Political homophily in social relationships: evidence from online dating behavior
Abstract
Do people form relationships based upon political similarity? Past work has shown that social relationships are more politically similar than expected by chance, but the reason for this concordance is unclear. Is it because people prefer politically similar others, or is it attributable to confounding factors such as convergence, social structures, and sorting on nonpolitical characteristics? Addressing this question is challenging because we typically do not observe partners prior to relationship formation. Consequently, we leverage the domain of online dating. We first conducted a nationwide experiment in which we randomized political characteristics in dating profiles. Second, we analyzed behavioral data from a national online dating community. We find that people evaluate potential dating partners more favorably and are more likely to reach out to them when they have similar political characteristics. The magnitude of the effect is comparable to that of educational homophily and half as large as racial homophily.
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?
Partisan identity has a strong influence on self-concept and generates homophily in social relationships, that is, a preference for those who are politically similar.
“b) partisan identity has a strong influence on self-concept and generates homophily in social relationships, that is, a preference for those who are politically similar (Huber & Malhotra, 2017).”
From ¿Demasiado lejos? Cómo la polarización mal percibida alimenta la polarización afectiva en España (2025) · cites this paper as Huber & Malhotra, 2017
Scholars have demonstrated partisan discrimination on dating websites, family dinners, roommate selection, spousal selection, job hiring, and pay for work.
“In other behavioral approaches, scholars have demonstrated discrimination on dating websites (Huber & Malhotra, 2017), family dinners (Chen & Rohla, 2018), roommate selection (Shafranek, 2021), spousal selection (Iyengar et al., 2018), job hiring (Gift & Gift, 2015), and pay for work (McConnell et al., 2018).”
From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Huber & Malhotra, 2017
Discordant partisanship decreases people's likelihood of being friends with someone even if they do not want a romantic relationship.
“Huber & Malhotra (2017) also find in their survey experiment that discordant partisanship decreases people's likelihood of being friends with someone even if they do not want a romantic relationship.”
From The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States (2019) · cites this paper as Huber & Malhotra (2017)
Partisan matching increases the likelihood of a dyad exchanging messages by 9.5%.
“They find that partisan matching increases the likelihood of a dyad exchanging messages by 9.5%.”
From The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States (2019) · cites this paper as Huber & Malhotra (2017)
Analogous figures for dating pairs matched by level of education and religion are 10.6% and 50.0%, respectively.
“T o put that finding into context, analogous figures for dating pairs matched by level of education and religion are 10.6% and 50.0%, respectively.”
From The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States (2019) · cites this paper as Huber & Malhotra (2017)
Huber & Malhotra (2017) corroborate the dating-message finding with data from a survey experiment where partisanship is randomly manipulated in dating profiles.
“Huber & Malhotra (2017) corroborate this finding with data from a survey experiment where partisanship is randomly manipulated in the dating profiles.”
From The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States (2019) · cites this paper as Huber & Malhotra (2017)
Partisanship has bled into the nonpolitical sphere, driving ordinary citizens to reward copartisans and penalize opposing partisans.
“This work consistently shows that partisanship has bled into the nonpolitical sphere, driving ordinary citizens to reward copartisans and penalize opposing partisans, a point to which we return below.”
From The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States (2019) · cites this paper as Huber & Malhotra 2017
There is evidence that ideological and partisan considerations inform the choice of friends, as well as business and romantic partners.
“there is evidence that ideological and partisan considerations inform the choice of friends, as well as business and romantic partners218–221.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [219]
Homophily may be a bigger predictor of reaching out to individuals online than offline.
“For one, although homophily drives relationship-formation both online and offline, it may be a bigger predictor of reaching out to individuals online [25].”
From Two social lives: how differences between online and offline interaction influence social outcomes (2020) · cites this paper as [25]
Homophily drives relationship formation both online and offline.
“For one, although homophily drives relationship-formation both online and offline, it may be a bigger predictor of reaching out to individuals online [25].”
From Two social lives: how differences between online and offline interaction influence social outcomes (2020) · cites this paper as [25]
Cites
Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415 · Cited by 18,567 · see citing works
Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations.
Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0015141 · Cited by 4,560 · see citing works
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfs038 · Cited by 2,748 · see citing works
The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans
Levendusky, M. (2009) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226473673.001.0001 · Cited by 1,698 · see citing works
Stealth Democracy: Americans' Beliefs About How Government Should Work
Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511613722 · Cited by 1,349 · see citing works
Homophily in Voluntary Organizations: Status Distance and the Composition of Face-to-Face Groups
McPherson, J. M., & Smith‐Lovin, L. (1987) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2095356 · Cited by 1,229 · see citing works
Politics across Generations: Family Transmission Reexamined
Jennings, M. K., Stoker, L., & Bowers, J. (2009) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1017/s0022381609090719 · Cited by 1,139 · see citing works
Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity.
Byrne, D. (1961) · Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0044721 · Cited by 1,100 · see citing works
Cross-cutting Social Networks: Testing Democratic Theory in Practice
MUTZ, D. C. (2002) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055402004264 · Cited by 1,069 · see citing works
Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted?
Alford, J. R., Funk, C. L., & Hibbing, J. R. (2005) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055405051579 · Cited by 976 · see citing works
Attraction and close relationships.
Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998) · Cited by 743 · see citing works
Rosenfeld, M. J., & Thomas, R. J. (2012) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/0003122412448050 · Cited by 549 · see citing works
What makes you click?—Mate preferences in online dating
Hitsch, G. J., Hortaçsu, A., & Ariely, D. (2010) · Quantitative Marketing and Economics · doi:10.1007/s11129-010-9088-6 · Cited by 452 · see citing works
Transmission of social attitudes.
Martin, N. G., Eaves, L. J., Heath, A. C., Jardine, R., Feingold, L. M., & Eysenck, H. J. (1986) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.83.12.4364 · Cited by 434 · see citing works
CITIZENSHIP AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
Theiss-Morse, E., & Hibbing, J. R. (2005) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.082103.104829 · Cited by 406 · see citing works
Luo, S., & Zhang, G. (2009) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00570.x · Cited by 232 · see citing works
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., & Dowling, C. M. (2012) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00571.x · Cited by 227 · see citing works
Self-citationPatterns of Racial-Ethnic Exclusion by Internet Daters
Robnett, B., & Feliciano, C. (2011) · Social Forces · doi:10.1093/sf/89.3.807 · Cited by 219 · see citing works
Alford, J. R., Hatemi, P., Hibbing, J. R., Martin, N. G., & Eaves, L. J. (2011) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1017/s0022381611000016 · Cited by 216 · see citing works
Tidwell, N., Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2012) · Personal Relationships · doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2012.01405.x · Cited by 199 · see citing works
The Dating Preferences of Liberals and Conservatives
Klofstad, C. A., McDermott, R., & Hatemi, P. K. (2013) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-012-9207-z · Cited by 136 · see citing works
Political Similarity And Influence Between Husbands And Wives
Jennings, M. K., & Stoker, L. (2001) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Searching for aZ′ gauge boson in an anomaly-freeU(1)′ gauge family model
Liu, J.-Y., Tang, Y., & Wu, Y.-L. (2012) · Journal of Physics G Nuclear and Particle Physics · doi:10.1088/0954-3899/39/5/055003 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Partner Preferences as a Function of Gender, Age, Political Orientation and Level of Education
Doosje, B., Rojahn, K., & Fischer, A. H. (1999) · Sex Roles · doi:10.1023/a:1018826300179 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Do bedroom eyes wear political glasses? The role of politics in human mate attraction
Klofstad, C. A., McDermott, R., & Hatemi, P. (2012) · Evolution and Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2011.06.002 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Attitudes: A Study of Homogamy and Marital Selectivity
Snyder, E. C. (1964) · Journal of Marriage and the Family · doi:10.2307/349465 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Politics and Interpersonal Attraction
Carlson, J. M. (1979) · American Politics Research · doi:10.1177/1532673x7900700107 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034 · Cited by 3,317 · see citing works
Self-citationGollwitzer, A., Martel, C., Brady, W. J., Pärnamets, P., Freedman, I. G., Knowles, E. D., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2020) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-020-00977-7 · Cited by 609 · see citing works
Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America
Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M., & Ryan, J. B. (2020) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-020-01012-5 · Cited by 463 · see citing works
Scientific communication in a post-truth society
Iyengar, S., & Massey, D. S. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1805868115 · Cited by 374 · see citing works
Intellectual humility and openness to the opposing view
Porter, T., & Schumann, K. (2018) · Self and Identity · doi:10.1080/15298868.2017.1361861 · Cited by 314 · see citing works
Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts
Jost, J. T., Baldassarri, D. S., & Druckman, J. N. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-022-00093-5 · Cited by 276 · see citing works
Two social lives: how differences between online and offline interaction influence social outcomes
Lieberman, A., & Schroeder, J. (2020) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.06.022 · Cited by 252 · see citing works
Peterson, E., & Iyengar, S. (2019) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/pmn7h · Cited by 241 · see citing works
Megastudy testing 25 treatments to reduce antidemocratic attitudes and partisan animosity
Voelkel, J. G., Stagnaro, M., Chu, J., Pink, S. L., Mernyk, J. S., Redekopp, C., Ghezae, I., Cashman, M., Adjodah, D., Allen, L., et al. (2023) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/y79u5 · Cited by 174 · see citing works
Does residential sorting explain geographic polarization?
Martin, G. J., & Webster, S. W. (2020) · Political Science Research and Methods · doi:10.1017/psrm.2018.44 · Cited by 146 · see citing works
Santoro, E., & Broockman, D. E. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abn5515 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
Shared partisanship dramatically increases social tie formation in a Twitter field experiment
Mosleh, M., Martel, C., Eckles, D., & Rand, D. G. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2022761118 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
Intellectual humility in the sociopolitical domain
Krumrei-Mancuso, E. J., & Newman, B. (2020) · Self and Identity · doi:10.1080/15298868.2020.1714711 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Affective polarization and misinformation belief
Jenke, L. (2024) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-022-09851-w · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Moral polarization and out-party hostility in the US political context
Tappin, B. M., & McKay, R. T. (2019) · Journal of Social and Political Psychology · doi:10.5964/jspp.v7i1.1090 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Orian Harel, T., Maoz, I., & Halperin, E. (2020) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.11.013 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
When Efforts to Depolarize the Electorate Fail
Levendusky, M. S. (2018) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfy036 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Are there still limits on partisan prejudice?
Westwood, S. J., Peterson, E., & Lelkes, Y. (2019) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfz034 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
How and why people synchronize: An integrated perspective
daSilva, E. B., & Wood, A. (2025) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/10888683241252036 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Druckman, J. N., & Shafranek, R. M. (2020) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1086/708776 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Política, uso de medios y polarización afectiva en España
Crespo-Martínez, I., Melero-López, I., Mora-Rodríguez, A., & Rojo-Martínez, J.-M. (2024) · Revista Mediterránea de Comunicación · doi:10.14198/medcom.26681 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
El estudio de la polarización afectiva: una mirada metodológica
Freidin, E., Moro, R., & Silenzi, M. I. (2022) · REVISTA SAAP · doi:10.46468/rsaap.16.1.a2 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures
Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M., & Ryan, J. B. (2026) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.70152 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
¿Demasiado lejos? Cómo la polarización mal percibida alimenta la polarización afectiva en España
Rojo-Martínez, J. M. (2025) · Papers. Revista de Sociologia · doi:10.5565/rev/papers.3363
- Authors
- Huber, G. A., & Malhotra, N.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- Stanford University (US)
- Venue
- The Journal of Politics
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2017-01
- Volume
- 79
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 269-283
- ISSN
- 0022-3816 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2508
- OpenAlex
- W2531904781
- Cited by
- 664
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 97 · 2025: 79 · 2024: 79 · 2023: 85 · 2022: 106 · 2021: 79 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 56 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 7
- FWCI
- 146.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journal of Politics (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Keywords
- political homophily, online dating, political similarity, relationship formation, partner choice, political convergence, dating profiles, racial homophily, social networks
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
