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.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Subscribe to Nature+
Get immediate online access to Nature and 55 other Nature journal
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $9.92 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Brown, J. R. & Enos, R. D. The measurement of partisan sorting for 180 million voters. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 998–1008 (2021).
Finkel, E. J. et al. Political sectarianism in America. Science 370, 533–536 (2020).
Bishop, B. The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America Is Tearing Us Apart (Mariner Books, 2009).
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N. & Westwood, S. J. The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 22, 1–35 (2018).
McPherson, M., Smith-Llovin, L. & Cook, J. M. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu. Rev. Sociol 27, 415–444 (2001).
Dehghani, M. et al. Purity homophily in social networks. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 145, 366–375 (2016).
Kossinets, G. & Watts, D. J. Origins of homophily in an evolving social network. Am. J. Sociol. 115, 405–450 (2009).
Halberstam, Y. & Knight, B. Homophily, group size, and the diffusion of political information in social networks: evidence from Twitter. J. Public Econ. 143, 73–88 (2016).
Huber, G. A. & Malhotra, N. Political homophily in social relationships: evidence from online dating behavior. J. Polit. 79, 269–283 (2017).
Diprete, T. A., Gelman, A., Mccormick, T., Teitler, J. & Zheng, T. Segregation in social networks based on acquaintanceship and trust. Am. J. Sociol. 116, 1234–1283 (2011).
Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A. & Van Bavel, J. J. Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 7313–7318 (2017).
Boutyline, A. & Willer, R. The social structure of political echo chambers: variation in ideological homophily in online networks. Polit. Psychol. 38, 551–569 (2017).
Morrison, K. R. & Miller, D. T. Distinguishing between silent and vocal minorities: not all deviants feel marginal. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 94, 871–882 (2008).
Abrams, D., Bown, N., Marques, J. M. & Henson, M. Pro-norm and anti-norm deviance within and between groups. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 78, 906–912 (2000).
Abrams, D., Marques, J., Bown, N. & Dougill, M. Anti-norm and pro-norm deviance in the bank and on the campus: two experiments on subjective group dynamics. Gr. Process. Intergr. Relations 5, 163–182 (2002).
Kulibert, D., Moss, A., Appleby, J. & O’Brien, L. Perceptions of political deviants: a lay theory of subjective group dynamics. Preprint at PsyArXiv https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/aq652 (2021).
Zimmerman, F., Garbulsky, G., Ariely, D., Sigman, M. & Navajas, J. Political coherence and certainty as drivers of interpersonal liking over and above similarity. Sci. Adv. 8, eabk1909 (2022).
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. 149, 445–460 (2019).
Hogg, M. A. & Adelman, J. Uncertainty-identity theory: extreme groups, radical behavior, and authoritarian leadership. J. Soc. Issues 69, 436–454 (2013).
Rabinowitz, G. & Macdonals, S. E. A directional theory of issue voting. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 83, 93–121 (1989).
Bischof, D. & Wagner, M. Do voters polarize when radical parties enter parliament? Am. J. Pol. Sci. 63, 888–904 (2019).
Tomz, M. & Van Houweling, R. P. Candidate positioning and voter choice. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 102, 303–318 (2008).
Lacy, D. & Paolino, P. Testing proximity versus directional voting using experiments. Elect. Stud. 29, 460–471 (2010).
Gallati, L. & Giger, N. Proximity and directional voting: testing for the region of acceptability. Elect. Stud. 64, 102024 (2020).
Dion, K. L., Baron, R. S. & Miller, N. Why do groups make riskier decisions than individuals? Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 5, 305–377 (1970).
Cartwright, D. Determinants of scientific progress: the case of research on the risky shift. Am. Psychol. 28, 222–231 (1973).
Moscovici, S. & Zavalloni, M. The group as a polarizer of attitudes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 12, 125–135 (1969).
Myers, D. G. & Bishop, G. Discussion effects on racial attitudes. ScienceScience 169, 778–779 (1970).
Lord, C. G., Ross, L. & Lepper, M. R. Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: the effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37, 2098–2109 (1979).
Myers, D. G. & Lamm, H. The group polarization phenomenon. Psychol. Bull. 83, 602–627 (1976).
Westfall, J., Judd, C. M. & Kenny, D. A. Replicating studies in which samples of participants respond to samples of stimuli. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10, 390–399 (2015).
Skinner, M. & Stephenson, G. M. The effects of intergroup comparison on the polarization of opinions. Curr. Psychol. Res. 1, 49–59 (1981).
Packer, D. J. On being both with us and against us: a normative conflict model of dissent in social groups. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 12, 50–72 (2008).
Jetten, J. & Hornsey, M. J. Deviance and dissent in groups. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 65, 461–485 (2014).
Hornsey, M. J. & Jetten, J. The individual within the group: balancing the need to belong with the need to be different. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 8, 220–247 (2004).
Goldenberg, A. et al. Beyond emotional similarity: the role of situation specific motives. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 149, 138–159 (2019).
Robinson, R. J., Keltner, D., Ward, A. & Ross, L. Actual versus assumed differences in construal: ‘naive realism’ in intergroup perception and conflict. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 68, 404–417 (1995).
Ahler, D. J. & Sood, G. The parties in our heads: misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. J. Polit. 80, 964–981 (2018).
Levendusky, M. S. & Malhotra, N. (Mis)perceptions of partisan polarization in the American public. Public Opin. Q. 80, 378–391 (2016).
Van Boven, L., Ehret, P. J. & Sherman, D. K. Psychological barriers to bipartisan public support for climate policy. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 13, 492–507 (2018).
Lau, T., Morewedge, C. K. & Cikara, M. Overcorrection for social-categorization information moderates impact bias in affective forecasting. Psychol. Sci. 27, 1340–1351 (2016). 0956797616660292.
Koller, M. robustlmm: an R package for robust estimation of linear mixed-effects models. J. Stat. Softw. 75, 1–24 (2016).
Batson, C. D. et al. Anger at unfairness: is it moral outrage? Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 37, 1272–1285 (2007).
Brady, W. J., Crockett, M. & Bavel, J. J. V. The MAD model of moral contagion: the role of motivation, attention, and design in the spread of moralized content online. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 15, 978–1010 (2020).
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. 118, 57–88 (2020).
van Kleef, G. A. How emotions regulate social life the emotions as social information (EASI) model. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 18, 184–188 (2009).
Panda, A., Siddarth, D. & Pal, J. COVID, BLM, and the polarization of US politicians on Twitter. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2008.03263 (2020).
Costello, T. H. & Bowes, S. M. Absolute certainty and political ideology: a systematic test of curvilinearity. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211070410 (2022).
van Prooijen, J. W. & Krouwel, A. P. M. Psychological features of extreme political ideologies. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 28, 159–163 (2019).
Van Der Does, T., Galesic, M., Dunivin, Z. O. & Smaldino, P. E. Strategic identity signaling in heterogeneous networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, 1–10 (2022).
Schweighofer, S., Schweitzer, F. & Garcia, D. A weighted balance model of opinion hyperpolarization. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 23, 1 (2020).
Roccas, S., Klar, Y. & Liviatan, I. The paradox of group-based guilt: modes of national identification, conflict vehemence, and reactions to the in-group’s moral violations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 91, 698–711 (2006).
Leary, M. R., Kelly, K. M., Cottrell, C. A. & Schreindorfer, L. S. Construct validity of the need to belong scale: mapping the nomological network. J. Pers. Assess. 95, 610–624 (2013).
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J. & Swann, W. B. A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. J. Res. Pers. 37, 504–528 (2003).
Haddock, G., Zanna, M. P. & Esses, V. M. Assessing the structure of prejudicial attitudes: the case of attitudes toward homosexuals. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 65, 1105–1118 (1993).
The authors thank M. Reyes, N. Ebeid and N. Hunt for their assistance in running the lab studies, V. Puri for her assistance in developing the simulations and processing the peer information, and A. Boutyline and J. Jordan for their comments on the research. J.S. is supported in part by the German Academic Scholarship Foundation (Promotionsförderung der Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information
Nature Human Behaviour thanks Stephen Vaisey, Simon Schweighofer and Joshua Tucker for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Goldenberg, A., Abruzzo, J.M., Huang, Z. et al. Homophily and acrophily as drivers of political segregation. Nat Hum Behav (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01474-9