The Social Identity Politics of Peer Networks

• Published date: 01 July 2015
• DOI: 10.1177/1532673X14546856
• Date: 01 July 2015
• Author: Bryan M. Parsons
• Subject Matter: Articles

American Politics Research

2015, Vol. 43(4) 680 –707

© The Author(s) 2014

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1532673X14546856

apr.sagepub.com

Article

The Social Identity

Politics of Peer Networks

Bryan M. Parsons1

Abstract

Building on recent studies of social pressure and group conformity in peer

groups, I apply a social identity framework from social psychology to the

study of political networks. Using the American National Election Studies

(ANES) 2008-2009 Panel Study, I test several hypotheses regarding the

relationship between peer networks, the salience of partisan identity, and

the consequences for intergroup attitudinal and affective polarization. The

findings suggest that peer network homogeneity produces the strongest

association with more salient partisan identities across several network

characteristics, including cohesiveness, sophistication, and density. Both the

salience of partisan identities and network homogeneity are also linked to

significant intergroup polarization, that is, differences in in-group and out-

group partisan affect. The current research contributes to the existing

literature on political networks by highlighting the role of social identities and

providing a theoretical framework worth considering for future research.

Keywords

political networks, social identity, polarization, partisanship

Social connections are also important for the rules of conduct that they sustain.

Networks involve (almost by definition) mutual obligations; they are not

interesting as mere “contacts.”

—Robert Putnam (2000, p. 20)

1Roanoke College, Salem, VA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Bryan M. Parsons, Department of Public Affairs, Roanoke College, 221 College Lane, Salem,

VA 24153, USA.

Email: parsons@roanoke.edu

546856APRXXX10.1177/1532673X14546856American Politics ResearchParsons

research-article2014

Parsons 681

Introduction

In the 15 years following Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone and his insights

regarding the implications of socially connected citizens and the changing

norms of peer groups, social scientists have explored a range of interesting

questions about the extent and conditions of social influence. A common

inquiry addresses the extent to which the search for, and exposure to, infor-

mation in political networks affects the formation of attitudes and subsequent

behavior. Political networks, defined as the groups with whom people engage

in politics and interpersonal political discussions, have been the primary

focus of scholarly attention. Whether networks are created by choice

(McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001), social and geographic constraints

(Baybeck & Huckfeldt, 2002; Huckfeldt, Johnson, & Sprague, 2004;

McClurg, 2006b), or some combination of both (Fowler, Heaney, Nickerson,

Padgett, & Sinclair, 2011; Mutz, 2006), exposure to different types of politi-

cal information is strongly associated with patterns of political behavior

(Djupe & Sokhey, 2011; Huckfeldt & Sprague, 1987, 1995; Klofstad, 2011;

Klofstad, Sokhey, & McClurg, 2013; Levitan & Visser, 2008; McClurg,

2003, 2006a; Sokhey & McClurg, 2012; Visser & Mirabile, 2004). Recent

studies, though, supplement this perspective by highlighting the individual’s

need for social group affiliation (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Berelson,

Lazarsfeld, & McPhee, 1954; Conover, Crewe, & Searing, 2002; Lazarsfeld,

Berelson, & Gaudet, 1948; McPhee, 1963), and link interpersonal influence

among peers to social pressure to conform to group norms (Bolsen, 2013;

Christakis & Fowler, 2009; Gerber, Green, & Larimer, 2008; Gerber &

Rogers, 2009; Nickerson, 2008; Sinclair, 2012; Sinclair & McConnell, 2012;

Suhay, 2015).

The current research draws on the latter perspective to examine the rela-

tionship between peer networks, social identity, and intergroup biases. The

theoretical argument used to understand social influence is based on a classic

perspective from social psychology, social identity theory (Tajfel, 1970,

1982; Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971; Tajfel & Turner, 1979), and

later self-categorization theory (Turner, 1985, 1987). Peer networks can pro-

vide reminders of the appropriate norms associated with salient social or

political identities, which in turn can enhance the salience of one’s attach-

ment to a social group and exacerbate intergroup polarization. Given the role

of partisan identity in growing intergroup affective polarization in the elec-

torate (Iyengar, Sood, & Lelkes, 2012), the focus of this study is on examin-

ing the effect of peer networks on the salience of partisan social identity, as

well as their combined effects on intergroup biases. Using data from the

American National Election Studies (ANES) 2008-2009 Panel Study, the