Homophily and acrophily as drivers of political segregation
Open accessAbstract
Political segregation is an important social problem, increasing polarization and impeding effective governance. Previous work has viewed the central driver of segregation to be political homophily, the tendency to associate with others who have similar views. Here we propose that, in addition to homophily, people’s social tie decisions are driven by political acrophily, the tendency to associate with others who have more extreme political views (rather than more moderate). We examined this using a paradigm in which participants share emotions and attitudes on political policies, observe others’ responses and choose which others to affiliate with. In four studies (N = 1,235), both liberal and conservative participants’ social tie decisions reflected the presence of acrophily. We found that participants who viewed peers who expressed more extreme views as more prototypical of their political group also tended to engage in greater acrophily. These studies identify a previously overlooked tendency in tie formation. Goldenberg et al. find that people are attracted to social ties who are more politically extreme, rather than moderate. This tendency, called acrophily, is shown to occur when people select ties on the basis of both emotions and attitudes to political issues.
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
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.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 54 · Cited by 65
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- [1]1. Brown, J. R. & Enos, R. D. The measurement of partisan sorting for 180 million voters. Nat. Hum. Behav. (2021) doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01066-z. · DOI · Paper page
- [16]16. Kulibert, D., Moss, A., Appleby, J. & O'brien, L. Perceptions of political deviants: A lay theory of subjective group dynamics. (2021) doi:10.31234/osf.io/aq652. · DOI
- [17]17. Zimmerman, F., Garbulsky, G., Ariely, D., Sigman, M. & Navajas, J. The nonreciprocal and polarizing nature of interpersonal attraction in political discussions. 1-37 (2021) doi:10.31234/osf.io/b9645. · DOI
- [18]18. Goldenberg, A., Sweeny, T. D., Shpigel, E. & Gross, J. J. Is this my group or not? The role of ensemble coding of emotional expressions in group categorization. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. (2019) doi:10.1037/xge0000651. · DOI
- [41]41. Lau, T., Morewedge, C. K. & Cikara, M. Overcorrection for social-categorization information moderates impact bias in affective forecasting. Psychol. Sci. 0956797616660292 (2016) doi:10.1177/0956797616660292. · DOI
- [44]44. Brady, W. J., Crockett, M. & Bavel, J. J. Van. The MAD model of moral contagion: The role of motivation, attention and design in the spread of moralized content online. (2019) doi:10.31234/OSF.IO/PZ9G6. · DOI
- [45]45. Jordan, J. J. & Rand, D. G. Signaling when no one is watching: A reputation heuristics account of outrage and punishment in one-shot anonymous interactions. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. (2020) doi:10.1037/pspi0000186.supp. · DOI
- [47]47. Panda, A., Siddarth, D. & Pal, J. COVID, BLM, and the polarization of US politicians on Twitter. arXiv Prepr. arXiv2008.03263 (2020).
- [48]48. Costello, T. H. & Bowes, S. M. Absolute Certainty and Political Ideology: A Systematic Test of Curvilinearity. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 194855062110704 (2022) doi:10.1177/19485506211070410. · DOI
- [49]49. van Prooijen, J. W. & Krouwel, A. P. M. Psychological features of extreme political ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science vol. 28 159-163 (2019).
- [50]50. Van Der Does, T., Galesic, M., Dunivin, Z. O. & Smaldino, P. E. Strategic identity signaling in heterogeneous networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 119 , 1-10 (2022).
- Authors
- Goldenberg, A., Abruzzo, J. M., Huang, Z., Schöne, J., Bailey, D., Willer, R., Halperin, E., & Gross, J. J.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Northwestern University (US)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Stanford University (US)
- Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
- Corresponding author
- Goldenberg, Amit
- Venue
- Nature Human Behaviour
- Published
- 2022-11-21
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 219-230
- ISSN
- 2397-3374 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4309667800
- Cited by
- 65
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 4.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2025-09-11)
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature Human Behaviour (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- Funders
- German Academic Scholarship Foundation
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Keywords
- political segregation, political homophily, political polarization, social affiliation, prototypicality, political attitudes
- MeSH terms
- Social Segregation, Attitude, Emotions, Humans, Peer Group, Politics
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