IRMA-International.org: Creator of Knowledge
Information Resources Management Association
Advancing the Concepts & Practices of Information Resources Management in Modern Organizations

Comparing the Influence of Social Networks Online and Offline on Decision Making: The U.S. Senate Case

Comparing the Influence of Social Networks Online and Offline on Decision Making: The U.S. Senate Case
View Sample PDF
Author(s): Jang Hyun Kim (University of Hawaii at Manoa, USA), George A. Barnett (University of California at Davis, USA)and Kyunghee “Hazel” Kwon (Arizona State University, USA)
Copyright: 2012
Pages: 22
Source title: E-Politics and Organizational Implications of the Internet: Power, Influence, and Social Change
Source Author(s)/Editor(s): Celia Romm Livermore (Wayne State University, USA)
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-0966-2.ch012

Purchase

View Comparing the Influence of Social Networks Online and Offline on Decision Making: The U.S. Senate Case on the publisher's website for pricing and purchasing information.

Abstract

Along with individuals’ ideological factors, various network properties play a crucial role in the process of legislators’ political decision-making. Social networks among legislators provide relational resources through which communication occurs, exerting social influence among the members in a network. This chapter examines six social relationships among the members of the 109th United States Senate as predictors of senatorial voting (roll call votes), (1) shared committees, (2) co-sponsorships, (3) party membership, (4) PAC donation, (5) geographical contiguity, and (6) internet hyperlinks, which may be considered as direct or indirect representations of communication networks. The six networks are modeled using MRQAP. Results suggest that roll call voting was predicted by party membership, co-sponsorship, geographical proximity, and PAC donation networks, while shared committee membership did not contribute significantly. As for hyperlinks, the result was mixed, showing a small variance of contribution in a simpler model but not significant with more complex models. Suggestions for future research are addressed.

Related Content

Nalini M.. © 2023. 22 pages.
Balachandar S., Chinnaiyan R.. © 2023. 19 pages.
V. A. Velvizhi, G. Senbagavalli, S. Malini. © 2023. 29 pages.
Amuthan Nallathambi, Kannan Nova. © 2023. 25 pages.
Amuthan Nallathambi, Sivakumar N., Velrajkumar P.. © 2023. 17 pages.
Nayana Hegde, Sunilkumar S. Manvi. © 2023. 18 pages.
Udayakumar K., Ramamoorthy S., Poorvadevi R.. © 2023. 26 pages.
Body Bottom