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

Article

AmericanPoliticsResearch

2023,Vol.51(1)108–124

©TheAuthor(s)2022

Articlereuseguidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI:10.1177/1532673X221112394

journals.sagepub.com/home/apr

DoPoliticalBeliefsDriveEnvironment

Selection?

LaurenRatliffSantoro

1



Abstract

Scholarsinterestedinunderstandingifandtowhatextentsocialenvironmentsinfluenceindividualpoliticalbehaviorareplagued

bytherealitythatindividualsconstructtheirsocialenvironments.Thoughthereisacknowledgementthatthisconstructionis

determinedbyhomophily–likesassociatingwithlikes–theextenttowhichpoliticalbeliefsdriveenvironmentselectionisyet

untested.Thispaperseekstounderstandtheextenttowhichpoliticalbeliefsinformindividuals’decisionsonwhichsocial

environmentstoselectinto.Todoso,Ifollowindividualsastheyselectintosocialenvironmentsacrosstheirfirstyearina

universitysetting–firstcontactingthembeforetheyareembeddedinanewsocialenvironment,trackingtheirselectionsinto

friendshipsandgroups,andobservinghowtheirattitudeschangeoverayearandahalfperiod.Resultsdemonstratethatpolitical

beliefscanbesignificantpredictorsofselectionintonon-politicalsocialcontexts,especiallyforthosewiththestrongestbeliefs

aboutpolitics.

Keywords

socialnetworks,selectionprocess,homophily,socialidentity

“MostAmericanshaveakindofculturalliteracythatallowsthem

topickupthecluesthattellthemwhentheyareamongtheirkind

ofpeople.Wefindtheplacethatfitsourstyle,and,ifwehavethe

choice,that’swherewesettle”(Bishop,2008,p.306).

Therelationshipbetweenthesocialenvironmentandin-

dividualbehaviorcanresultfromtheenvironmentaffecting

individuals(influence),individualsassociatingwithothers

likethemselves(homophily),orthestructuralfactorsthat

constrainexposuretocertaintypesofenvironments(shared

environment).Scholarsinterestedinthisrelationshipare

taskedwithdistinguishingbetweeninfluence,homophily,

andthesharedenvironment.Certainly,thisisnoeasytaskas

thesefactorsareconfoundedinobservationalstudies(Shalizi

&Thomas,2011).

Inthefaceofthesechallenges,investigationsintothere-

lationshipbetweenthesocialenvironment–whereenviron-

mentsincludeboththenetworksofinter-personalrelationships

andthecontextsinwhichindividualsliveandwork–and

individualpoliticalbehaviordemonstratethatpeopledoin-

fluenceeachotherinpoliticallyconsequentialways(Huckfeldt

&Sprague,1995;Huckfeldtetal.,2004).Specifically,social

influenceonpoliticsisconsequentialtounderstandingthe

foundationalquestionsofvotingbehavior–whoparticipates

andtowardwhatends.Thesocialenvironmentcanpredict

whetherornotindividualsparticipateinpolitics(Bondetal.,

2012;Gerberetal.,2008;McAdam,1986;Nickerson,2008;

Sinclair,2012;Rolfe,2012)aswellasthedirection,orout-

come,oftheparticipation(Becketal.,2002;Klar,2014;

Santoro&Beck,2017;Sinclair,2012).

Atthesametime,alongtraditionofsocialsciencere-

searchhasdemonstratedthatindividuals–whentheyhavea

choice–choosetoassociatewithsimilarindividuals,select

environmentswheretheirpreferencesarelikelytobesup-

ported,andseekoutcongruentinformationsources(McPherson

etal.,2001;Mutz,2002,2006;Stroud,2010;Bond&Sweitzer,

2018).Thatindividualsaresurroundedbysimilarothersrequires

researcherstodistinguishbetweeninstanceswhereanindividual’s

actofvotinginspiredanotherindividualtovote(influence)and

whereindividuals’sharedcommitmenttoactivismleadsthem

bothtovote(homophily).Ofcourse,distinguishingbetween

homophilyandinfluenceisdifficultatbestand,insomecases,

mightnotevenbepossible(Shalizi&Thomas,2011).

Wheredoesthisleavescholarsinterestedinunderstanding

therelationshipbetweenthesocialenvironmentand

1

UniversityofTexasatDallasSchoolofEconomicPoliticalandPolicy

Sciences,Richardson,TX,USA

CorrespondingAuthor:

LaurenRatliffSantoro,AssistantProfessorofPoliticalScience,Universityof

TexasatDallasSchoolofEconomic,Political,andPolicySciences,800

WestCampbellRoad,Richardson,TX75080-3021,USA.

Email:laurenratliffsantoro@utdallas.edu

individualpoliticalbeliefs?Shouldourcollectiveeffortsbe

abandoned?Certainly,turningtorandomizedexperiments,

bigdata,andincreasinglysophisticatedmodelingallhold

promise.Indoingso,however,therealissuemaybeevaded.

Weavoidunderstandinghowthosenetworksareformedin

thefirstplaceand,specifically,theroleofpoliticalbeliefsin

thatformation.So,whilesocialnetworkscholarshaveac-

knowledgedhomophilyintheconstructionofsocialenvi-

ronments,thereislittlecollectiveunderstandingoftheextent

towhichpoliticalbeliefsfactorintoindividuals’decisions

aboutwhichenvironmentstoselectintointhefirstplace.

Dopoliticalbeliefsdriveselectionintosocio-political

environments?And,howinturndoesthatselectionimpact

politicalbeliefs?Thisarticleprovidesanoveltheoretical

accountofifandtowhatextentpoliticalbeliefsdriveen-

vironmentselection.Thisaccount,rootedinsocialidentity

theory,arguesthatpoliticalbeliefsareconsequentialdeter-

minantsofselectionintonon-politicalnetworksandcontexts

preciselybecauseindividuals’partisanandideological

identitiesareincreasinglyalignedwiththeiridentitiesofrace,

religion,andsexualorientation,amongothers(Mason,2015,

2018;Egan,2019).Accordingly,Ibringtogetherinsights

fromworkonthepoliticalimpactofsocialnetworksand

socialidentities.

Iutilizeanidentificationstrategydesignedspecificallyto

getleverageontheconfoundbetweenhomophilyandin-

fluence.Usingnovel,three-wavepaneldata,Itrackindi-

vidualsastheyselectintodifferentvoluntaryorganizations

overthecourseoftheirfirstyearofcollege.Thesedataallow

ustounderstandindividuals’politicalbeliefsbeforeselection

occurs,theselectionitself,andthechangeinpoliticalbeliefs

overtimeasaresultofthatselection.Ifindsomesupportthat

politicalbeliefs,namelyideologicalbeliefs,drivethese-

lectionofnon-politicalnetworksandcontextsforindividuals

withthestrongestbeliefsaboutpoliticstoagreaterextent

thanthosewithlesscrystalizedviews.Accordingly,Iaccount

fortheinfluencev.homophilydilemma,notwithmodeling,

butbyincreasingsubstantiveknowledgeregardingtheroleof

politicalbeliefsinnetworkformationandwitharesearch

designthatallowsfortheobservationofhownetworksare

formed.Whileconclusionsarenotablylimitedbygeneral-

izabilityandlowstatisticalpower,theexplorationintothe

determinantsofenvironmentselectionisaneffortworth

undertaking.

TheSelectionProblem

Researchers’abilitytoestablishunbiasedrelationshipsbe-

tweensocialnetworksandpoliticalbehaviorisfrustratedby

therealitythatindividualsconstructtheirownsocialworlds.

Individualschoosewithwhomtodiscusspolitics

1

andthis

choiceischaracterizedbyhomophily,orlikesassociating

withlikes(seeMcPhersonetal.,2001forasummary).

2

Homophilycanoccurbasedonraceandethnicity,gender,

age,religion,educationlevels,occupation,socialclass,social/

structuralposition,behavior,attitudes,beliefs,abilities,and

aspirations,amongothers.Mostimportantforourpurposes,

homophilyonpoliticalorientationsexistswhenindividuals

choosetoassociatewithindividualswithsimilarpoliticalori-

entationsorselectsocialenvironmentsbecauseoftheirpolitical

preferences(Knoke,1990;Huckfeldt&Sprague,1995,2004;

Bishop,2008).Thisbecomesaproblem(deemedthe“selection

problem”)becauseitisdifficulttodifferentiatebetweenan

individualinfluencingtheirfriend’scandidatechoiceandthe

extenttowhichsharedpoliticalpreferencesorotherpreferences

correlatedwithpolitics,suchasraceandsocialclass,leadto

similarcandidatechoiceamongindividuals.

Mostresearchonsocialinfluenceonpoliticsremains

agnosticaboutthereasons–politicalorotherwise–forwhich

individualsformrelationshipsinthefirstplace.However,it

mightbereasonabletoexpectthatpoliticalbeliefsdrive

relationshipformationinatleastthreeways.First,even

thoughamajorityofthetimeindividualsselectintoenvi-

ronmentsforreasonsotherthanpolitics(Walsh,2004;

Sinclair,2012;Lazeretal.,2010;Minozzi,Songetal.,2020),

thosereasonsareoftencorrelatedwithpoliticalones.Infact,

researchhasestablishedthattherearepoliticaldimensionsto

personalitytraits(Gerberetal.,2011),religiousbeliefs

(Putnam&Campbell,2012;Margolis,2018),educationlevels

(Miller&Shanks,1996),race,ethnicity,gender,andsexual

orientation(Box-Steffensmeieretal.,2004;Egan,2019),re-

gionofcountry(Gelman,2008),andevenfacialfeatures

(Olivola&Todorov,2010).

And,manyofthesefactorsareconsequentialforthetypes

ofcontextsandfriendshipsthatindividualsselectinto.

Friendships,forexample,areformedbasedonsharedper-

sonalities,experiences,andidentities(forareview,seeFehr,

2008).Educationlevelsandsocialclasscanconstrainthe

typesofpeopleinanindividual’ssocialcircle.

Second,insomecases,individuals’beliefsaboutpolitics

directlyfactorintocontextselection(whatMinozzi,Song

etal.,2020call“purposive”selection).Sharedpolitical

preferencesareimportantpredictorsofdiscussionpartners.

Strongpartisans,especially,arelikelytoselectpolitically

like-mindeddiscussionpartners(Bello&Rolfe,2014).Indi-

vidualswithalargergapinfeelingsbetweenin-andout-group

members(strong,positivefeelingstowardtheirin-groupand

strong,negativefeelingsfortheout-group)aremorelikelyto

discusspoliticswiththosewhoarepoliticallylike-minded

(Hutchensetal.,2019;seealsoHuckfeldtetal.,2004).

Sharedpoliticalpreferencesmaybeespeciallyimportant

intheselectionofromanticpartners.Ahighdegreeofpo-

liticalcongruencehasbeendemonstratedinspousalrela-

tionships,andthiscongruencecanincreaseovertime

(Jennings&Niemi,1968;Stoker&Jennings,2008).Intheir

experimentalanalysisofanon-linedatingcommunity,Huber

andMalhotra(2017)demonstratethatpotentialdating

partnersareratedmorefavorablyandaremorelikelytobe

contactedwhentheysharepoliticalpreferences.Thepotential

mate’spoliticalaffiliationrivalsotherconsequential

Santoro109