美国的政治孤立

IF 1.4 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Network Science Pub Date : 2020-09-01 DOI:10.1017/nws.2020.9
Byungkyu Lee, P. Bearman
{"title":"美国的政治孤立","authors":"Byungkyu Lee, P. Bearman","doi":"10.1017/nws.2020.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study documents historical trends of size and political diversity in Americans’ discussion networks, which are often seen as important barometers of social and political health. Contrasting findings from data drawn out of a nationally representative survey experiment of 1,055 Americans during the contentious 2016 U.S. presidential election to data arising from 11 national data sets covering nearly three decades, we find that Americans’ core networks are significantly smaller and more politically homogeneous than at any other period. Several methodological artifacts seem unlikely to account for the effect. We show that in this period, more than before, “important matters” were often framed as political matters, and that this association probably accounts for the smaller networks.","PeriodicalId":51827,"journal":{"name":"Network Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/nws.2020.9","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Political isolation in America\",\"authors\":\"Byungkyu Lee, P. Bearman\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/nws.2020.9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This study documents historical trends of size and political diversity in Americans’ discussion networks, which are often seen as important barometers of social and political health. Contrasting findings from data drawn out of a nationally representative survey experiment of 1,055 Americans during the contentious 2016 U.S. presidential election to data arising from 11 national data sets covering nearly three decades, we find that Americans’ core networks are significantly smaller and more politically homogeneous than at any other period. Several methodological artifacts seem unlikely to account for the effect. We show that in this period, more than before, “important matters” were often framed as political matters, and that this association probably accounts for the smaller networks.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51827,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Network Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/nws.2020.9\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Network Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/nws.2020.9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Network Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/nws.2020.9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

摘要本研究记录了美国人讨论网络规模和政治多样性的历史趋势,这些网络通常被视为社会和政治健康的重要晴雨表。将2016年有争议的美国总统选举期间对1055名美国人进行的一项具有全国代表性的调查实验的数据与涵盖近三十年的11个国家数据集的数据进行对比,我们发现美国人的核心网络比其他任何时期都要小得多,政治上也更为同质。一些方法上的人工制品似乎不太可能解释这种影响。我们表明,在这一时期,“重要事项”比以前更多地被定义为政治事项,这种关联可能是较小网络的原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Political isolation in America
Abstract This study documents historical trends of size and political diversity in Americans’ discussion networks, which are often seen as important barometers of social and political health. Contrasting findings from data drawn out of a nationally representative survey experiment of 1,055 Americans during the contentious 2016 U.S. presidential election to data arising from 11 national data sets covering nearly three decades, we find that Americans’ core networks are significantly smaller and more politically homogeneous than at any other period. Several methodological artifacts seem unlikely to account for the effect. We show that in this period, more than before, “important matters” were often framed as political matters, and that this association probably accounts for the smaller networks.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Network Science
Network Science SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Network Science is an important journal for an important discipline - one using the network paradigm, focusing on actors and relational linkages, to inform research, methodology, and applications from many fields across the natural, social, engineering and informational sciences. Given growing understanding of the interconnectedness and globalization of the world, network methods are an increasingly recognized way to research aspects of modern society along with the individuals, organizations, and other actors within it. The discipline is ready for a comprehensive journal, open to papers from all relevant areas. Network Science is a defining work, shaping this discipline. The journal welcomes contributions from researchers in all areas working on network theory, methods, and data.
期刊最新文献
Guiding prevention initiatives by applying network analysis to systems maps of adverse childhood experiences and adolescent suicide The latent cognitive structures of social networks Algorithmic aspects of temporal betweenness When can networks be inferred from observed groups? Generating preferential attachment graphs via a Pólya urn with expanding colors
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1