The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Friendship Group as a Protective Environment for Political Deviants
Abstract
This is a study of the relationship between partisan preference and social integration in natural work groups in several automobile plants. The basic finding is that the number of work group friends increases from the Democratic to the Republican end of a standard party identification scale. Since the political context of the study sample is heavily Democratic, attention is focused on the fact that Republicans in this environment are political deviants. It is suggested that friendship integration is a function of perceived deviance in that deviating from group norms leads to social insecurity, cognitive dissonance, and a need for opinion evaluation, all of which motivate affiliative behavior. Several hypotheses are deduced from this proposition. The first is that Republicans have less political contact in nonwork contexts, but more in the work group, than Democrats do. Second, the relationship between partisanship and friendship integration should be greater for members of social groups in which the pro-Democratic norm is stronger than for those in which this norm is weaker. Third, strength of identification with the norm-bearing group ought to be positively related to friendship integration among deviants, since identification would make the group's norms more salient and increase the deviant's discomfort. Fourth, political deviants should tend to choose each other as friends to a greater extent than political conformers do. Finally, since friendship alliances apparently serve a protective function for political deviants, it is hypothesized that among deviants (but not among conformers), friendship integration should be related to political participation. All the hypotheses are supported. The results are interpreted in terms of the critical function of social support for political deviants in pluralist societies. Since pressures for conformity are strong, it is important to understand the ways in which minorities deal with them. Friendships in work groups, ostensibly nonpolitical, therefore have important political functions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A theory of social comparison processes
Festinger, L. (1954) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/001872675400700202 · Cited by 20,926
Cited by
Voter Turnout and the Dynamics of Electoral Competition in Established Democracies since 1945
Franklin, M. N., Eijk, C. V. D., Evans, D., Fotos, M., Hirczy de Mino, W., Marsh, M., & Wessels, B. (2004) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511616884 · Cited by 1,421
The Workplace as a Context for Cross-Cutting Political Discourse
Mutz, D. C., & Mondak, J. J. (2006) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00376.x · Cited by 612
Dissident Groups, Personal Networks, and Spontaneous Cooperation: The East German Revolution of 1989
Opp, K.-D., & Gern, C. (1993) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2096280 · Cited by 419
BECK, P. A., DALTON, R. J., GREENE, S., & HUCKFELDT, R. (2002) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055402004239 · Cited by 384
Huckfeldt, R. R. (1983) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/227908 · Cited by 353
Metadata
- Authors
- Finifter, A. W.
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 1974-06-01
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 607-625
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2325369522
- Cited by
- 313
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Friendship Group as a Protective Environment for Political Deviants. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0003055400117423
- The paper
- Finifter, A. W. (1974). The Friendship Group as a Protective Environment for Political Deviants. American Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055400117423
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.