Scholars interested in understanding if and to what extent social environments influence individual political behavior are plagued by the reality that individuals construct their social environments. Though there is acknowledgement that this construction is determined by homophily – likes associating with likes – the extent to which political beliefs drive environment selection is yet untested. This paper seeks to understand the extent to which political beliefs inform individuals’ decisions on which social environments to select into. To do so, I follow individuals as they select into social environments across their first year in a university setting – first contacting them before they are embedded in a new social environment, tracking their selections into friendships and groups, and observing how their attitudes change over a year and a half period. Results demonstrate that political beliefs can be significant predictors of selection into non-political social contexts, especially for those with the strongest beliefs about politics.
AhlerD. J.SoodG. (2018). The parties in our heads: Misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. The Journal of Politics, 80(3), 964–981. https://doi.org/10.1086/697253
2.
AlbertsonB.GadarianS. K. (2015). Anxious politics: Democratic citizenship in a threatening world. Cambridge University Press.
3.
BartelsL. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24(2), 117–150. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1021226224601
4.
BeckP. A.DaltonR. J.GreeneS.HuckfeldtR. (2002). The social calculus of voting: Interpersonal, media, and organizational influences on presidential choices. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055402004239
5.
BelloJ.RolfeM. (2014). Is influence mightier than selection? Forging agreement in political discussion networks during a campaign. Social Networks, 36(1), 134–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2013.06.001
6.
BerelsonB. R.LazarsfeldP. F.McPheeW.N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential Campaign. University of Chicago Press.
7.
BishopB. (2008). The Big Sort: Why the clustering of like-minded America is tearing us apart. Mariner Books.
8.
BondRFarrissC.JonesJKramerAMarlowCSettleJFowlerJ (2012). A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature, 489(7415), 295-298. Nature, 489(7415), 295–298.
9.
BondR. M.SweitzerM. D. (2018). Political homophily in a large-scale online communication network. Communication Research.
10.
Box-SteffensmeierJ. M.De BoefS.LinT. (2004). The dynamics of the partisan gender gap. American Political Science Review, 98(03), 515–528. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055404001315
11.
BrewerM. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate?Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00126
12.
CampbellA.ConverseP.MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (1960). The American voter. John Wiley & Sons.
13.
CohenG. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 808–822. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808
14.
DruckmanJ. N.KlarS.KrupnikovY.LevenduskyM.RyanJ. B. (2022). (Mis) estimating affective polarization. The Journal of Politics, 84(2), 12. https://doi.org/10.1086/715603
15.
EganP. J. (2019). Identity as dependent variable: How Americans shift their identities to align with their politics. American Journal of Political Science, 64(3), 699–716. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12496
16.
FehrB. (2008). Friendship formation. In SprecherS.WenzelA.HarveyJ. (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 29–54). Psychology Press.
17.
GelmanA. (2008). Red state, blue state, rich state, poor state: Why Americans vote the way they do. Princeton University Press.
18.
GerberA. S.GreenD. P.LarimerC. W. (2008). Social pressure and voter turnout: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. American Political Science Review, 102(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1017/s000305540808009x
19.
GerberA. S.HuberG. A.DohertyD.DowlingC. M. (2011). The big five personality traits in the political arena. Annual Review of Political Science, 14(1), 265–287. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051010-111659
20.
GreenD. P.PalmquistB.SchicklerE. (2004). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. Yale University Press.
21.
GreenwaldA. G.PettigrewT. F. (2014). With malice toward none and charity for some: Ingroup favoritism enables discrimination. American Psychologist, 69(7), 669–684. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036056
HomolaJ.RogowskiJ. C.SinclairB.TorresM.TuckerP. D.WebsterS. W. (2022). Through the ideology of the beholder: How ideology shapes perceptions of partisan groups. Political Science Research and Methods, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2022.4
24.
HuberG. A.MalhotraN. (2017). Political homophily in social relationships: Evidence from online dating behavior. Journal of Politics, 79(1), 283. https://doi.org/10.1086/687533
25.
HuckfeldtR.JohnsonP. E.SpragueJ. (2004). Political disagreement: The survival of diverse opinions within communication networks. Cambridge University Press.
26.
HuckfeldtR. R.SpragueJ. (1995). Citizens, politics and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. Cambridge University Press.
27.
HuddyL. (2013). From group identity to political cohesion and commitment. In HuddyL.SearsD. O.LevyJ. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 737–773). Oxford University Press.
28.
HuddyL.MasonL.AarøeL. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055414000604
29.
HuiI. (2013). Who is your preferred neighbor? Partisan residential preferences and neighborhood satisfaction. American Politics Research, 41(6), 997–1021. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x13482573
30.
HutchensM.HmielowskiJ.BeamM. (2019). Reinforcing spirals of political discussion and affective polarization. Journal of Communication Monographs, 86(03), 357–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2019.1575255
31.
IyengarS.SoodG.LelkesY. (2012). Affect, not ideology; a social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038
32.
JenningsK.StokerL.BowersJ. (2009). Politics across generations: Family transmission reexamined. Journal of Politics, 71(3), 782–799. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381609090719
33.
JenningsK. M.NiemiR. G. (1968). The transmission of political values from parent to child. The American Political Science Review, 62(1), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.2307/1953332
34.
JostJ. T.NosekB. A.GoslingS. D. (2008). Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(2), 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00070.x
35.
KlarS. (2014). Partisanship in a social setting. American Journal of Political Science, 58(3), 687–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12087
36.
KlofstadC. A.McDermottR.HatemiP. K. (2012). Do bedroom eyes wear political glasses? The role of politics in human mate attraction. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(2), 100–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2011.06.002
37.
KlofstadC. A.SokheyA. E.McClurgS. D. (2013). Disagreeing about disagreement: How conflict in social networks affects political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 57(1), 120–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00620.x
38.
KnokeD. (1990). Networks of political action: Toward theory construction. Social Forces, 68(4), 1041–1063. https://doi.org/10.2307/2579133
39.
LazarsfeldP. F.BerelsonB.GaudetH. (1948). The people’s Choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential Campaign. Columbia University Press.
40.
LazerD.RubineauB.ChetkovichC.KatzN.NebloM. (2010). The coevolution of networks and political attitudes. Political Communication, 27(3), 248–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2010.500187
41.
MakseT.MinkoffS. L.SokheyA. E. (2014). Networks, context, and the use of spatially weighted survey metrics. Political Geography, 42, 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2014.07.003
42.
MargolisM. F. (2018). How politics affects religion: Partisanship, socialization, and religiosity in America. The Journal of Politics, 80(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1086/694688
43.
MasonL. (2015). “I disrespectfully agree”: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 128–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12089
44.
MasonL. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. University of Chicago Press.
45.
McAdamD. (1986). Recruitment to high-risk activism: The case of freedom summer. American Journal of Sociology, 92(1), 64–90. https://doi.org/10.1086/228463
46.
McClurgS. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00213.x
47.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
48.
MillerW. E.ShanksJ. M. (1996). The New American voter. Harvard University Press.
MinozziW.SongH.LazerD. M.NebloM. A.OgnyanovaK. (2020a). The incidental pundit: Who talks politics with whom, and why?American Journal of Political Science, 64(1), 135–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12469
51.
MutzD. C. (2002). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 838–855. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088437
52.
MutzD. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press.
53.
MutzD. C.MartinP. (2001). Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055401000223
NebloM. A.EsterlingK. M.LazerD. M. (2018). Politics with the people: Building a directly representative democracy (Vol. 555). Cambridge University Press.
56.
NewcombT. (1943). Personality and social change; attitude formation in a student community. Dryden Press.
57.
NewcombT.KoenigK.FlacksR.WarwickD. (1967). Persistence and change: Bennington college and its students after twenty-five years. Wiley.
58.
NicholsonS. P.CoeC. M.EmoryJ.SongA. V. (2016). The politics of beauty: The effects of partisan bias on physical attractiveness. Political Behavior, 38(02), 883–898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9339-7
59.
NickersonD. W. (2008). Is voting contagious? Evidence from two field experiments. American Political Science Review, 102(1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055408080039
60.
NoelHNyhanB (2011). The “unfriending” problem: The consequences of homophily in friendship retention for causal estimates of social influence. Social Networks, 33(3), 211–218.
61.
OgnyanovaK. (2020). Contagious politics: Tie strength and the spread of political knowledge. Communication Research. 10.1177/0093650220924179
62.
OlivolaC. Y.TodorovA. (2010). Elected in 100 milliseconds: Appearance-based trait inferences and voting. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34(2), 83–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-009-0082-1
63.
PietrykaM. T.ReillyJ. L.MaliniakD. M.MillerP. R.HuckfeldtR.RapoportR. B. (2018). From respondents to networks: Bridging between individuals, discussants, and the network in the study of political discussion. Political Behavior, 40(3), 711–735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-017-9419-3
64.
PutnamR. D.CampbellD. E. (2012). American grace: How religion divides and unites us. Simon and Schuster.
RogowskiJ. C.SinclairB. (2017). Causal inference in political networks. In The oxford handbook of political networks (p. 131). Oxford University Press.
67.
RolfeM. (2012). Voter turnout: A social theory of political participation. Cambridge University Press.
68.
SantoroL. R. (2017). Choosing to be Changed: How Selection Conditions the Effect of Social Networks on Political Attitudes. Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.
69.
SantoroL. R.BeckP. A. (2017). Social networks and vote choice. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Networks (pp. 383–406). Oxford University Press.
70.
SaramäkiJ.LeichtE. A.LópezE.RobertsS. G.Reed-TsochasF.DunbarR. I. (2014). Persistence of social signatures in human communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(3), 942–947. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1308540110
71.
ShaliziC. R.ThomasA. C. (2011). Homophily and contagion are generically confounded in observational social network studies. Sociological Methods & Research, 40(2), 211–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124111404820
72.
SinclairB. (2012). The social citizen: Peer networks and political behavior. The University of Chicago Press.
StubbsT.ReinsbergB.KentikelenisA.KingL. (2018). How to evaluate the effects of IMF conditionality. The Review of International Organizations, 4(2), 1–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-018-9332-5
76.
TajfelH. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge University Press.
77.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Brooks/Cole.
78.
VandecasteeleL.DebelsA. (2007). Attrition in panel data: The effectiveness of weighting. European Sociological Review, 23(1), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcl021
79.
WalshK. C. (2004). Talking about politics: Informal groups and social identity in American life. University of Chicago Press.
80.
WeiselO.BohmR. (2015). “Ingroup love” and “outgroup hate” in intergroup conflict between natural groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 60, 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.04.008
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
