Do Political Beliefs Drive Environment Selection?
| Author | Lauren Ratliff Santoro |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X221112394 |
| Published date | 01 January 2023 |
| Date | 01 January 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
American Politics Research
2023, Vol. 51(1) 108–124
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1532673X221112394
journals.sagepub.com/home/apr
Do Political Beliefs Drive Environment
Selection?
Lauren Ratliff Santoro
1
Abstract
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 thatpolitical
beliefs can be significant predictors of selection into non-political social contexts, especially for those with the stronge st beliefs
about politics.
Keywords
social networks, selection process, homophily, social identity
“Most Americans have a kind of cultural literacy that allows them
to pick up the clues that tell them when they are among their kind
of people. We find the place that fits our style, and, if we have the
choice, that’s where we settle”(Bishop, 2008, p. 306).
The relationship between the social environment and in-
dividual behavior can result from the environment affecting
individuals (influence), individuals associating with others
like themselves (homophily), or the structural factors that
constrain exposure to certain types of environments (shared
environment). Scholars interested in this relationship are
tasked with distinguishing between influence, homophily,
and the shared environment. Certainly, this is no easy task as
these factors are confounded in observational studies (Shalizi
& Thomas, 2011).
In the face of these challenges, investigations into the re-
lationship between the social environment –where environ-
ments includeboth the networks of inter-personalrelationships
and the contexts in which individuals live and work –and
individual political behavior demonstrate that people do in-
fluence each otherin politically consequential ways(Huck feldt
& Sprague, 1995;Huckfeldt et al., 2004). Specifically, social
influence on politics is consequential to understanding the
foundational questions of voting behavior –who participates
and toward what ends. The social environment can predict
whether or not individuals participate in politics (Bond et al.,
2012;Gerber et al., 2008;McAdam, 1986;Nickerson, 2008;
Sinclair, 2012;Rolfe, 2012) as well as the direction, or out-
come, of the participation (Beck et al., 2002;Klar, 2014;
Santoro & Beck, 2017;Sinclair, 2012).
At the same time, a long tradition of social science re-
search has demonstrated that individuals –when they have a
choice –choose to associate with similar individuals, select
environments where their preferences are likely to be sup-
ported, and seek out congruent information sources (McPherson
et al., 2001;Mutz, 2002,2006;Stroud, 2010;Bond & Sweitzer,
2018). That individuals are surrounded by similar others requires
researchers to distinguish between instances where an individual’s
act of voting inspired another individual to vote (influence) and
where individuals’shared commitment to activism leads them
both to vote (homophily). Of course, distinguishing between
homophily and influence is difficult at best and, in some cases,
might not even be possible (Shalizi & Thomas, 2011).
Where does this leave scholars interested in understanding
the relationship between the social environment and
1
University of Texas at Dallas School of Economic Political and Policy
Sciences, Richardson, TX, USA
Corresponding Author:
Lauren Ratliff Santoro, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of
Texas at Dallas School of Economic, Political, and Policy Sciences, 800
West Campbell Road, Richardson, TX 75080-3021, USA.
Email: laurenratliffsantoro@utdallas.edu
individual political beliefs? Should our collective efforts be
abandoned? Certainly, turning to randomized experiments,
big data, and increasingly sophisticated modeling all hold
promise. In doing so, however, the real issue may be evaded.
We avoid understanding how those networks are formed in
the first place and, specifically, the role of political beliefs in
that formation. So, while social network scholars have ac-
knowledged homophily in the construction of social envi-
ronments, there is little collective understanding of the extent
to which political beliefs factor into individuals’decisions
about which environments to select into in the first place.
Do political beliefs drive selection into socio-political
environments? And, how in turn does that selection impact
political beliefs? This article provides a novel theoretical
account of if and to what extent political beliefs drive en-
vironment selection. This account, rooted in social identity
theory, argues that political beliefs are consequential deter-
minants of selection into non-political networks and contexts
precisely because individuals’partisan and ideological
identities are increasingly aligned with their identities of race,
religion, and sexual orientation, among others (Mason, 2015,
2018;Egan, 2019). Accordingly, I bring together insights
from work on the political impact of social networks and
social identities.
I utilize an identification strategy designed specifically to
get leverage on the confound between homophily and in-
fluence. Using novel, three-wave panel data, I track indi-
viduals as they select into different voluntary organizations
over the course of their first year of college. These data allow
us to understand individuals’political beliefs before selection
occurs, the selection itself, and the change in political beliefs
over time as a result of that selection. I find some support that
political beliefs, namely ideological beliefs, drive the se-
lection of non-political networks and contexts for individuals
with the strongest beliefs about politics to a greater extent
than those with less crystalized views. Accordingly, I account
for the influence v. homophily dilemma, not with modeling,
but by increasing substantive knowledge regarding the role of
political beliefs in network formation and with a research
design that allows for the observation of how networks are
formed. While conclusions are notably limited by general-
izability and low statistical power, the exploration into the
determinants of environment selection is an effort worth
undertaking.
The Selection Problem
Researchers’ability to establish unbiased relationships be-
tween social networks and political behavior is frustrated by
the reality that individuals construct their own social worlds.
Individuals choose with whom to discuss politics
1
and this
choice is characterized by homophily, or likes associating
with likes (see McPherson et al., 2001 for a summary).
2
Homophily can occur based on race and ethnicity, gender,
age, religion, education levels, occupation, social class, social/
structural position, behavior, attitudes, beliefs, abilities, and
aspirations, among others. Most important for our purposes,
homophily on political orientations exists when individuals
choose to associate with individuals with similar political ori-
entations or select social environments because of their political
preferences (Knoke, 1990;Huckfeldt & Sprague, 1995,2004;
Bishop, 2008). This becomes a problem (deemed the “selection
problem”) because it is difficult to differentiate between an
individual influencing their friend’s candidate choice and the
extent to which shared political preferences or other preferences
correlated with politics, such as race and social class, lead to
similar candidate choice among individuals.
Most research on social influence on politics remains
agnostic about the reasons –political or otherwise –for which
individuals form relationships in the first place. However, it
might be reasonable to expect that political beliefs drive
relationship formation in at least three ways. First, even
though a majority of the time individuals select into envi-
ronments for reasons other than politics (Walsh, 2004;
Sinclair, 2012;Lazer et al., 2010;Minozzi, Song et al., 2020),
those reasons are often correlated with political ones. In fact,
research has established that there are political dimensions to
personality traits (Gerber et al., 2011), religious beliefs
(Putnam & Campbell, 201 2;Margolis, 2018), education levels
(Miller & Shanks, 1996), race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual
orientation (Box-Steffensmeier et al., 2004;Egan, 2019), re-
gion of country (Gelman, 2008), and even facial features
(Olivola & Todorov, 2010).
And, many of these factors are consequential for the types
of contexts and friendships that individuals select into.
Friendships, for example, are formed based on shared per-
sonalities, experiences, and identities (for a review, see Fehr,
2008). Education levels and social class can constrain the
types of people in an individual’s social circle.
Second, in some cases, individuals’beliefs about politics
directly factor into context selection (what Minozzi, Song
et al., 2020 call “purposive”selection). Shared political
preferences are important predictors of discussion partners.
Strong partisans, especially, are likely to select politically
like-minded discussion partners (Bello & Rolfe, 2014). Indi-
viduals with a larger gap in feelingsbetween in- and out-group
members (strong, positive feelings toward their in-group and
strong, negative feelings for the out-group) are more likely to
discuss politics with those who are politically like-minded
(Hutchens et al., 2019; see also Huckfeldt et al., 2004).
Shared political preferences may be especially important
in the selection of romantic partners. A high degree of po-
litical congruence has been demonstrated in spousal rela-
tionships, and this congruence can increase over time
(Jennings & Niemi, 1968;Stoker & Jennings, 2008). In their
experimental analysis of an on-line dating community, Huber
and Malhotra (2017) demonstrate that potential dating
partners are rated more favorably and are more likely to be
contacted when they share political preferences. The potential
mate’s political affiliation rivals other consequential
Santoro 109
To continue reading
Request your trial