Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-06T01:36:29.645Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Talking It Out: Political Conversation and Knowledge Gaps in Unequal Urban Contexts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 June 2016

Amy Erica Smith
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In many contemporary urban spaces, political information accrues to high status neighborhoods. This might exacerbate political inequality as the information-rich and information-poor each talk primarily with others like themselves. When information is specific and broadly diffused through the media, however, the convenience and low cognitive costs of everyday conversation could be especially helpful for the disadvantaged. This article shows how political conversations intensify or ameliorate spatial knowledge gaps, using a six-wave panel survey in fifty Brazilian neighborhoods between 2002 and 2006. Multilevel models demonstrate that conversation was more frequent in high education neighborhoods, but had a greater impact on specific, factual knowledge in low-education neighborhoods, leading to shrinking knowledge gaps. However, conversation slightly widened spatial gaps in socially perceived general knowledge.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , April 2018 , pp. 407 - 425
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

*

Iowa State University (email: aesmith2@iastate.edu). This research was funded in part by a Mellon Fellowship and an NSF Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant. A previous version of the analysis was presented at the 2010 Networks in Political Science Conference at Duke University. Thanks to Barry Ames, Steve Finkel, Jonathan Hassid, Jon Hurwitz, Jay McCann, Scott Morgenstern, Dave Peterson, and Robert Urbatsch as well as to participants in the Duke conference for very helpful feedback. The first three wave of the data analyzed here were collected under a National Science Foundation grant to Professors Barry Ames, Andy Baker, and Lúcio Rennó, while Waves 4 through 6 were collected under the direction of Professor Barry Ames with the research funds from the University of Pittsburgh Andrew Mellon chair. I am grateful to Professor Ames for the use of the data from the latter waves. Data replication sets are available at http://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/BJPolS and online appendices are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi: 10.1017/S0007123415000721.

References

LIST OF REFERENCES

Aguilar, Rosario, Cunow, Saul, Desposato, Scott, and Barone, Leonardo Sangali. 2015. Ballot Structure, Candidate Race, and Vote Choice in Brazil. Latin American Research Review 50 (3):175–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahn, T. K., Huckfeldt, Robert, Mayer, Alexander K., and Barry Ryan, John. 2013. Expertise and Bias in Political Communication Networks. American Journal of Political Science 57 (2):357–373.Google Scholar
Almeida, Alberto Carlos. 2006. Amnésia Eleitoral: Em Quem Você Votou para Deputado em 2002? E em 1998? Pp. 34–46 in Reforma Política: Lições da História Recente, edited by Gláucio Ary Dillon Soares and Lúcio Rennó. Rio de Janeiro: Editora FGV.Google Scholar
Almeida, Alberto Carlos. 2007. A Cabeça do Brasileiro, 2nd edn. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Record.Google Scholar
Ames, Barry. 1994. The Reverse Coattails Effect: Local Party Organization in the 1989 Brazilian Presidential Election. American Political Science Review 88 (1):95–111.Google Scholar
Ames, Barry, and Smith, Amy Erica. 2010. Knowing Left from Right: Ideological Identification in Brazil, 2002–2006. Journal of Politics in Latin America 2 (3):3–38.Google Scholar
Ames, Barry, Miguel García, and Smith, Amy Erica. 2012. Keeping Up with the Souzas: Social Influence and Electoral Change in a Weak Party System, Brazil 2002–2006. Latin American Politics & Society 54 (2):51–78.Google Scholar
Bailey, Stanley R. 2008. Unmixing for Race Making in Brazil. American Journal of Sociology 114 (3):577–614.Google Scholar
Baker, Andy, Ames, Barry, and Rennó, Lúcio. 2006. Social Context and Campaign Volatility in New Democracies: Networks and Neighborhoods in Brazil’s 2002 Elections. American Journal of Political Science 50 (2):382–399.Google Scholar
Barabas, Jason. 2002. Another Look at the Measurement of Political Knowledge. Political Analysis 10 (2):209.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1996. Uninformed Votes: Information Effects in Presidential Elections. American Journal of Political Science 40 (1):194–230.Google Scholar
Bontempo, Robert, Lobel, Sharon, and Triandis, Harry. 1990. Compliance and Value Internalization in Brazil and the U.S. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 21 (2):200–213.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Teresa Pires do Rio. 1996. Fortified Enclaves: The New Urban Segregation. Public Culture 8 (2):303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, David E. 2008. Voice in the Classroom: How an Open Classroom Climate Fosters Political Engagement among Adolescents. Political Behavior 30:437–454.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1964. The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. Pp. 75–169 in Ideology and Discontent, edited by David Apter. London: Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
De Boef, Suzanna, and Keele, Luke. 2008. Taking Time Seriously. American Journal of Political Science 52 (1):184–200.Google Scholar
Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Keeter, Scott. 1996. What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Djupe, Paul A., and Sokhey, Anand Edward. 2014. The Distribution and Determinants of Socially Supplied Political Expertise. American Politics Research 42 (2):199–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donohue, George A., Tichenor, Phillip J., and Olien, Clarice N.. 1975. Mass Media and the Knowledge Gap: A Hypothesis Reconsidered. Communication Research 2 (1):3–23.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2004. Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)Relevance of Framing Effects. American Political Science Review 98 (4):671–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N., and Nelson, Kjersten R.. 2003. Framing and Deliberation: How Citizens’ Conversations Limit Elite Influence. American Journal of Political Science 47 (4):729–745.Google Scholar
Ettema, James S., and Kline, F. Gerald. 1977. Deficits, Differences, and Ceilings Contingent Conditions for Understanding the Knowledge Gap. Communication Research 4 (2):179–202.Google Scholar
Ettema, James S., James, W. Brown, and Russell, V. Luepker. 1983. Knowledge Gap Effects in a Health Information Campaign. Public Opinion Quarterly 47 (4):516–527.Google Scholar
Eveland, William P. Jr., Hayes, Andrew F., Shah, Dhavan V., and Kwak, Nojin. 2005. Understanding the Relationship Between Communication and Political Knowledge: A Model Comparison Approach Using Panel Data. Political Communication 22 (4):423–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eveland, William P., and Scheufele, Dietram A.. 2000. Connecting News Media Use With Gaps in Knowledge and Participation. Political Communication 17 (3):215–237.Google Scholar
Eveland, William P., and Thomson, Tiffany. 2006. Is It Talking, Thinking, or Both? A Lagged Dependent Variable Model of Discussion Effects on Political Knowledge. Journal of Communication 56 (3):523–542.Google Scholar
Finkel, Steven E., and Smith, Amy Erica. 2011. Civic Education, Political Discussion, and the Social Transmission of Democratic Knowledge and Values in a New Democracy: Kenya 2002. American Journal of Political Science 55 (2):417–435.Google Scholar
Fontes, Breno Augusto Souto-Maior, and Eichner, Klaus. 2004. A Formação do Capital Social em uma Comunidade de Baixa Renda. Redes: Revista Hispana para el Análisis de Redes Sociales 7 (2):47–80.Google Scholar
Galston, William A. 2001. Political Knowledge, Political Engagement, and Civic Education. Annual Review of Political Science 4:217–234.Google Scholar
Gay, Robert. 1999. The Broker and the Thief: A Parable (Reflections on Popular Politics in Brazil). Luso-Brazilian Review 36 (1):49–70.Google Scholar
Gaziano, Cecilie. 1983. The Knowledge Gap: An Analytical Review of Media Effects. Communication Research 10 (4):447–486.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and Hill, Jennifer. 2007. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Genova, Bistravapka K. L., and Greenberg, Bradley S.. 1979. Interests in News and the Knowledge Gap. Public Opinion Quarterly 43 (1):79–91.Google Scholar
Gordon, Stacy B., and Segura, Gary M.. 1997. Cross National Variation in the Political Sophistication of Individuals: Capability or Choice. Journal of Politics 59 (1):126–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grabe, Maria Elizabeth, Lang, Annie, Zhou, Shuhua, and Bolls, Paul David. 2000. Cognitive Access to Negatively Arousing News: An Experimental Investigation of the Knowledge Gap. Communication Research 27 (1):3–26.Google Scholar
Hofstede, Geert. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Holbrook, Thomas M. 2002. Presidential Campaigns and the Knowledge Gap. Political Communication 19 (4):437–454.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, and Sprague, John. 1995. Citizens, Politics, and Social Communication: Information and Influence in an Election Campaign. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, Johnson, Paul E., and Sprague, John. 2002. Political Environments, Political Dynamics, and the Survival of Disagreement. Journal of Politics 64 (1):1–21.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, Johnson, Paul E., and Sprague, John. 2004. Political Disagreement: The Survival of Diverse Opinions within Communication Networks . New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Humphreys, Macartan, Masters, William A., and Sandbu, Martin E.. 2007. The Role of Leaders in Democratic Deliberations: Results from a Field Experiment in São Tomé and Príncipe. World Politics 58 (4):583–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackman, Simon, and Sniderman, Paul M.. 2006. The Limits of Deliberative Discussion: A Model of Everyday Political Arguments. Journal of Politics 68 (2):272–283.Google Scholar
Jennings, M. Kent. 1996. Political Knowledge over Time and across Generations. Public Opinion Quarterly 60:228–252.Google Scholar
Jerit, Jennifer. 2009. Understanding the Knowledge Gap: The Role of Experts and Journalists. Journal of Politics 71 (2):442–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinzo, Maria D’Alva. 2004. Partidos, Eleições e Democracia no Brasil Pós-1985. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais 19 (54):23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinzo, Maria D’Alva. 2005. Os Partidos no Eleitorado: Percepções Públicas e Laços Partidários no Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais 20 (57):65–81.Google Scholar
Klofstad, Casey A. 2011. Civic Talk: Peers, Politics, and the Future of Democracy. Philadelphia, Penn.: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Kwak, Nojin. 1999. Revisiting the Knowledge Gap Hypothesis Education, Motivation, and Media Use. Communication Research 26 (4):385–413.Google Scholar
Kwak, Nojin, Willlams, Ann E., Wang, Xiaoru, and Lee, Hoon. 2005. Talking Politics and Engaging Politics: An Examination of the Interactive Relationships Between Structural Features of Political Talk and Discussion Engagement. Communication Research 32 (1):87–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, Richard R., and Redlawsk, David P.. 2001. Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision-Making. American Journal of Political Science 45 (4):951–971.Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Berelson, Bernard R., and Gaudet, Hazel. 1948. The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Lup, Oana. 2010. The Role of Political Discussion in Developing Democracies: Evidence from Hungary. Pp, 183–200 in Political Discussion in Modern Democracies: A Comparative Perspective, edited by Michael R. Wolf, Laura Morales and Ken’ichi Ikeda. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lupia, Arthur. 1994. Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections. American Political Science Review 88 (1):63–76.Google Scholar
Makse, Todd, and Sokhey, Anand E.. 2010. Revisiting the Divisive Primary Hypothesis: 2008 and the Clinton–Obama Nomination Battle. American Politics Research 38 (2):233–265.Google Scholar
Maldonado, Arturo. 2011. Compulsory Voting and the Decision to Vote. 63. AmericasBarometer Insights. Latin American Public Opinion Project, Vanderbilt University.Google Scholar
Marques, Eduardo Cesar. 2009a. As Redes Importam Para o Acesso a Bens e Serviços Obtidos Fora de Mercados? Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais 24, 71:25–40.Google Scholar
Marques, Eduardo Cesar. 2009b. As Redes Sociais Importam para a Pobreza Urbana? Dados – Revista de Ciências Sociais 52 (2):471–505.Google Scholar
Marques, Eduardo Cesar, Scalon, Celi, and Oliveira, Maria Aparecida. 2008. Comparando Estruturas Sociais no Rio de Janeiro e em São Paulo. Dados – Revista de Ciências Sociais 51 (1):215–238.Google Scholar
McCann, James A., and Lawson, Chappell. 2006. Presidential Campaigns and the Knowledge Gap in Three Transitional Democracies. Political Research Quarterly 59 (1):13–22.Google Scholar
McClurg, Scott D. 2003. Social Networks and Political Participation: The Role of Social Interaction in Explaining Political Participation. Political Research Quarterly 56 (4):449–464.Google Scholar
McClurg, Scott D. 2006. The Electoral Relevance of Political Talk: Examining Disagreement and Expertise Effects in Social Networks on Political Participation. American Journal of Political Science 50 (3):737–754.Google Scholar
Moore, David W. 1987. Political Campaigns and the Knowledge-Gap Hypothesis. Public Opinion Quarterly 51 (2):186–200.Google Scholar
Morales, Laura. 2010. Getting a Single Message? The Impact of Homogeneous Political Communication Contexts in Spain in a Comparative Perspective. Pp, 201–222 in Political Discussion in Modern Democracies: A Comparative Perspective, edited by Michael R. Wolf, Laura Morales and Ken’ichi Ikeda. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mutz, Diana. 2002a. The Consequences of Cross-Cutting Networks for Political Participation. American Journal of Political Science 46 (4):838–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, Diana. 2002b. Cross-Cutting Social Networks: Testing Democratic Theory in Practice. American Political Science Review 96 (1):111–126.Google Scholar
Mutz, Diana. 2006. Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nickerson, David W. 2008. Is Voting Contagious? Evidence from Two Field Experiments. American Political Science Review 102 (1):49–57.Google Scholar
Pan, Zhongdang, Shen, Lijian, Paek, Hye-Jin, and Sun, Ye. 2006. Mobilizing Political Talk in a Presidential Campaign: An Examination of Campaign Effects in a Deliberative Framework. Communication Research 33 (5):315–345.Google Scholar
Pingree, Raymond J. 2007. How Messages Affect Their Senders: A More General Model of Message Effects and Implications for Deliberation. Communication Theory 17:439–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plutzer, Eric. 2002. Becoming a Habitual Voter: Inertia, Resources, and Growth in Young Adulthood. American Political Science Review 96 (1):41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Power, Timothy J. 2009. Compulsory for Whom? Mandatory Voting and Electoral Participation in Brazil, 1986–2006. Journal of Politics in Latin America 1 (1):97–122.Google Scholar
Price, Vincent, Cappella, Joseph N., and Nir, Lilach. 2002. Does Disagreement Contribute to More Deliberative Opinion? Political Communication 19 (1):95–112.Google Scholar
Prior, Markus. 2005. News vs. Entertainment: How Increasing Media Choice Widens Gaps in Political Knowledge and Turnout. American Journal of Political Science 49 (3):577–592.Google Scholar
Prior, Markus. 2007. Post-Broadcast Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rennó, Lúcio. 2006. O Dilema do Rico: Número de Candidatos, Identificação Partidária e Accountability nas Eleições de 2002 Para a Câmara Dos Deputados. Pp. 47–68 in Reforma Política: Lições da História Recente, edited by Gláucio Ary Dillon Soares and Lúcio Rennó. Rio de Janeiro: Editora FGV.Google Scholar
Richey, Sean. 2008. The Social Basis of Voting Correctly. Political Communication 25:366–376.Google Scholar
Ryan, John Barry. 2011. Social Networks as a Shortcut to Correct Voting. American Journal of Political Science 55 (4):753–766.Google Scholar
Singh, Shane. 2011. How Compelling is Compulsory Voting? A Multilevel Analysis of Turnout. Political Behavior 33 (1):95–111.Google Scholar
Sokhey, Anand Edward, and McClurg, Scott D.. 2012. Social Networks and Correct Voting. Journal of Politics 74 (3):751–764.Google Scholar
Stoker, Laura, and Jennings, M. Kent. 2005. Political Similarity and Influence between Husbands and Wives. In The Social Logic of Politics: Personal Networks as Contexts for Political Behavior, edited by Alan S. Zuckerman. Philadelphia, Penn.: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Telles, Edward Eric. 2004. Race in Another America: The Significance of Skin Color in Brazil. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tichenor, Phillip J., Donohue, George A., and Olien, Clarice N.. 1970. Mass Media Flow and Differential Growth in Knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly 34 (2):159–170.Google Scholar
Toka, Gabor. 2010. The Impact of Everyday Political Talk on Involvement, Knowledge, and Informed Voting. Pp, 129–144 in Political Discussion in Modern Democracies: A Comparative Perspective, edited by Michael R. Wolf, Laura Morales and Ken’ichi Ikeda. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Walsh, Katherine Cramer. 2004. Talking About Politics: Informal Groups and Social Identity in American Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Smith supplementary material

Appendix

Download Smith supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 104 KB