Fig. 2.
An illustration of how decreasing homophily can cause a party-line polarization. Both figures correspond to α=0.8,β=0.7 (larger in-group favoritism compared to out-group animosity) and r=0.65 (a majority red group). First row corresponds to a homophilic network (intergroup links are more likely to form than intragroup links) with ρ=0.7 whereas second row corresponds to an unbiased network (all links are equally likely to form). Note that decreasing ρ from 0.7 (homophily) to 0.5 (unbiased) increases the effect of out-group hate and decreases the effect of in-group love on the choices, and pushes the social network from case 1 (consensus) to case 3 (party-line polarization) in Fig. 1 (with x-axis re-scaled as αρβ(1−ρ)).

An illustration of how decreasing homophily can cause a party-line polarization. Both figures correspond to α=0.8,β=0.7 (larger in-group favoritism compared to out-group animosity) and r=0.65 (a majority red group). First row corresponds to a homophilic network (intergroup links are more likely to form than intragroup links) with ρ=0.7 whereas second row corresponds to an unbiased network (all links are equally likely to form). Note that decreasing ρ from 0.7 (homophily) to 0.5 (unbiased) increases the effect of out-group hate and decreases the effect of in-group love on the choices, and pushes the social network from case 1 (consensus) to case 3 (party-line polarization) in Fig. 1 (with x-axis re-scaled as αρβ(1ρ)).

Close
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Close

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

View Article Abstract & Purchase Options

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Close