What’s Not to Like? Facebook Page Likes Reveal Limited Polarization in Lifestyle Preferences
Abstract
Increasing levels of political animosity in the United States invite speculation about whether polarization extends to aspects of daily life. However, empirical study about the relationship between political ideologies and lifestyle choices is limited by a lack of comprehensive data. In this research, we combine survey and Facebook Page “likes” data from more than 1,200 respondents to investigate the extent of polarization in lifestyle domains. Our results indicate that polarization is present in page categories that are somewhat related to politics – such as opinion leaders, partisan news sources, and topics related to identity and religion – but, perhaps surprisingly, it is mostly not evident in other domains, including sports, food, and music. On the individual level, we find that people who are higher in political news interest and have stronger ideological predispositions have a greater tendency to “like” ideologically homogeneous pages across categories. Our evidence, drawn from rare digital trace data covering more than 5,000 pages, adds nuance to the narrative of widespread polarization across lifestyle sectors and it suggests domains in which cross-cutting preferences are still observed in American life.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The degree to which political divisions have come to dominate cultural life remains subject to academic debate, with a recent study finding that while some lifestyle preferences are politically polarized, most remain shared across the political divide.
“The degree to which political divisions have come to dominate cultural life, however, remains subject to academic debate, with a recent study finding that while some lifestyle preferences are politically polarized, most remain shared across the political divide (54).”
From How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting (2022) · cites this paper as [54]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 77 · Cited by 22
- Authors
- Praet, S., Guess, A. M., Tucker, J. A., Bonneau, R., & Nagler, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Antwerp (BE)
- Princeton University (US)
- New York University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Praet, Stiene
- Venue
- Political Communication
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2021-11-25
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 311-338
- ISSN
- 1058-4609 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-7675
- OpenAlex
- W3217325099
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 77
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 4.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Political Communication (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Charles Koch Foundation (-)
- Craig Newmark Philanthropies (-)
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences of the University of Antwerp (FFB160362BOF GOA)
- John S. and James L. Knight Foundation (-)
- U.S. National Science Foundation (-)
- Siegel Family Endowment (-)
- NYU Global Institute for Advanced Study (-)
- William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (-)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Keywords
- political polarization, lifestyle preferences, political ideology, digital traces, opinion leaders, sport, food
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