Democracies. A Comparative Perspective, edited by Michael R. Wolf, Laura Morales and Ken’ichi Ikeda, 183200. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma. Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacKuen, Michael, and Brown, Courtney. 1987. Political Context and Attitude Change. American Political Science Review 81 (2):471490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magalhães, Pedro C. 2007. Voting and Intermediation: Informational Biases and Electoral Choices in Comparative Perspective. In Democracy, Intermediation, and Voting on Four Continents, edited by Richard Gunther, Jose R. Montero and Hans-Jürgen Puhle, 208254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, Peter V. 1987. Core Discussion Networks of Americans. American Sociological Review 52:122131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Lanny W., and Stevenson, Randolph T.. 2001. Government Formation in Parliamentary Democracies. American Journal of Political Science 45 (1):3350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayerl, Jochen, and Urban, Dieter. 2008. Antwortreaktionszeiten in Survey-Analysen: Messung, Auswertung und Anwendungen (Response Latencies in Survey Research: Measurement, Analysis, Applications). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
McClosky, Herbert, and Dahlgren, Harold E.. 1959. Primary Group Influence on Party Loyalty. American Political Science Review 53:757776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClurg, Scott. 2011. Porous Networks and Overlapping Contexts. Methodological Challenges in the Study of Social Communication and Political Behavior. In The Sourcebook for Political Communication Reserach. Methods, Measures, and Analytical Techniques, edited by Erik P. Bucy and Lance R. Holbert, 346364. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McPhee, William N., Ferguson, Mark, and Smith, Robert B.. 1963. A Theory of Informal Social Influence. Glencoe and London: Free Press/Collier Macmillan.Google Scholar
McPherson, Miller, Smith-Lovin, Lynn, and Cook, James M.. 2001. Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27:415444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meffert, Michael F., Huber, Sascha, Gschwend, Thomas, and Pappi, Franz U.. 2011. More Than Wishful Thinking: Causes and Consequences of Voters’ Electoral Expectations About Parties and Coalitions. Electoral Studies 30 (4):804815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mood, Carina. 2010. Logistic Regression: Why We Cannot Do What We Think We Can Do, and What We Can Do About It. European Sociological Review 26 (1):6782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, Diana, and Mondak, Jeffery. 2006. The Workplace as a Context for Cross-Cutting Political Discourse. Journal of Politics 68:140155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neundorf, Anja. 2012. Die Links-Rechts-Dimension auf dem Prüfstand: Ideologische Einstellungen und Wahlverhalten im vereinten Deutschland 1990 bis 2008 (The Left-right Dimension on the Test Bench: Ideological Attitudes and Voting Behaviour in Unified Germany 1990 to 2008). In Wählen in Deutschland (Voting in Germany). PVS special issue 45, edited by Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck, 227251. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Niedermayer, Oskar. 2006. Das Parteiensystem Deutschlands (The Party System of Germany). In Die Parteiensysteme Westeuropas (The Party Systems of Western Europe), edited by Oskar Niedermayer, Richard Stöss and Melanie Haas, 109133. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oscarsson, Henrik, Gilljam, Mikael, and Granberg, Donald. 1997. The Concept of Party Set. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Swedish Political Science Association, Uppsala, Sweden, 5–7 October.Google Scholar
Paap, Richard, van Nierop, Erjen, van Heerde, Harald J., Wedel, Michel, Franses, Philip H., and Alsem, Karel J.. 2005. Consideration Sets, Intentions and the Inclusion of Don’t Know in a Two-Stage Model for Voter Choice. International Journal of Forecasting 21 (1):5371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pappi, Franz U., and Wolf, Gunter. 1984. Wahrnehmung und Realität sozialer Netzwerke. Zuverlässigkeit und Gültigkeit der Angaben über beste Freunde im Interview (Perception and Reality of Social Networks. Reliability and Validity of Statements about Best Friends in Survey Interviews). In Soziale Realität im Interview (Social Reality in Survey Interviews), edited by Heiner Meulemann and Karl-Heinz Reuband, 281300. Frankfurt and New York: Campus.Google Scholar
Parker, Suzanne L., Parker, Glenn R., and McCann, James A.. 2008. Opinion Taking within Friendship Networks. American Journal of Political Science 52:412420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partheymüller, Julia, and Schmitt-Beck, Rüdiger. 2012. A ‘Social Logic’ of Demobilization: The Influence of Political Discussants on Electoral Participation at the 2009 German Federal Election. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties 22 (4):457478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pattie, Charles, and Johnston, Ron. 2000. People Who Talk Together Vote Together: An Exploration of Contextual Effects in Great Britain. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90:4166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pattie, Charles, and Johnston, Ron. 2001. Talk as a Political Context: Conversation and Electoral Change in British Elections: 1992–1997. Electoral Studies 20:1740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pattie, Charles, and Johnston, Ron. 2002. Political Talk and Voting: Does it Matter to Whom One Talks? Environment and Planning 34:11131135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pieters, Rik G. M., and Verplanken, Bas. 1995. Intention-Behaviour Consistency: Effects of Consideration Set Size, Involvement and Need for Cognition. European Journal of Social Psychology 25 (5):531543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plischke, Thomas. 2014. Wann Wähler entscheiden. Abläufe von Entscheidungsprozessen und der Zeitpunkt der Wahlentscheidung (When Voters Decide. Processes of Decision-making and the Time of Voting Decisions). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Plischke, Thomas, and Bergmann, Michael. 2012. Entscheidungsprozesse von Spätentscheidern bei der Bundestagswahl 2009 (Late-deciders’ Processes of Decision-making at the 2009 German Federal Election). In Wählen in Deutschland (Voting in Germany). PVS special issue 45, edited by Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck, 489513. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, George, and Macdonald, Stuart E.. 1989. A Directional Theory of Issue Voting. American Political Science Review 83 (1):93121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, Bradley, and Beck, Paul A.. 2007. The Flow of Political Information: Personal Discussants, the Media, and Partisans. In Democracy, Intermediation, and Voting on Four Continents, edited by Richard Gunther, José R. Montero and Hans-Jürgen Puhle, 183207. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richey, Sean. 2008. The Autoregressive Influence of Social Network Political Knowledge on Voting Behavior. British Journal of Political Science 38:527542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, John H., and Lattin, James M.. 1991. Development and Testing of a Model of Consideration Set Composition. Journal of Marketing Research 28 (4):429440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roßteutscher, Sigrid, and Scherer, Philipp. 2011. Ideologie und Wertorientierungen (Ideology and Value Orientations). In Zwischen Langeweile und Extremen. Die Bundestagswahl 2009 (Between Boredom and Extremes: The 2009 German Federal Election), edited by Hans Rattinger, Sigrid Roßteutscher, Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck and Bernhard Weßels, 265280. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Schickler, Eric, and Green, Donald. 1997. The Stability of Party Identification in Western Democracies: Results from Eight Panel Surveys. Comparative Political Studies 30 (4):450483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt-Beck, Rüdiger. 2000. Politische Kommunikation und Wählerverhalten. Ein Internationaler Vergleich (Political Communication and Electoral Behavior. An International Comparison). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
Schmitt-Beck, Rüdiger. 2004. Political Communication Effects: The Impact of Mass Media and Personal Conversations on Voting. In Comparing Political Communication. Theories, Cases, and Challenges, edited by Frank Esser, 293322. New York and London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shalizi, Cosma R., and Thomas, Andrew C.. 2011. Homophily and Contagion Are Generically Confounded in Observational Social Network Studies. Sociological Methods & Research 40 (2):211239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sherif, Muzafer, and Hovland, Carl I.. 1961. Social Judgment. Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Communication and Attitude Change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Shikano, Susumu. 2003. Construction of Choice Sets and Its Influence on Voting Decision: Application of the Probabilistic Choice Set Model for Voter Choice under Two-Ballot System in Germany and Japan. Paper presented at the ECPR joint sessions of workshops, Edinburgh, Scotland, 28 March–2 April.Google Scholar
Shively, Phillips W. 1972. Party Identification, Party Choice, and Voting Stability: The Weimar Case. American Political Science Review 66:12031225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shocker, Allan D., Ben-Akiva, Moshe, Boccara, Bruno, and Nedungadi, Prakash. 1991. Consideration Set Influences on Consumer Decision-Making and Choice: Issues, Models, and Suggestions. Marketing letters 2 (3):181197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, Betsy. 2012. The Social Citizen. Peer Networks and Political Behavior. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M., Brody, Richard A., and Tetlock, Philip E.. 1991. Reasoning and Choice. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steenbergen, Marco R., and Hangartner, Dominik. 2008. Political Choice Sets in Multi-Party Elections. Paper presented at the workshop ‘The Politics of Change’, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 13–14 June.Google Scholar
Thomassen, Jacques, ed. 2005. The European Voter: A Comparative Study of Modern Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Eijk, Cees, and Niemöller, Broer. 1983. Electoral Change in The Netherlands. Amsterdam: CT Press.Google Scholar
van der Eijk, Cees, and Franklin, Mark N.. 2009. Elections and Voters. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, Katherine Cramer. 2004. Talking about Politics: Informal Groups and Social Identity in American Life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Weisberg, Herbert F. 1993. Political Partisanship. In Measures of Political Attitudes, edited by John P. Robinson, Phillip R. Shaver and Lawrence S. Wrightman, 681736. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Weßels, Bernhard. 2000. Gruppenbindung und Wahlverhalten: 50 Jahre Wahlen in der Bundesrepublik (Group Attachment and Voting Behaviour: 50 Years of Elections in the Federal Republic of Germany). In 50 Jahre Empirische Wahlforschung in Deutschland. Entwicklung, Befunde, Perspektiven, Daten (50 Years of Empirical Electoral Research in Germany. Development, Findings, Perspectives, Data), edited by Markus Klein, Wolfgang Jagodzinski, Ekkehard Mochmann and Dieter Ohr, 129158. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
Wilson, Carole J. 2008. Consideration Sets and Political Choices: A Heterogeneous Model of Vote Choice and Sub-National Party Strength. Political Behavior 30 (2):161183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zakharova, Maria, and Warwick, Paul V.. 2014. The Sources of Valence Judgments: The Role of Policy Distance and the Structure of the Left-Right Continuum. Comparative Political Studies 47:126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckerman, Alan S., ed. 2005. The Social Logic of Politics: Personal Networks as Contexts for Political Behavior. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, Alan S., Dasovic, Josip, and Fitzgerald, Jennifer. 2007. Partisan Families. The Social Logic of Bounded Partisanship in Germany and Britain. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 1

Download Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 69 KB
Supplementary material: File

Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 2

Download Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material(File)
File 6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 3

Download Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material(File)
File 120 Bytes
Supplementary material: File

Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 4

Download Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material(File)
File 167 Bytes
Supplementary material: File

Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 5

Download Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material(File)
File 167 Bytes
Supplementary material: File

Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 6

Download Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material(File)
File 120 Bytes
Supplementary material: File

Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 7

Download Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material(File)
File 120 Bytes
Supplementary material: File

Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 8

Download Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material(File)
File 120 Bytes
Supplementary material: File

Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 9

Download Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material(File)
File 171 Bytes
Supplementary material: File

Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 10

Download Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material(File)
File 171 Bytes
Supplementary material: File

Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 11

Download Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material(File)
File 120 Bytes
Supplementary material: File

Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 12

Download Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material(File)
File 171 Bytes
Supplementary material: File

Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 13

Download Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material(File)
File 171 Bytes
Supplementary material: File

Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 14

Download Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material(File)
File 20 KB
Supplementary material: File

Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 15

Download Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material(File)
File 6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 16

Download Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material(File)
File 3 MB
Supplementary material: File

Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 17

Download Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material(File)
File 5 MB
Supplementary material: File

Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 18

Download Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material(File)
File 2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 19

Download Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material(File)
File 17 KB
Supplementary material: File

Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 20

Download Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material(File)
File 17 KB
Supplementary material: File

Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 21

Download Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material(File)
File 16 KB
Supplementary material: File

Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 22

Download Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material(File)
File 16 KB
Supplementary material: File

Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 23

Download Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material(File)
File 17 KB
Supplementary material: File

Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 24

Download Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material(File)
File 17 KB
Supplementary material: File

Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 25

Download Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material(File)
File 17 KB
Supplementary material: File

Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 26

Download Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller Supplementary Material(File)
File 8 MB
9
Cited by

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.

A Two-Stage Theory of Discussant Influence on Vote Choice in Multiparty Systems
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.

A Two-Stage Theory of Discussant Influence on Vote Choice in Multiparty Systems
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.

A Two-Stage Theory of Discussant Influence on Vote Choice in Multiparty Systems
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *