Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T01:50:12.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Democracy of Dating: How Political Affiliations Shape Relationship Formation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2020

Matthew J. Easton  and
John B. Holbein Open the ORCID record for John B. Holbein [Opens in a new window]
Matthew J. Easton
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Brigham Young University, 745 Kimball Tower, Provo, UT84602, USA, matteaston@byu.edu, Twitter: @easton_matty
John B. Holbein
Affiliation:
Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy, University of Virginia, 111 Garrett Hall, Charlottesville, VA22903, USA, jh5ak@virginia.edu, Twitter: @johnholbein1
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How much does politics affect relationship building? Previous experimental studies have come to vastly different conclusions – ranging from null to truly transformative effects. To explore these differences, this study replicates and extends previous research by conducting five survey experiments meant to expand our understanding of how politics does/does not shape the formation of romantic relationships. We find that people, indeed, are influenced by the politics of prospective partners; respondents evaluate those in the political out-group as being less attractive, less dateable, and less worthy of matchmaking efforts. However, these effects are modest in size – falling almost exactly in between previous study estimates. Our results shine light on a literature that has, up until this point, produced a chasm in study results – a vital task given concerns over growing levels of partisan animus in the USA and the rapidly expanding body of research on affective polarization.

Keywords

affective polarizationrelationship formationpolarizationpartisan attachmentsreplicationsurvey experiment
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Experimental Political Science , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , Winter 2021 , pp. 260 - 272
Copyright
© The Experimental Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Author order based on alphabetization; the authors contributed equally to this paper. We wish to thank the National Science Foundation (SES-1657821) for funding support. We are grateful to Matthew Baldwin, Michael Barber, David Broockman, Adam Dynes, Samantha Frazier, Jay Goodliffe, Chris Karpowitz, Jeremy Pope, Julia Stamper and audiences at Brigham Young University, the Mary Lou Fulton Undergraduate Research Conference, the 2018 MPSA, and the 2019 MPSA for their help and feedback on this paper. The studies in this paper were approved by the Brigham Young University (E18118) and University of Virginia (3698) Institutional Review Boards. The data, code, and any additional materials required to replicate all analyses in this article are available at the Journal of Experimental Political Science Dataverse within the Harvard Dataverse Network, at: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/24CXA7. The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

References

Alford, John R., Funk, Carolyn L., and Hibbing, John R.. 2005. Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted? American Political Science Review 99(2): 153–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alford, John R., Hatemi, Peter K., Hibbing, John R., Martin, Nicholas G., and Eaves., Lindon J. 2011. The Politics of Mate Choice. Journal of Politics 73(2): 362–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berinsky, Adam J., Huber, Gregory A., and Lenz., Gabriel S. 2012. Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon. com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis 20(3): 351–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, Taylor C., Christenson, Dino P., and Glick., David M. 2020. Recruiting Large Online Samples in the United States and India: Facebook, Mechanical Turk, and Qualtrics. Political Science Research and Methods 8(2): 232–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Jacob R., and Enos, Ryan D.. 2018. Partisan Segregation. Working Paper. Retrieved from https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/renos/files/brownenos.pdf Google Scholar
Cassese, Erin C. 2019. Partisan Dehumanization in American Politics. Political Behavior 1–22, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Coppock, Alexander and McClellan., Oliver A. 2019. Validating the Demographic, Political, Psychological, and Experimental Results Obtained from a New Source of Online Survey Respondents. Research & Politics 6(1): 2053168018822174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, Alexander, Leeper, Thomas J., and Mullinix., Kevin J. 2018. Generalizability of Heterogeneous Treatment Effect Estimates Across Samples. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115(49): 12441–12446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diermeier, Daniel and Li, Christopher. 2019. Partisan Affect and Elite Polarization. American Political Science Review 113(1): 277–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easton, Matthew J. and Holbein, John B.. 2020 Replication Data for: The Democracy of Dating: How Political Affiliations Shape Relationship Formation. Harvard Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/24CXA7 Google Scholar
Engelhardt, Andrew M. and Utych., Stephen M. 2018. Grand Old (Tailgate) Party? Partisan Discrimination in Apolitical Settings. Political Behavior: 1–21, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Funk, Carolyn L., Smith, Kevin B., Alford, John R., Hibbing, Matthew V., Eaton, Nicholas R., Krueger, Robert F., Eaves, Lindon J., and Hibbing, John R.. 2013. Genetic and Environmental Transmission of Political Orientations. Political Psychology 34(6): 805–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, R. Kelly, Dvir Gvirsman, Shira, Johnson, Benjamin K., Tsfati, Yariv, Neo, Rachel, and Dal., Aysenur 2014. Implications of pro-And Counterattitudinal Information Exposure for Affective Polarization. Human Communication Research 40(3): 309–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew. 2015. The Connection Between Varying Treatment Effects and The Crisis of Unreplicable Research: A Bayesian Perspective. Journal of Management 41(2): 632–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gift, Karen and Gift, Thomas. 2015. Does Politics Influence Hiring? Evidence from A Randomized Experiment. Political Behavior 37(3): 653–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gimpel, James G. and Hui., Iris S. 2015. Seeking Politically Compatible Neighbors? The Role of Neighborhood Partisan Composition in Residential Sorting. Political Geography 48: 130–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatemi, Peter K., Alford, John R., Hibbing, John R., Martin, Nicholas G., and Eaves., Lindon J. 2009. Is There a “Party” in Your Genes? Political Research Quarterly 62(3): 584–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatemi, Peter K., Hibbing, John R., Medland, Sarah E., Keller, Matthew C., Alford, John R., Smith, Kevin B., Martin, Nicholas G., and Eaves, Lindon J.. 2010. Not By Twins Alone: Using the Extended Family Design to Investigate Genetic Influence on Political Beliefs. American Journal of Political Science 54(3): 798–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatemi, Peter K., Gillespie, Nathan A., Eaves, Lindon J., Maher, Brion S., Webb, Bradley T., Heath, Andrew C., and Medland, Sarah E. et al. 2011. A Genome-Wide Analysis Of Liberal And Conservative Political Attitudes. The Journal of Politics 73(1): 271–285.Google Scholar
Hersh, Eitan and Ghitza., Yair 2018. Mixed Partisan Households and Electoral Participation in the United States. PloS One 13(10): e0203997.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huber, Gregory A. and Malhotra., Neil 2017. Political Homophily in Social Relationships: Evidence from Online Dating Behavior. The Journal of Politics 79(1): 269–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, Kosuke and Ratkovic., Marc 2013. Estimating Treatment Effect Heterogeneity in Randomized Program Evaluation. The Annals of Applied Statistics 7(1): 443–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Sood, Gaurav, and Lelkes, Yphtach. 2012. Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly 76(3): 405–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto and Krupenkin, Masha. 2018. The Strengthening of Partisan Affect. Political Psychology 39(2): 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto and Westwood, Sean J.. 2015. Fear and Loathing Across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization. American Journal of Political Science 59(3): 690–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Konitzer, Tobias, and Tedin, Kent. 2018. The Home as a Political Fortress: Family Agreement in an Era of Polarization. The Journal of Politics 80(4): 1326–1338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Lelkes, Yphtach, Levendusky, Matthew, Malhotra, Neil, and Westwood., Sean J. 2019. The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science 22: 633–645, forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kandler, Christian, Bleidorn, Wiebke, and Riemann., Rainer 2012. Left or Right? Sources of Political Orientation: The Roles of Genetic Factors, Cultural Transmission, Assortative Mating, and Personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 102(3): 633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klar, Samara and Krupnikov., Yanna 2016. Independent Politics: How American Disdain for Parties Leads to Political Inaction. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klar, Samara, Krupnikov, Yanna, and Ryan., John Barry 2018. Affective Polarization or Partisan Disdain? Untangling a Dislike for the Opposing Party from a Dislike of Partisanship. Public Opinion Quarterly 82(2): 379–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klofstad, Casey A., McDermott, Rose, and Hatemi., Peter K. 2012. Do Bedroom Eyes Wear Political Glasses? The Role of Politics in Human Mate Attraction. Evolution and Human Behavior 33(2): 100–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klofstad, Casey A., McDermott, Rose, and Hatemi, Peter K.. 2013. The Dating Preferences of Liberals and Conservatives. Political Behavior 35(3): 519–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, Jonathan 2018. Affective and Perceptual Polarization Among Party Activists. Working Paper. Retrieved from https://www.jonathanmladd.com/uploads/5/3/6/6/5366295/polarizationactivists_ladd_jan11_.pdf Google Scholar
Levendusky, Matthew S. 2018. Americans, Not Partisans: Can Priming American National Identity Reduce Affective Polarization? The Journal of Politics 80(1): 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levendusky, Matthew and Malhotra, Neil. 2016. Does Media Coverage of Partisan Polarization Affect Political Attitudes? Political Communication 33(2): 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, Shanhong and Klohnen, Eva C.. 2005. Assortative Mating and Marital Quality in Newlyweds: A Couple-Centered Approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88(2): 304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, Nicholas G., Eaves, Lindon J., Heath, Andrew C., Rosemary, Jardine, Feingold, Lynn M., and Eysenck, Hans J.. 1986. Transmission of Social Attitudes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 83(12): 4364–4368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mason, Lilliana. 2015. “I Disrespectfully Agree”: The Differential Effects of Partisan Sorting on Social and Issue Polarization. American Journal of Political Science 59(1): 128–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, Lilliana. 2016. A Cross-Cutting Calm: How Social Sorting Drives Affective Polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly 80(S1): 351–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, Lilliana. 2018. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell, Christopher, Margalit, Yotam, Malhotra, Neil, and Levendusky, Matthew. 2018. The Economic Consequences of Partisanship in a Polarized Era. American Journal of Political Science 62(1): 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDermott, Rose, Tingley, Dustin, and Hatemi, Peter K.. 2014. Assortative Mating on Ideology Could Operate through Olfactory Cues. American Journal of Political Science 58(4): 997–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michelitch, Kristin. 2015. Does Electoral Competition Exacerbate Interethnic or Interpartisan Economic Discrimination? Evidence from a Field Experiment in Market Price Bargaining. American Political Science Review 109(1): 43–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mummolo, Jonathan, and Peterson, Erik. 2019. Demand Effects in Survey Experiments: An Empirical Assessment. American Political Science Review 113(2): 517–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mummolo, Jonathan, and Nall, Clayton. 2017. Why Partisans Do Not Sort: The Constraints On Political Segregation. The Journal of Politics 79(1): 45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, Stephen P., Coe, Chelsea M., Emory, Jason, and Song, Anna V.. 2016. The Politics of Beauty: The Effects of Partisan Bias on Physical Attractiveness. Political Behavior 38(4): 883–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shafranek, Richard M. Forthcoming. Political Considerations in Nonpolitical Decisions: A Conjoint Analysis of Roommate Choice. Political Behavior: 1–30.Google Scholar
Smith, Kevin B., Oxley, Douglas R., Hibbing, Matthew V., Alford, John R., and Hibbing, John R.. 2011. Linking Genetics and Political Attitudes: Reconceptualizing Political Ideology. Political Psychology 32(3): 369–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Kevin, Alford, John R., Hatemi, Peter K, Eaves, Lindon J., Funk, Carolyn, and Hibbing, John R.. 2012. Biology, Ideology, and Epistemology: How Do We Know Political Attitudes Are Inherited and Why Should We Care? American Journal of Political Science 56(1): 17–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watson, David, Klohnen, Eva C., Casillas, Alex, Simms, Ericka Nus, Haig, Jeffrey, and Berry, Diane S.. 2004. Match Makers and Deal Breakers: Analyses of Assortative Mating in Newlywed Couples. Journal of Personality 72(5): 1029–1068.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Westwood, Sean and Peterson, Erik. 2019. Compound Political Identity: How Partisan and Racial Identities Overlap and Reinforce. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3417476 (July 4, 2020).Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Easton and Holbein Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/24CXA7
Link
Supplementary material: File

Easton and Holbein supplementary material

Easton and Holbein supplementary material

Download Easton and Holbein supplementary material(File)
File 1.7 MB