[4] However, models emphasizing the influence of individuals’ social networks in shaping their electoral choices have been also present in the literature from the very beginning.
There are three main (theoretical and empirical) approaches emphasizing the importance of networks in shaping electoral decisions: using surveys to measure actors’ (in this case voters’) attitudes (Columbia Studies), measuring collective patterns of social groups on an aggregate level as supplementary information (Contextual analysis) and focusing on interpersonal dynamics among individuals.
These horizontal networks have a stronger effect on individuals’ political decisions than the opinions and viewpoints presented and framed in the media.
[1][3] The findings may be concluded in the following way: "they (voting decisions) are relatively invulnerable to direct argumentation and vulnerable to indirect social influences”.
[7] The main claim of the literature on contextual analysis is that individuals live in a social environment that should be taken into account when one analyzes their political orientations.
[3] One may see that the logic of this approach is very close to that of the Columbia Studies but is more focused on communities and contains a lower explicit emphasis on interpersonal networks.
The third approach focuses on interpersonal interactions with the assumption that individuals are members of networks in which political information spreads through communication.
It means that the randomly chosen respondents within a limited area are asked about their closest friends/relatives/co-workers (sometimes also about the closeness of this particular relationships) and about their possible political orientations.