Absorb What's Useful

Talk leads to Recruitment

by Casey Klofstad

Reviewed by Alvin Singh

The central theme of this article is based on a research that talking about politics with our peers leads individuals to become more politically active.  The central groups and social circles a person identifies with has a major influence not only on our political views but also our involvements as well.  Many people have been turned off by politics and the way laws are enforced and civic involvements continue to be the clearest test of what democracy stands for.  The ability to believe a certain way about an issue and possibly motivate a majority to agree that their is a general census of how it show be implemented.  

There is also the understanding that individuals who are more active in politics chose to associate with peers that are equally interested in politics.  Klofstad was able to ask a group of participants specific questions about what kind of conversations they had with peers about politics and current news.  Her results found that peers talk in three different ways:

1. Providing individuals  with information on how to become active
2. Increase individual engagement with politics and current events
3. Ask individuals to participate in civic activities

During a popular election like the 2008 Presidential race many people have found themselves expressing their political views much more than normal.  Some voters are involved in the registering and campaigning efforts while others have taken a back seat in volunteering their time for their chosen candidate.  Existing research has proven that individuals gain access to resources and recruitment as they discuss politics with their friends.  In this article Casey Klofstad gave an example of how individuals are more likely to enjoy an informal discussion with friends than going to a candidate’s rally filled with strangers.  A candidate will have a better chance of getting a new supporter by having one of their friends mention their views and ability to lead than going to a hosted event.  Even the most engaged and resourceful people are more likely to participate in civic activities if they are asked by someone else to get involved.  This is also true when relating to voting since people are more motivated by others to vote by someone else.  Some studies have shown that people will be more likely to vote if someone from the political party is going door to door in neighborhoods.

This is a proving factor that many people are motivated by issues and policy records while a large majority can be influenced by the amount of information and discussions they have with their immediate peer group.  Personal interaction has a bigger contribution than phone banks and direct mail does.  When people are engaged in conversations about politics the more they identify with their own values and opinions.

This same analysis can be compared to the blogosphere and what publications people use to keep them informed.  When blogs have a more left lean and a right conservative opinions then this creates a larger gap between each side communicating with each other.  not many people attend both a Democratic and Republican event to hear both sides of the issues and then make a decision based on what they heard or witnessed. Instead people have a pre judge assumption of what they think a certain party is like before even learning for themselves.  Also the less people talk about politics in your surrounding the less inclined you will be to engage or participate in anything political.  This was true with a research study with college freshman’s who were asked to document the time and activity they spent with their roommate on anything political.

The results proved that 50% agreed that they were exposed to below average levels of civically relevant discussions while the other 50% were subjected to above average amounts of discussions.  This is were the popular quote “birds with feathers, flock together” has a true meaning.  Most students will only engage themselves after someone has first introduced them to the political causes.   This is why college campuses have always been a place where political movements have succeeded and failed.  In college you have a population of young and educated adults who are available to put time in volunteering and organizing for advocacy.  Once a few students are organized they can collectively influence other students to join based on the impact and resources they have available.  In a campaign like the 2008 election the collegiate participation is crucial to win the young vote and also provide opportunities for them to be a part of the process.  This is a place where peer influence can be the most effective unlike professional environments where politics is sometimes taboo to discuss.

Klofstad also writes that correlation between resources, engagement and recruitment lead to a higher participation rate.  The more people talk about politics and current events among peers and the more information that is available to support those discussions can lead to larger recruitment.  This is happening everyday as more people are comfortable with bashing another opponent in core group communications and then turn on a their favorite TV station to receive more of the supporting views.  After they complete their favorite news broadcast they may even read their favorite blog that provides the same arguments.  Many people refuse to accept a different opinion and listen without an immediate objection.  According to the author these types of resources and engagement lead to civic participation.

As the Internet continues to play a major part in communication and how humans are learning then this same research would be interesting to see how it plays in social media platforms.  Are people more likely to only become “friends” with people who are of the same nationality, ethnic, or gender group?  What if someone has a opposite political candidates banner on their site and will it effect whether or not someone will request a “friendship”?  If social media networks are designed to connect people then will we actually be separating ourselves further by using this Internet?