CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 146Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation StudiesSpatial and Panel Data Analysis

Does residential sorting explain geographic polarization?

Martin, Gregory J., Webster, Steven W.·2020·Political Science Research and Methods
DOI 10.1017/psrm.2018.44
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Political preferences in the United States are highly correlated with population density, at national, state, and metropolitan-area scales. Using new data from voter registration records, we assess the extent to which this pattern can be explained by geographic mobility. We find that the revealed preferences of voters who move from one residence to another correlate with partisan affiliation, though voters appear to be sorting on non-political neighborhood attributes that covary with partisan preferences rather than explicitly seeking politically congruent neighbors. But, critically, we demonstrate through a simulation study that the estimated partisan bias in moving choices is on the order of five times too small to sustain the current geographic polarization of preferences. We conclude that location must have some influence on political preference, rather than the other way around, and provide evidence in support of this theory.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/psrm.2018.44

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • These developments have the capacity to exacerbate all three types of polarization, insofar as individuals bring their own political attitudes and beliefs into alignment with those who are spatially proximate and tend to form negative impressions, including misperceptions, about those with whom they rarely interact.

    “These developments have the capacity to exacerbate all three types of polarization, insofar as individuals bring their own political attitudes and beliefs into alignment with those who are spatially proximate329,331 and tend to form negative impressions, including misperceptions, about those with whom they rarely interact332.”

    From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [329]

  • Norms tied to social contexts such as geographic locations influence political preferences and contribute to polarization.

    “These and other studies327,328 highlight the ways in which norms tied to social contexts such as geographic locations influence political preferences and contribute to polarization329.”

    From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [329]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Martin, G. J., & Webster, S. W.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Corresponding author
Martin, Gregory J.
ORCID
Venue
Political Science Research and Methods
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2018-10-22
Volume
8
Issue
2
Pages
215-231
ISSN
  • 2049-8470 (ISSN-L)
  • 2049-8489
DOI
10.1017/psrm.2018.44
OpenAlex
W2897041085
Cited by
146
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2014: 1
FWCI
43.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified)
Locations
  • Political Science Research and Methods (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Urban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Spatial and Panel Data Analysis
Keywords
residential sorting, political preferences, spatial mobility, population density, partisan affiliation, neighborhood characteristics, revealed preference, metropolitan areas

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review