Dare to disagree?
A qualitative research on the motivations students hold to engage in informal political conversations
Emma Hoes University of Amsterdam
Emma Hoes (10915478) emma.hoes@student.uva.nl
Supervisor: Magdalena Wojcieszak Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication
Master’s programme Political Communication Date: June 20, 2016
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor, Magdalena Wojcieszak, who - throughout the process of writing my Master’s thesis - helped me to keep improving myself not only by providing extensive feedback and guidance but also by emphasizing that each little step forward is an accomplishment to be proud of.
A special thanks to my roommates, who all three wrote their theses simultaneously, making it possible to ask for support and ideas at any time of day. Their interest in the subject of my thesis helped me to rethink my own ideas and this is what kept me motivated to work on my thesis throughout the months.
I would also like to express my gratitude to some friends and fellow students who took the time providing me with feedback that helped me to keep improving my thesis.
Lastly, a very special thanks to all the respondents helping me realizing the interviews. Their elaborate responses and enthusiasm during the interviews provided me with substantive, rich information that eventually formed the core of my thesis.
Abstract
Extant literature argues that both informal and crosscutting political conversations are important to democratic life. Yet, while factors facilitating political conversations have been established before, only little research has been done on these informal political
conversations, less research has been done on motivations for political conversations and no research has been done on motivations for like-minded versus crosscutting conversations. As such, this study explores the motivations to engage in political conversations of 14 Dutch University students. In-depth semi-structured interviews help to answer the following research question: What motivates students to engage in informal political - especially
like-minded and crosscutting – conversations? It turns out that students recognize the impact of
their home and school environment, their media use and personality traits, but reveal that their political interest and personal affection is what is motivating them most to engage in political conversations. By showing that the former four factors are rather conditions through which political interest can be manifested, this study asks for a broader understanding of how political interest and personal affection can be established and how these factors contribute to a motivation to engage in political conversations, both like-minded and crosscutting.
Keywords: political conversations, crosscutting, like-minded, political socialization, political
Dare to disagree?
Political discussions make an excellent occasion for the exchange of different
opinions. For this reason, multiple scholars argue that political discussions form the soul of a democracy (Ackerman & Fishkin, 2002; Fishkin & Luskin, 2005; Ryfe, 2005). Prior research has extensively focused on the importance, relevance and strengths of formal political
discussions and political deliberation (e.g. Ackerman & Fishkin, 2002; Scheufele, 2000; Schudson, 1997). Yet, formal political discussions are rather infrequent in daily life. From this perspective, it is important to study daily, informal political conversations. Indeed, the informal conversations one has with friends, family and colleagues take place every day and as such these conversations form the heart and the realization of a democratic culture (Wyatt, Katz, & Kim, 2000).
Scholars have determined several factors that influence, affect and predict citizens’ participation in the more formal political conversations and political deliberation (Scheufele, 2000; Schudson, 1997). Here, the distinction between like-minded and crosscutting political conversations is important because crosscutting conversations have shown to “promote greater awareness of oppositional views” (Mutz, 2002a, p. 112) and as such are most
important to democratic life (Mutz, 2002a). In contrast, like-minded conversations are known to be capable of polarizing viewpoints (Mutz, 2002a; Mutz, 2002b). As such, if both informal and crosscutting conversations are argued to be important to democratic life (Mutz, 2002a), it is important to study the motivations towards these conversations. Little research, however, has been done on informal political conversations, even less research has been done on the
motivations for informal political conversations and no research has been done on motivations
for like-minded versus crosscutting conversations.
This study argues that factors influencing citizens’ participation in political
see as that what is motivating them to engage in political conversations. For example, political knowledge could influence the likeliness of participating in political conversations, but political knowledge does not need to be the inherent, personal reason for someone to engage political conversations. Therefore, it is important to focus on these personal motivations for engaging in both crosscutting and like-minded political conversations by gaining in-depth insights into the reason or reasons one has to act or behave in a particular way.
Moreover, much research on deliberation has been addressed quantitatively through surveys, through self-reporting measures (e.g. Eveland & Hiveley, 2009; La Due Lake & Huckfeldt, 1998; Kwak, Willias, Wang, & Lee, 2005; Moy & Gastil, 2006). This
methodological approach is apt to cover broad influential factors on participations in political conversations. Close-ended survey responses, however, cannot offer more in-depth insights into motivations for those conversations. Such insights are needed to gain a better
understanding of how and why the established factors are influencing motivations for political conversations among individuals and could contribute to better quantitative measures for survey research on political deliberation.
The present study adds to existing research as it takes a qualitative approach in studying personal motivations with respect to informal political conversations, both like-minded and crosscutting. The following research question is addressed: What motivates
students to engage in informal political - especially like-minded and crosscutting -
conversations? To answer this research question, 14 Dutch students are questioned on their
motivations through semi-structured in-depth interviews. These students represent a diverse sample, both politically engaged and not. Before presenting the method and results, theories regarding political conversation are discussed, used to construct a theoretically justified
research design. The results are followed by a conclusion and an in-depth discussion of the results.
Theoretical Framework
Based on the assumption that informal political conversations are frequent and important to democratic life and culture (Eveland, Morey, & Hutchens, 2011), the present study focuses on these political conversations. To this end, a concrete definition of political conversation is required and thus will be defined as “interpersonal and small-group
interactions about the broad topic of politics that take place outside of formal deliberation settings” (Eveland, Morey, & Hutchens, 2011, p. 1082).
Multiple scholars have established that a political conversation with someone like-minded is capable of triggering different effects when compared to a conversation with someone different minded (Huckfeldt & Mendez, 2008; Mutz, 2002a). The latter has often been referred to as a crosscutting conversation, and in this study will be defined as a conversation that entails exposure to dissimilar viewpoints (Huckfeldt & Mendez, 2008; Mutz, 2002a).
These crosscutting conversations are argued to be beneficial to democratic life as they have shown to not only increase awareness of oppositional views (Mutz, 2002a), but also tolerance towards dissimilar viewpoints as well as a more deliberative opinion (Huckfeldt & Mendez, 2008; Price, Cappella, & Nir, 2002). However, research shows that people are biased in selecting those with whom they discuss politics (Huckfeldt, Johnson, & Sprague, 2002; Klofstad, McClurg, & Rolfe, 2009; Huckfeld, Mendez, & Osborn, 2004). People generally are conflict-avoidant and this could discourage people to engage in crosscutting conversations (Mutz, 2002b). As such, people could be biased in selecting their discussion partners as they could have a preference for someone like-minded to avoid conflict. Yet, little research has
been done on what motivates people to engage in either crosscutting or like-minded conversations.
From the perspective that people are biased in selecting with whom they discuss, it seems plausible that people also hold different motivations to engage either in a conversation with someone they know to have similar opinions or to engage in a conversation with
someone they know to have conflicting opinions. Hence, the present study makes a distinction between different motivations for engaging in informal political conversations that carry the potential to expose people to either similar or dissimilar viewpoints.
The sections below briefly yet concisely review previous research on the antecedents of political conversations. These sections draw on studies that have identified the individual and contextual factors that predict and should matter to political conversations and categorizes the antecedents for like-minded and crosscutting conversations separately. The specific focus is on media use, political socialization and personality traits; antecedents that have been continuously found to significantly predict citizens’ participation in political conversations (e.g. Kwak et al., 2005; McLeod, Scheufele, & Moy, 1999; Moy & Gastil, 2006).
News Media
News media, such as newspapers, television, radio news or online information sources, are avenues through which citizens can inform themselves about political issues. Indeed, news is what people talk about and what makes people talk (Kim, Wyatt, & Katz, 1999). From this perspective, media content forms an important topic within political conversations. Accordingly, research shows that media use is positively related to political engagement and discussion frequency (Galston, 2001; McLeod, Scheufele, & Moy, 1999; Moy & Gastil, 2006). Although clear relationships have been found between media use and discussion frequency in general, no clear findings have been established as to if and how media use facilitates either crosscutting or like-minded conversations.
On the one hand, “shared viewing or reading may encourage conversation” (Mutz & Martin, 2001, p. 111). Based on the idea of selective exposure (Stroud, 2010), this could mean that two people, who view or read the same news content, are already on the same page when it comes to their opinions. As such, shared viewing or reading could imply that one discusses topics from the media with someone like-minded, fostering like-minded political
conversations. On the other hand, however, media use has shown to have a positive influence on the willingness to argue with people with dissimilar viewpoints (Kim, Wyatt, & Katz, 1999). This perspective could be strengthened with the finding that media use is more likely to facilitate crosscutting exposure than is a political conversation (Mutz & Martin, 2001). As such, people might be more prone to engage in crosscutting conversations.
Given that theory and research do not offer clear predictions regarding the role the news media play in motivating political conversations, this study asks whether – in the personal view of the interviewees – their media use makes them more prone to engage in crosscutting or like-minded conversations (Research Question 2). Addressing this question adds to existing research by offering more in-depth, qualitative evidence on relatively unclear patterns.
Political Socialization
Another factor found to motivate people to engage in political conversations is political socialization (McLeod & Shah, 2009). Political socialization can be defined as the developmental processes by which people of all ages acquire political cognition, attitudes, and behaviours (Powell & Cowart, 2003). As such, political socialization depends on the personal development in which the environment plays a crucial role in creating and maintaining motivations to have political conversations (McLeod & Shah, 2009) and thus is highly relevant for the aim of the present study.
Home Environment
Scholars have defined two main factors influential to political socialization, one of them being the home environment (e.g. Hively & Eveland, 2009). The home environment involves communication patterns between children and their parents and these patterns, in turn, influence the tendency of adolescents to engage in political conversations (Hively & Eveland, 2009, p. 31; McDevitt, 2005; McDevitt & Chaffee, 2002; McLeod & Shah, 2009). Family communication patterns (FCP) are used as a construct to assess parent-child
communication (McDevitt, 2005, p. 72). Broadly stated, two communication patterns can be defined that could predict either crosscutting conversations or like-minded conversations.
When the FCP is focused on encouraging children to express political opinions, even if it deviates from the opinion of others, this is referred to as concept-oriented. Prior studies show that concept-orientation correlates positively with political conversation (Hively & Eveland, 2009; McDevitt, 2005). The FCP is an indicator of discussion frequency, diversity and elaboration: “It seems logical that when discussion of political ideas is desired, a more open environment will be a key contributor to adolescents’ political development, including the development of political discussion, discussion-related cognition, and diverse discussion networks” (Hively & Eveland, 2009, p. 33). From this perspective, the following is expected: H1a: Those who grow up in a home environment that is concept-oriented should be more motivated to engage in crosscutting political conversations.
The second FCP is the socio-oriented communication pattern in which the
communication between parents and their children is focused on ensuring and maintaining social harmony. Such a socio-oriented communication pattern could motivate like-minded conversations. Prior studies show that socio-orientation correlates negatively with political conversations. As such, the following hypothesis is constructed:
motivated to engage in any political conversations but could be more motivated to engage in like-minded political conversations.
School environment
The second main influential factor on the level of political socialization is the school environment (McDevitt, 2005). Multiple scholars argue that the school plays an important role in fostering civic engagement (McDevitt, 2005; Torney-Purta, 2010). As such, the climate in the school should matter to whether people feel motivated (in the past, the present and the future) to engage in crosscutting or like-minded conversations.
An open-classroom climate refers to an environment in which adolescents feel free to disagree, make up their own mind about issues, respect opinions and express them. Such an environment also makes adolescents feel free to express an opinion even if it differs from most other opinions in class, presents multiple sides of an issue and brings up current political events (Campbell, 2005; Galston, 2001; Hively & Eveland, 2009). Schools can help make adolescents feel more comfortable in engaging in political conversations and can stress the importance of encountering controversial issues (Torney-Purta, 2010, p. 203). In a Civic Education Study (CES), Campbell (2005) evaluated how schools equip their students for active citizenship. He finds that deliberation is an educative process, as students should learn to deal with political and social issues by discussions, should feel free to share their views and “gain experience through positions on public policy issues” (p. 5). As such, it is expected that:
H2a: Those who feel they were or are embedded in an open school environment are likely to be more motivated to engage in crosscutting conversations.
A closed-classroom environment refers to teachers refraining from political
discussions in class to avoid exposure to divergent views as this could foster disagreement, which could be perceived as unpleasant (Campbell, 2005, p. 17). It could seem safer to avoid crosscutting conversations by, for example, emphasizing similarities instead of differences
among classmates. Based on the idea that some schools are more focused on similarities and conflict avoidance, the following is expected:
H2b: Those who feel they were or are embedded in a closed school environment are likely to be more motivated to engage in like-minded conversations.
Personality traits
Important to keep in mind, however, is that media use and political socialization can be dependent on micro-level influences. Indeed, certain personality traits could both increase and decrease the tendency to discuss political issues even if it entails disagreement as
personality traits could cause some over others to feel more or less affected (e.g. personally attacked) by disagreement (Gerber, Huber, Doherty, & Dowling, 2012).
Personality traits can be measured using a Five-Factor Model (FFM), in which the Big Five traits, varying in basic individual level tendencies, are assessed (Gerber et al., 2011, p. 693). The five traits defined are Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional
Stability and Openness to Experience. When it comes to the relationship between personality
traits and political behaviour, the Big Five is argued to “capture broad and enduring dispositions that shape how people respond to the stimuli they encounter in the world” (Gerbert et al., 2011, p. 692). As such, findings regarding the Big Five can be used as
indicators for the motivations interviewees have to engage in political conversations. For this study, only the traits found to have a significant effect on political conversations are
discussed.
Amongst the Big Five personality traits Extroversion is the one trait that seems to foster political conversation in general. High levels of extroversion lead to more discussion (Gerber et al., 2012, p. 849). While extant literature does not examine the link between extroversion and a motivation for crosscutting or like-minded conversations, it seems plausible that those who are extroverted are less afraid to be outspoken, to express
disagreement or could even be more likely to provoke disagreement. As such, the following is hypothesized:
H3a: Those who see themselves as extrovert are more likely to be motivated to engage in crosscutting conversations.
The one Big Five trait that should be associated with like-minded conversations is Agreeableness. Next to the Big Five traits there are two other traits likely to motivate like-minded conversations: Willingness to self-sensor and conflict-avoidance. High levels of agreeableness lead to less discussions (Gerber et al., 2012, p. 849) as it is expected the “more agreeable individuals to be more averse to political disagreements and, therefore, particularly unlikely to discuss politics if they disagree with others” (Gerber et al., 2012, p. 849).
Willingness to self-censor, defined as “withholding one’s true opinion from an audience perceived to disagree with that opinion” (Hayes, Glynn, & Shanahan, 2005, p. 299), is expected to decrease the likelihood that a person will participate in political discussions in general. Furthermore, conflict-avoidance is associated with less political conversations (Ulbig & Funk, 1999). If a person high on the willingness to self-censor and/or highly conflict- avoidant, it is most probable that such a person will seek out like-minded discussants. Accordingly, the following is expected:
H3b: Those who are likely to agree, to self-sensor and to avoid conflict are less likely to engage in any kind of political conversation but could still be more motivated to engage in like-minded political conversations.
Although the factors media use, political socialization (i.e. home and school
environment) and personality traits as defined in this study and by previous studies are most likely to influence motivations regarding political conversation, it is important to remain open to other possible aspects that might influence these motivations. An important strength of the present study lies in the fact that interviews offer room for other possible responses from
interviewees. Quantitative data, in this sense, limit the possibility for people to speak up if they feel something else (not questioned) is influencing their motivations to engage in political conversations. Hence, this study remains open to other aspects of influence and therefore serves an exploratory and inductive purpose. Next, the operationalization of the present study will be discussed, drawing upon the theory discussed above.
Method
In order to obtain deeper understanding of the motivations participants hold to engage in political conversations, a qualitative approach was chosen. In-depth semi-structured interviews were chosen because this study aims to uncover an in-depth knowledge of the participants’ motivations. As such, it is essential to create research situations in which people feel free to express any feelings and opinions on the topic (Sorrel & Redmond, 1995). This qualitative method does not allow for generalisation of the results. However, the main objective of this study is not to offer generalizable numerical evidence, but rather to offer a thorough and contextualized insight into deep, personal and sometimes unreflective
motivations of individuals. Procedure and data collection
This study relied on a purposive sampling technique (Teddlie & Yu, 2007), with the specific recruitments process depending on whether participants were members of political organizations or not. Students belonging to political organizations were approached by contacting the political organizations themselves, and inviting the members to participate in this study. Political organizations were contacted through their Facebook pages, e-mail addresses and through the author’s own personal network. In turn, the seven students not belonging to a political organization were recruited through invitations via e-mail, Social
Media and acquaintances.1 Verbally as well as in written form, participants were informed that participation in this study is voluntary and that they were allowed to drop out at any time without explanation. As the native language of the students is Dutch, it was assured that neither participant felt limited in speaking English. Furthermore, participants signed a consent form in which it was clarified that all students participated anonymously and thus no
references would be made to any specific individual (see Appendix A). Since it is the purpose of this study to discover (personal) motivations, it was of importance to ensure a comfortable environment to encourage participants to express their thoughts, feelings, opinions and experiences freely. To this end, the students were interviewed at a location of their own choice and the interview had the setup of a friendly conversation. On average, each interview took 45 minutes, with the shortest interview lasting 28:42 minutes and the longest interview 53:12 minutes. All interviews were recorded with informed consent of the participants.
An interview guide was constructed as a guideline (see Appendix B). Before the start of the interview the rights of the interviewee as well as the purpose of this study were
explained. The interview itself started with general questions to make the interviewee feel at ease (e.g. ‘Do you talk about politics with your friends/family?’). Next, the interviewees were asked about motivations for engaging in like-minded and crosscutting conversations: Home environment, school environment, media use and personality traits. An example of a question regarding students’ home environment is ‘In what ways do you think your home environment
encouraged or discouraged you to discuss political issues now?’ and ‘(How) have your parents encouraged you to talk freely and openly?’. Similar exploratory, open-ended
questions were asked about the teachers of the interviewees. Media use was gauged by asking the interviewees about, for example, their exposure to dissimilar viewpoints and – to assess
1In total, 6 political organizations were contacted (D66 Utrecht, VVD Utrecht, PVV Utrecht, JOVD Utrecht, JD
Utrecht and HappyChaos) of which 12 members responded (8 through Social Media, 4 via e-mail and 1 via own personal network). Of those not belonging to a political organization, 16 responded (12 through Social Media, 2 via e-mail and 2 via own personal network). To avoid selectivity, in both cases the 7 students who responded first were invited to participate in this study.
personality traits – interviewees were asked whether they believe they have certain
personality traits that make them more likely to disagree or agree with others (see Appendix B for details). The interview guide was solely meant as a guideline, as it was important to
remain open to other possible factors influencing interviewers’ motivations to engage in political conversations. The interviews closed with questions about demographic information.
During the interviews, the interviewer made notes visible to the students regarding any thoughts that came to mind and could be important when analysing the data (e.g. facial
expressions, body language, important expressions). In addition, it was important to bear in mind any previous expectations and experiences the interviewer has, as these might cloud the interviewer’s perception (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Furthermore, to ensure that the interview guide was feasible, it was tested once with an independent subject preliminary to the
interviews. Sample
14 Students participated in this study, of which 8 were male and 6 were female. The interviewees were all Dutch students at a Dutch university or graduate school (HBO), aged 20 to 30 (Mage = 23,14). University students are an important group to research as it is this group
that is most likely to form the future political elite of the country. One could wonder whether or to what extent the existing political and economic circumstances in many Western
democracies would be different (and likely better) if politicians, bankers or other governing elites would be exposed and open to conflicting viewpoints and willing to incorporate these viewpoints in making decisions that affect the nations (e.g. going to war or bailing out banks). As such, exploring whether current students engage in crosscutting conversations and what motivates them to do so, offers a glimpse into the attitudes towards conflicting viewpoints of this future elite. Moreover, it seems plausible that students have corresponding educational backgrounds and generally find themselves in a similar socio-economic environment (Tikka,
Kuitunen, & Tynys, 2000), making students a socially consequential group to study and thus to compare.
To account for the diversity of the student sample and not to treat it as a homogenous group, this study recruited participants from various contexts. Specifically, it seems plausible that some students are more politically participatory than others; and for those the contextual and individual factors may play out differently than for the less engaged individuals (e.g. Klofstad, 2009; Klofstad, Sokhey, & McClurg, 2013; McClurg, 2006; Mutz & Mondak, 2006). Hence, participants were selected based on a difference in their political engagement, differentiating between those belonging to various political organizations (N = 7) and those who do not (N = 7).2
Analysis
After conducting the interviews, all the collected data were literally transcribed with the use of Microsoft Word (see Appendix C) and backups of the sound format were made, increasing the dependability of this study (Bryman, 2012). The gathered data were analysed with the use of Atlas.ti, a computer software program that helps organizing texts in a structural way, strengthening the reliability of this study (Campbell, Quincy, Osserman, & Pedersen, 2013). Through Atlas.ti the data were coded openly and selectively (for open codes, see Appendix D). This means that the data were analysed by searching for similarities in broad categories after which subcategories were developed. The concepts media use, home environment, school environment and personality traits were used to guide the analysis of the data. Concretely, open coding facilitated a clear organization and categorization of the data (Bryman, 2012), meaning that the data were ordered by topic so similar claims of different interviewees were put together in corresponding themes. Selective coding helped to select the
2Political organizations the students belonged to are: JOVD Utrecht (Youth Organization of Freedom and
Democracy), VVD Utrecht (Dutch Liberal Party), D66 Utrecht (Dutch Democratic Party), HappyChaos (a debating club situated in Amsterdam focused on global political and societal issues) and the JD Utrecht (Dutch Liberal-Democratic Youth Organization).
core themes, which corresponded to the main factors as addressed in this study. This process – contributing to the external and internal validity of this study - was repeated until patterns and relationships became clearer, resulting in a concept-indicator model, further elaborated on when discussing the results (for the model, see Appendix E). Based on these categories, further observations and interpretations were completed resulting in the final results. In addition, memos were written during the analysis and - in case of doubts - these doubts were discussed with colleagues (i.e. peer debriefing). Concretely, this meant that in case of
ambiguous expressions the opinion of colleagues was asked to ensure a mutual and accurate understanding. In the case of highly doubtful interpretations - which was the case only once -, the interviewer discussed the interpretation with the interviewee in question (i.e. member checks). Furthermore, thick description (Bryman, 2012) was used to account for possible replications of this study for those interested in studying motivations for like-minded and crosscutting political conversations.
Results
While analysing (i.e. coding) the interviews five dimensions with corresponding variations emanated from the data, resulting in a concept-indicator model (see Appendix E). Following this model, below the five dimensions will be presented in relation to the main concept: Motivations to engage in informal political conversations. For each dimension variation within that dimension with relevant quotes will be discussed. The quotes selected for this section represent typical as well as illustrative responses. Only those findings that contribute to the research question and hypotheses are addressed, with the exception of new, additional factors that were not expected and that emerged from the data. For a complete overview of all the interviews, see the interview transcripts (Appendix C).
Virtually all the participants felt affected by their news media use, home environment, school environment and personality traits, confirming the importance of the reviewed
theories. Following this observation and the finding that participants felt these factors are interrelated, a straightforward approach by mentioning how many participants feel or do not feel affected by each factor would not be accurate and would not reflect the depth of the qualitative insights gathered during the lengthy interviews. Instead, it is important to understand how these factors matter and how they manifest. Therefore, the sections below elaborate on how and why the studied factors matter to the motivations to engage in informal political conversations. The results are organized according to each research question and hypothesis.
Affected by News Media Use
The unique data of the present study show that the content of news media forms an important topic within political conversations; it is indeed news what people talk about and what makes people talk. In all the interviews participants indicated that news serves as an input, a motivator to start a discussion because news sources provide participants with the knowledge that can be used to benefit the discussion. This knowledge, however, is both capable of fostering like-minded as well as crosscutting conversations.
Crosscutting. From the interviews emerged the finding that if participants expose themselves to dissimilar viewpoints in media sources, the knowledge gained through these sources facilitates crosscutting conversations. This motivation is established through two processes. First, knowledge of an opposing opinion benefits own arguments and makes it easier to disagree as this information gives perspective on the counter arguments one is likely to encounter, as illustrated by a quote from this participant:
P3: I think it does motivate me a little bit to find people who oppose my opinion because in that way I can have discussion and it’s easier to win! Because I just read about it.
Second, crosscutting media use positively influences the willingness to argue with people with dissimilar viewpoints in a way that a discussion is used to test an opinion. The
counter-attitudinal information is used to gain full perspective on a topic, and to find out whether the arguments for a certain position are valid, a crosscutting conversations is preferred:
P14: […] But, uhm, also that if I read a really good argument or viewpoint on a right wing website that I like to test it with someone who can be qualified as left wing. Uhm, because you can see who has the better argument on a specific topic.
Like-minded. The knowledge gained through diverse news sources (i.e. like-minded and crosscutting) motivates participants to engage in like-minded conversations in two distinctively different ways. First, participants use both crosscutting and like-minded news sources to provide themselves with new information on a topic. If this topic, however, is complex and hard to discuss, a like-minded conversation makes the discussion easier. Put differently, if the topic itself is hard enough to discuss then a like-minded conversation is most likely to follow. It can be argued that the extent to which a topic is or is not hard to discuss is dependent on the amount of knowledge a participant has on that specific topic. The less knowledge, the harder it becomes to argue for a certain position. A preference for like-minded conversations can thus be topic-dependent and knowledge-dependent. This is illustrated the quote below:
P1: If I find it a very difficult and complex topic that is hard to discuss, I tend to side with or discuss it with someone that I know is easier to discuss with because I know that person agrees with me. The second way in which exposure to news sources facilitates like-minded conversations, is such that like-minded news sources are most often read by those who tend to agree with the content of that source. Thus, if discussion partners read the same news sources this seems to imply that they are already on the same page when it comes to their opinion. Consequently, if a specific news article is discussed then a like-minded conversation is most likely to follow:
P2: So, I think most people within their friends share the opinion of news websites, and I think we tend to share our opinion on these situations.
Thus, the answer to the question whether participants’ media use makes them more prone to engage in crosscutting or like-minded conversations (Research Question 2) is that
have sufficient knowledge on the specific topic, while the exposure to like-minded sources typically motivates like-minded conversations.
Affected by Home Environment
The interviews confirm both H1a and H1b, meaning that a concept-oriented FPC motivates crosscutting conversations while a socio-oriented FCP motivates like-minded conversations or having no political conversations at all. In addition to these straightforward expectations, the data from the interviews offer insight into how and why the different home environments matter. Specifically, within the home environment, developed attitudes and the preparation for political conversations played a crucial role.
Crosscutting. One of the factors that mattered was an interest and curiosity triggered by the home environment. The home environment seems crucial to the attitude that is
developed towards political topics. It is with this attitude that a discussion is encountered: P8: […] For me it was 95% the way I was raised. If I was raised in some other setting I probably wouldn’t have liked having discussions this much. […] Always have a curious attitude towards the world and to never just accept things without questioning them. So, I expect… That’s the way I was raised, and I expect other people should be that way as well.
A second factor that mattered for the home environment is preparation: The home environment seems capable of training counter arguing which, consequently, prepares participants for crosscutting conversations. This noteworthy finding is illustrated with the quote below, and will be discussed in more depth in the conclusion:
P14: Yes, because my parents disagreed on a lot of political topics as well and, uhm, well my dad especially liked to play the advocate of the devil. So uhm, yes, they kind of trained us in formulating your opinion and arguing for a certain position.
Like-minded. Again, the attitude towards political topics as well as the extent to which the home environment prepared participants for having political conversation mattered for the motivation to engage in like-minded conversations or no political conversations at all. If parents do not trigger any interest in political topics or do not stimulate to develop an attitude towards political issues, this absence of interest and attitude is what withholds participants from having political conversations. This is illustrated by P5, who said:
P5: Uhm…yeah, now when I’m thinking, I think maybe my parents and my home situation. They don’t push me that far that I had to think and talk about politics earlier, and that’s the reason and I guess that’s the reason I don’t do it now, because it’s hard to keep up now.
It seems that with a socio-oriented FCP participants have negative attitudes towards
disagreement, as it is or was not (often) encountered in the home environment. As such, the home environment did not equip participants with the experience of having crosscutting conversations, motivating them to look for agreement. This is illustrated by a participant who indicated her home environment was centred around social harmony. She explained having bad experiences when disagreeing with her parents, as they would not listen to her and only made her want to agree. This bad experience, in turn, demotivated her to engage in
crosscutting conversations and also stimulated a negative attitude towards crosscutting conversations in general:
P7: […] If I’m sure that that person will not agree with me or totally disagree, so thinks something else, I might not bring it up myself. […] Because I already know it’s not going to be a nice discussion, I just want to do something else with my time or talk about something else.
Affected by School Environment
The extent to which the school environment was open or closed influenced
participants’ motivation for either crosscutting or like-minded conversations, confirming H2a and H2b. Within the school environment, preparation for disagreement by providing
knowledge, encouragement and the social context seem crucial to what motivates crosscutting and like-minded conversations.
Crosscutting. The interviews suggest that an open school environment is crucial to feeling prepared for engaging in disagreement. Beyond this expected finding, the
contextualized in-depth interviews revealed three main aspects that explain how the school environment motivates crosscutting conversations. The first aspect is the social context within a school, meaning that the people encountered at school play an important role in preparing for expressing disagreement and engaging in crosscutting conversations. These people - coming from various backgrounds - bring different experiences and input that can serve as a
motivation to engage in crosscutting conversations and this input can even be capable of altering existing motivations and attitudes towards these conversations:
P2: It’s not even necessarily the study itself, but mostly just the kind of people who are attracted to a study in philosophy or more becoming conscious, or more active in discussing. […] I’d like to have these conversations with people who hold different opinions. Makes the conversation a lot more fun, it makes it a lot more interesting, it makes it a lot more educational.
The second aspect that mattered is the amount of knowledge the school equipped participants with, which in turn made participants feel more prepared to engage in crosscutting
conversations. This is illustrated by a participant who explains that the knowledge teachers provide her with motivates her to engage in crosscutting conversations by making her feel more knowledgeable and self-assured about the topics discussed:
P1: And I also really like that my teachers always choose topics from debates, or from news. It’s very, very accurate and very focused on today’s discussions. And I think that those help me to engage more with political discussions. Because when I hear something in University, I discuss it at home. Or with friends. […] If people always agree with you then what’s the point of discussing? I think discussion is about challenge and disagreement.
The third and last aspect that emerged was the extent to which the school environment prepared participants for crosscutting conversations by encouraging them to express their opinion. This is illustrated by a participant who explains that in his school environment he was not only able to express disagreement, but that he was also encouraged to do so. This seems plausible, as the finding that one can express disagreement does not necessarily mean that one will. The quote below illustrates how his school environment prepared him for crosscutting conversations:
P10: You’re actually trained to disagree with stuff, so, yeah. So the first questions after you read a paper is how you can disagree with the argument […].
Like-minded. The data suggest that a closed school environment motivates like-minded conversations. Again, above and beyond this straightforward finding, the interviews revealed how. First, participants that were discouraged to express deviating opinions in school were more likely to gather more knowledge on a topic and seek approval of their opinion elsewhere. As such, a closed school environment does not prepare crosscutting conversations
by lacking the dissemination of knowledge to develop own opinions and the opportunity to express opinions by discouraging them. This is illustrated by P6 who explains that in his high school there was no room for discussion about politics, teachers would only justify their own opinion and having an own opinion was absolutely discouraged. As a result, he states that he sought and is still looking for approval of his own opinion, motivating him to engage in like-minded conversations:
P6: I would really like to hear the opinion that was agreeing with me, because I didn’t like the same… the opinion that was in school. And that’s why I really like discussing with people who would agree with me about, because I didn’t have that at school, didn’t really have that home. So that’s why I really liked the discussions with people I would agree with.
Affected by Personality Traits
The interviews revealed that there are several traits continuously linked to either a motivation to engage in crosscutting conversations or like-minded conversations, a finding which indeed confirms that some personality traits can play a crucial role in facilitating political conversations.
Crosscutting. Throughout the interviews extroversion and outspokenness were used interchangeably and linked to a motivation to engage in crosscutting conversations because these traits help to express disagreement:
P2: Well, I think I’m quite extroverted, so that helps of course. Also, because I hold quite strong opinions I like to take the ability when someone says, someone uhm, if someone makes a remark but I didn’t know, capitalism or international politics, then I tend to immediately disagree with it.
In addition, the interviewees pointed out that it is hard to disagree and to engage in
crosscutting conversations when one is not sure of his own opinion, and thus confidence is needed to express disagreement. Most prevalent was the idea that one needs to be interested in other opinions to be likely to engage in crosscutting conversations. Participants indicated
curiosity as one of their most influential personality traits when discussing, and combined this
with the trait open-mindedness. Both these traits seem crucial in wanting to hear an opinion, especially if it counters own opinions:
P1: Uhm, I think I am open-minded, so yes I think that’s important to have interesting political discussions. To be open-minded. Also curious, as to what other people think about things. Because, otherwise I wouldn’t ask someone’s opinions, I would just say I have my own opinion and I wouldn’t really care what other people think. So I think these two.
P6: I think I’m open-minded, and that how I, and if you disagree you get, you force someone to give his opinion on something. […] Because you’re curious and you’re open-minded, so you want to hear the other opinion and you’re interested.
Like-minded. As hypothesized, those participants who described themselves as conflict-avoidant are more likely to avoid political discussions in general and are more likely
to engage in like-minded conversations. In addition to this straightforward finding, the rich data reveal that this trait facilitates like-minded conversations because conflict is avoided by agreeing with others. Participants indicated they often encountered disagreement as a fight rather than a discussion, making them wanting to avoid the conflict rather than to engage in disagreement:
P3: Well sometimes people do, some people avoid conflict, I know a couple of people who do. And they tend to be easily, more easily convinced because they think in that way the conflict is going to be gone, or the discussion is gone.
Again, participants linked curiosity to political conversations but explained that in this case a
lack of curiosity would result in a lack of interest in other opinions, facilitating like-minded
conversations. This is illustrated by the quote below, where a participant explains he perceives those not being curious not only as less interested in other opinions, but also less eager to read various news sources, making them rather indifferent towards and less
knowledgeable on political topics and opinions. As such, a lack of curiosity would motivate people to engage in like-minded conversations, as they are not that curious for arguments behind any statements but also because they lack the knowledge to be able to disagree. This is illustrated by the quote below:
P11: […] Most of the people I know who will say yes to whatever you say are not curious, I guess. They, they take everything what they read, and it’s not much because they’re not really curious, for being true. […] So, a lack of curiosity is one of the main traits I would say of those people.
Lastly, the interviews suggest that the purpose of a discussion is to get more knowledge and to learn from others. As such, a trait linked to like-minded conversations is eagerness to
she will only agree with someone if she feels that person is saying something that is true. It is because she wants to learn, she will accept that something is true even though this in conflict with her own views:
P14: Uhm, I think of myself as someone who is eager to learn. Uhm, and I think that that makes me want to know the truth. Uhm, so, I think that motivates me to agree with people if I feel they are expressing a true proposition.
Other Factors
One of the most important strengths of in-depth interviews is that participants are free to express any other thoughts and ideas that come to mind during the interview. The
interviews and the presented results focused on the factors that emerged from prior research, yet these factors do not provide a complete view of the motivations from the interviewees. From the interviews emanated three additional factors: Political interest, personal affection and moral duty. These factors are to some extent all related to the four factors described above, but cannot be fully encompassed when not discussed separately. The sections below elaborate on how the three additional factors can be related to a motivation to engage in political conversations. Although no specific questions were asked about the influence of these factors on the motivations for either like-minded or crosscutting conversations, the sections below will in addition elaborate on the idea that the presence of these factors is most likely to motivate crosscutting conversations, while the absence of these factors is most likely to motivate no political conversations at all.
Political Interest. All participants indicated that the reason they engage in political conversations is an interest in political issues. This idea is emphasized by one participant, who was the only such case in the sample, who stated that she did not talk about politics because she is not interested. The interviewees revealed that their political interest was triggered at some point in their life, implying the important role of the environment in motivating political conversations. Participants indicated that either the school or the home
environment is responsible for triggering political interest, emphasizing political socialization as a crucial factor. This is illustrated by the quote below:
P1: I did do it at home. But I can imagine that people who don’t have it at home, are less, and also not in school, are less engaged now. So I think that one of the two has to be very active in it. And I think that school should play a larger part, but that can also depend on the school.
The interviewee points towards the idea that, in order to engage in political conversations, there needs to be at least one environment that triggers political interest. Once triggered, political interest can manifests a curiosity into other opinions, fostering political
conversations.
Personal Affection. Related to political interest is the extent to which participants feel both personally and emotionally affected, engaged or involved. Throughout the interviews participants indicated they would not be as likely to engage in political conversations if it concerned a topic that is not of personal relevance. This seems plausible, as a topic that touches you personally is likely to motivate a conversation about that specific topic. This is illustrated by the two quotes below:
P14: Hmm… Yeah maybe some emotional commitment to societal topics. Uhm, I don’t know I sometimes feel really sad or frustrated about uhm, well, anything that is happening in the world. […] I feel emotionally linked to things that happen in the world. […] Sometimes I am really crying
P6: […] Maybe when something personally affects me I would be more likely to go into a discussion with someone. Yeah.
As above, the interviews suggest that both emotional and personal engagement to political issues raise interest in those issues, motivating engagement in political conversations. More specifically, the quote below illustrates the idea that personal affection is most likely to motivate crosscutting conversations as people are more likely to defend an opinion they feel heavily engaged with:
P2: Once again emotional as well, because if someone doesn’t feel strongly about something they’re not really going to try to defend what they’re trying to say.
Moral Duty. The only difference that emerged between the participants belonging to political organizations and those who do not, was the attribution of political conversations to
moral duty.3 Those belonging to political organizations emphasized their rights as a free citizen in a democracy, namely able to express opinions and the right to vote. What motivated these participants to engage in political conversations is the idea that a democracy is centred around discussions as discussions make it possible to change things, and the idea that the right to vote comes with the moral duty express your opinion and discuss about those opinions. One could argue that those who feel motivated by this moral duty, are more likely to engage in crosscutting conversations as they see it as their right to express their opinion, likely also when this opinion counters others. This finding is illustrated by the two quotes below:
P8: […] Well, in our democracy it’s-it’s your democratic duty to think about politics because you’re going to vote.
P13: […] If you live in a country where there is no democracy you’re not able to discuss your own statement and uhm, I think having discussions with each other makes it possible to change things. […] So, yes I think it’s part of a democracy and I think that is maybe one of the reasons why democracy is really important.
In sum, the data show that political interest, personal affection and moral duty prove to be three important additional factors. Absence of these factors would most likely demotivate engagement in any kind of political conversation as one could argue that those who are not interested in politics, do not feel engaged with any political topic and on top of that do not feel morally obliged to express their opinion, do not feel motivated to talk about politics in general, making them even less likely to discuss politics. As such, these factors attract
attention as they seem to be able to completely demotivate any form of political conversation. Conclusion and Discussion
The results of this study confirm the importance and influence of the home
environment, school environment, news media use and personality traits on motivations to engage in political conversations. The fourteen in-depth interviews - which together amount to 556:51 recorded minutes of semi-structured conversations and 143 pages of detailed transcripts - provide several findings that contribute to the understanding of how the four
3No explicit differences between the political organizations are identified as no differences in motivations
factors are crucial to what motivates students to engage in informal political conversations. In other words, above and beyond the findings from past quantitative research which showed that media use, political socialization and personality traits can influence the likelihood of engaging in political conversations, this study offered important insights into how each factor itself is motivating students to engage in political conversations. Moreover, three additional factors emerged that also play a crucial role in the motivations for political conversations. Next, several noteworthy and interesting findings will be discussed, used to answer the research question of the present study: What motivates students to engage in informal
political - especially like-minded and crosscutting - conversations?
As discussed in the results, all hypotheses as formulated in this study were confirmed. Extant literature continuously points towards media use, home and school environment and personality traits as highly influential factors on the motivations to engage in political
conversations (e.g. McLeod & Shah, 2009; Mutz & Martin, 2001). Yet, despite the centrality of these factors, the rich data of this study revealed that the influence of these factors cannot be understood as straightforward as hypothesized. Instead, from the interviews particularly emerged that the four factors are rather conditions that should be met in order to be politically interested and personally affected. It is not only about being encouraged in school or at home to speak freely and openly, to develop your own opinions, to learn to counter argue, but also – and perhaps even more so – about developing an attitude towards political issues. Put
differently, the home and school environment are important because within these environments political interest can be triggered and knowledge can be gained. With this knowledge about and interest in political issues can emerge the idea that politics is important, that it can personally affect you and your surroundings, and thus that it is important to engage in political conversations.
In addition to the finding that news media use - depending on crosscutting or like-minded media exposure - is capable of fostering both like-like-minded and crosscutting conversations, this qualitative study showed that news media use mostly appears as a
moderating factor. News would not be read or watched and knowledge gained through news sources would not be used if one is not interested in political issues. Thus, news is what makes people talk and what people talk about (Kim, Wyatt, & Katz, 1999), but only if any interest in or personal affiliation with the topic has manifested. Moreover, and in addition to the finding that some personality traits can motivate either like-minded or crosscutting conversations, the interviews revealed that personality traits influence how likely one is or is not to express an opinion, yet they do not necessarily seem to contribute to any personal motivation to engage in political conversations. The trait curiosity appeared most significant in engaging in crosscutting conversations, yet one could argue that this curiosity is manifested through an interest in politics which again emphasizes the importance of the latter factor.
To conclude, what motivates students to engage in informal political conversations is - intertwined with personal affection - political interest, and both the home and the school environment are conditions through which this interest can be manifested. It is also the presence of political interest that motivates crosscutting conversations, but again here the home and school environment come into play as they serve as an experience - through which speaking freely and openly is or is not encouraged - that influences the likeliness of engaging in either like-minded or crosscutting conversations.
This study extends prior literature in three important ways. First, the present findings on moral duty counter the idea that informal conversations have no purpose or are even an impediment to a democracy (Schudson, 1997). Indeed, informal political conversations “may lead to or result from better thinking and greater action” (Wyatt, Katz, & Kim, 2000, p. 19).
As such, the assumed importance of informal political conversations to democracies is confirmed, emphasizing the significance of studying these informal political conversations.
Second, the data suggest that the distinction as made in this study between motivations for either like-minded or crosscutting conversations is accurate as students indeed hold
different motivations. The interviews showed that crosscutting conversations are engaged in more because they are perceived as more educational than like-minded conversations, confirming the idea that these conversations “promote greater awareness of oppositional views” (Mutz, 2002a, p. 112) and as such are important to study in light of its values for democratic life.
Third, the in-depth interviews revealed that the established factors, although central and important, are not necessarily what people themselves see as that what is motivating them to engage in political conversations. Indeed, both media use and personality traits as well as the home and the school environment can influence the likeliness of engaging in political conversations, yet these four factors do not directly and personally motivate students to actually engage in political conversations. As such, future research should complement this study not by showing that factors such as the above - including political interest, personal affection and moral duty - are relevant, but instead by showing more extensively how these factors are relevant in studying motivations for political conversations.
Although this study is valuable because of its rich data, it is important to take into account the idea that interpretations of the data are susceptible to subjectivity and that this, along with the purposive sampling technique (Teddlie & Yu, 2007), could have influenced the results. However, and as described in the method, several efforts have been taken to
strengthen the validity and reliability of this research (e.g. Atlas.ti, thick description, peer debriefing). Furthermore, results of this study cannot be generalized due to a limited number of participants and the relative homogeneity of the sample (i.e. only students), yet the main
objective of this study was not to offer generalizable numerical evidence, but rather to offer a thorough and contextualized insights into deep, personal motivations of individuals.
The present findings offer insight into how the established factors are influencing motivations for political conversations among individuals and can as such contribute to better quantitative measures for survey research on political deliberation. More attention should be paid to the design of self-reporting scales that can adequately measure how a factor such as the home environment is capable of manifesting political interest and how political interest and personal affection towards political topics can best be measured. Moreover, more extensive research is needed to gain insight into how political conversations can be understood as part of moral duty. As such, this study suggests conducting longitudinal research as this method would be best apt to provide a better understanding of how political interest is developed throughout the years and through different environments, for example by observing individuals from childhood to adolescence (Tooth, Ware, Bain, Purdie, & Dobson, 2004).
This study also has implications regarding the deliberative theory (e.g. Ackerman & Fishkin, 2002; Fishkin & Luskin, 2005; Ryfe, 2005). While the present data confirm the thought that political conversations are crucial for effective and mutually-understanding democracies, the data highlight the complex factors involved in feeling motivated to have discussions as it seems fostered by an interest that is triggered and developed throughout many years.
In sum, more should be done to develop research in the field of motivations for political conversations. This study hopes to be the first step in this important endeavour, one that offers new, interesting insights that contribute to a better understanding of why and how the home and school environment, news media use, personality traits and additional factors are important in motivating students to engage in informal political conversations, both
like-minded and – perhaps especially - crosscutting. Indeed, in light of the stressed importance of crosscutting conversations in democracies (Mutz, 2002a; Mutz, 2002b), it is crucial to enhance our comprehension of why and how people dare to disagree.
References
Ackerman, B., & Fishkin, J. S. (2002). Deliberation day. Journal of Political
Philosophy, 10(2), 129-152.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social Methods Research. New York: Oxford University Press. Campbell, D. E. (2005). Voice in the classroom: How an open classroom environment facilitates adolescents’ civic development (Working Paper No. 28). Retrieved from The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement website:
http://civicyouth.org
Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unization and intercoder reliability and
agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294-320.
Eveland, W. P., & Hively, M. H. (2009). Political discussion frequency, network size, and “heterogeneity” of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation. Journal of Communication, 59(2), 205–224.
Eveland, W. P., Morey, A. C., & Hutchens, M. J. (2011). Beyond deliberation: New directions for the study of informal political conversation from a communication perspective. Journal of Communication, 61(6), 1082–1103.
Fishkin, J. S., & Luskin, R. C. (2005). Experimenting with a democratic ideal:
Deliberative polling and public opinion. Actia Politicia, 40(3), 284-298.
Galston, W. A. (2001). Political knowledge, political engagement, and civic education. Annual Reviews Political Science, 4, 217-234.
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., & Dowling, C. M. (2014). Disagreement and the avoidance of political discussion: Aggregate relationships and differences across personality traits, American Journal of Political Science, 56(4), 849–874.
Personality traits and participation in political processes. The Journal of Politics, 73(3), 692–706.
Hayes, A. F., Glynn, C. J., & Shanahan, J. (2005). Willingness to self-censor: A construct and measurement tool for public opinion research. International Journal of Public Opinion
Research, 17(3), 298–323.
Hively, M. H., & Eveland, W. P. (2009). Contextual antecedents and political consequences of adolescent political discussion, discussion elaboration, and network diversity.
Political Communication, 26(1), 30–47.
Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
Huckfeldt, R., Johnson, P. E., & Sprague, J. (2002). Political environments, political dynamics, and the survival of disagreement. The Journal of Politics, 64(1), 1–21. Huckfeldt, R., & Mendez, J. M. (2008). Moths, flames, and political engagement: Managing
disagreement within communication networks. The Journal of Politics, 70(1), 83–96. Huckfeldt, R., Mendez, J. M., & Osborn, T. (2004). Disagreement, ambivalence, and
engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political
Psychology, 25(1), 65–95.
Kim, J., Wyatt, R. O., & Katz, E. (1999). News, talk, opinion, participation: The part played by conversation in deliberative democracy. Political Communication, 16(4), 361–385. Klofstad, C. A. (2009). Civic talk and civic participation. The moderating effect of individual predispositions. American Politics Research, 37(5), 856–878.
Klofstad, C. A., McClurg, S. D., & Rolfe, M. (2009). Measurement of political discussion networks. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(3), 462–483.
Klofstad, C. A., Sokhey, A. E., & Mcclurg, S. D. (2015). Disagreeing about disagreement: How conflict in social Networks affects political behavior, 57(1), 120–134.
Kwak, N., Williams, A. E., Wang, X., & Lee, H. (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. La Due Lake, R., & Huckfeldt, R. (1998). Social capital, social networks, and political
participation. Political Psychology, 19(3), 567–584.
McClurg, S. 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.
McDevitt, M. (2005). The partisan child: Developmental provocation as a model of political socialization. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18(1), 67- 88. McDevitt, M., & Chaffee, S. (2002). From top-down to trickle-up influence: Revisiting
assumptions about the family in political socialization. Political Communication, 19(3), 281–301.
McLeod, J. M., Scheufele, D. A., & Moy, P. (1999). Community, communication, and participation: The role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation. Political Communication, 16(3), 315–336.
McLeod, J. M., & Shah, D. V. (2009). Communication and political socialization: Challenges and opportunities for research. Political Communication, 26(1), 1–10.
Moy, P., & Gastil, J. (2006). Predicting Deliberative Conversation: The impact of discussion networks, media use, and political cognitions. Political Communication, 23(4), 443– 460.
Mutz, D. C. (2002a). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice.
The American Political Science Review, 96(1), 111–126.
Mutz, D. C. (2002b). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 838–855.
Mutz, D., & Martin, P. (2001). Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 97–114.
Mutz, D., & Mondak, J. T. (2006). The workplace as a context for cross-cutting political discourse. The Journal of Politics, 68(1), 140-155.
Powell, L., & Cowart, J. (2003). Political campaign communication: Inside and out. Pearson Education: Amsterdam
Price, V., Cappella, J. N., & Nir, L. (2002). Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion? Political Communication, 19, 95-112.
Ryfe, D. M. (2005). Does deliberative democracy work? Annual Reviews Political Science. 8, 49-71.
Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication,
60, 556-576.
Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Talk or conversation? Dimensions of interpersonal discussion and their implications for participatory democracy. Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly, 77(4), 727–743.
Schudson, M. (1997). Why conversation is not the soul of democracy. Critical Studies in
Mass Communication, 14(4), 297–309.
Sorrel, J. M., & Redmon, G. M. (1995). Interviews in qualitative nursing research:
differing approaches for ethnographic and phenomenological studies. Journal
of Advanced Nursing, 21(6), 1117-1122.
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling a typology with examples. Journal of
Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100.
Tikka, P. M., Kuitunen, M. T., & Tynys, S. M. (2000). Effects of educational
background on students’ attitudes, activity levels, and knowledge concerning the environment. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(3), 12-19.
