Party poopers: Less than 10% of American friendships cross political lines
Researchers at Wellesley College looked at 971 adult friend pairs and found that most Americans are not willing to agree to disagree.
The study, published July 5 in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, analyzed two separate friend samples, one in-person and one online.
Advertisement
5 Researchers found that in real-life samples from New York and Boston, only 3% of friendships paired a Democrat and a Republican, a sign of deepening political silos.
Jacob Lund – stock.adobe.com
One study surveyed 537 friend pairs in deep-blue cities like New York and Boston, plus three liberal campuses — Wellesley, Amherst and Babson — and found just 3% of friendships crossed party lines.
Nearly half of participants were Democrats. Only 7% were Republicans.
Advertisement
The second group, 434 friend pairs surveyed online, was more politically balanced — and the number of cross-party friendships more than doubled. With 42% Democrats and 31% Republicans, 8% of friendships spanned the aisle, hinting conservatives may be more willing to mix than their liberal peers.
Even when friendships did cross the aisle, they scored lower on trust, emotional support and mutual understanding, the study found.
5 The study surveyed more than 970 friend pairs and found that almost all shared similar views on hot-button issues like abortion, gun control and immigration.
fizkes – stock.adobe.com
But there was one silver lining: the rare few who crossed party lines regarded the other side with less hostility.
Advertisement
'Part of what is destroying our social fabric is that we have set an expectation that to be a good Democrat or Republican, you have to unconditionally hate the other party,' said Sean Westwood, a political scientist at Dartmouth College. 'There is evidence that this social pressure to hate makes the state of partisan conflict seem worse than it actually is.'
That pressure only grows, he added, when people don't have personal ties to someone on the other side.
'If you don't know a Republican or Democrat, it is easier to assume that they are unpatriotic, evil or immoral,' Westwood told The Post. 'Without a personal connection you can get lost in the nonsense coming from social media, cable news and Washington DC.'
5 Even when friendships crossed political lines, participants rated them as less close and less satisfying compared to ideologically aligned relationships.
lesslemon – stock.adobe.com
Advertisement
Only about a quarter of friend pairs said they disagreed on major issues like abortion, immigration or gun rights, suggesting most people befriend those who already see eye to eye.
And when politics entered the chat, things got even rockier — a quarter of those who disagreed said the conversation damaged the friendship.
Some simply obliterate the friendship entirely, a 2024 study found
One in five adults have cut off a close relative over politics, and half said the break happened in 2024 leading up to the election, a 2024 survey from The Harris Poll found.
5 Despite the tension, those with politically opposite friends showed more tolerance toward outgroups, suggesting some benefits to bipartisan bonds.
be free – stock.adobe.com
Among those still in contact, a third said they felt uncomfortable at a family gathering because of someone's political views, and just as many feared future events could turn ugly.
'It is rewarding to be around people who validate your views of the world and of the moral order, and from mildly stressful to absolutely intolerable to be around people who disagree with beliefs and values that are important to us,' Dr. Peter Ditto, a psychology professor at UC Irvine, told The Post.
And it's a vicious cycle.
Advertisement
'The more people hear about polarization, hostility and how few Democrats and Republicans are friends, the more they become convinced that they should also keep quiet,' said University of Michigan political communications professor Yanna Krupnikov.
5 In a more balanced national sample, 8% of 434 friend pairs crossed party lines — slightly higher than the 3% found in liberal strongholds.
rawpixel.com – stock.adobe.com
Ditto warned that as politics becomes more central to people's identities, it's taking a toll on their personal lives.
'I worry as I see more and more evidence that politics is getting personal … that the corrosive political polarization in contemporary U.S. politics is seeping into people's everyday lives in ways that impact their well-being,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
American Press
26 minutes ago
- American Press
25 states file legal brief defending Trump ban on youth sex change procedures
On Monday, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill joined 24 other Republican attorneys general in backing President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at halting federal funding for sex change procedures on minors, marking the state's latest push in a broader legal fight over transgender care. Three days earlier, Massachusetts filed a brief joined by 19 states challenging the same executive order. The states argue the order is unconstitutional, discriminatory, and violates the Spending Clause by tying federal health funds to ideological conditions. The Massachusetts-led brief contends that the order jeopardizes care for transgender youth, strips states of medical decision-making authority, and undermines long-standing Medicaid protections. The suit seeks a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction against implementation. The attorneys general defending the Trump order, led by Alabama's Steve Marshall, filed amicus briefs in the 4th and 9th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals, supporting Trump's order and urging the courts to overturn preliminary injunctions issued earlier this year in lawsuits out of Washington and Maryland. The Alabama-led briefs argue that continuing to fund such procedures violates both medical ethics and constitutional principles. 'Even though President Trump is in office, common sense and constitutional principles are under constant assault by radical leftist groups like the ACLU,' said Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, who is leading the coalition. Marshall accused the ACLU of pushing courts to 'force taxpayers to fund sex-change procedures on children.' Murrill, who has been an outspoken critic of so-called 'gender-affirming' care for minors, did not release a separate public statement, but her participation in the brief underscores Louisiana's alignment with a growing number of Republican-led states that seek to limit access to such treatments. In recent years, Louisiana's Legislature has passed bans on puberty blockers and hormone treatments for minors. According to the coalition's legal filings, the brief draws on findings from Alabama's discovery in a now-dismissed challenge to its own ban on 'gender-affirming' care, where Marshall's office claimed to uncover a coordinated effort to remove age restrictions from national medical guidelines — a move he described as politically motivated rather than science-based. The Alabama-led team argues that federal funding for 'gender-affirming' care is based on 'discredited standards' and that such medical interventions for minors have irreversible consequences. 'The evidence says otherwise,' Marshall said. 'These harmful interventions have lasting consequences for vulnerable children.' The Alabama-led brief was filed in both the 9th Circuit and 4th Circuit federal courts of appeal. Louisiana was joined by attorneys general from Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming in addition to Louisiana. The filings are part of a broader conservative legal strategy seeking to bolster state laws banning so-called 'gender-affirming' care while reinforcing Trump-era federal policy that frames such care as medically unnecessary and ideologically driven.
New York Post
26 minutes ago
- New York Post
Comedian Andrew Schulz rips Trump for IVF campaign pledge ‘flip-flop'
Comedian Andrew Schulz slammed President Donald Trump for not following through on his campaign pledge to provide universal coverage for IVF fertility treatments in a social media post on Sunday. In his Instagram stories, Schulz reposted a Washington Post report headlined, 'Trump promised to mandate IVF care. The White House says there's no plans to do so.' Alongside the headline, Schulz wrote, 'You don't break your word. Your word breaks you.' The comedian and podcaster famously interviewed Trump and voted for him in the November election, but has been increasingly critical in recent weeks over what he perceives as broken promises from the president. In his social media post, he blasted Trump for flip-flopping 'once again' and directed his followers to a charity that helps pay for IVF services. 'For anyone that is looking for financial assistance with IVF (especially now that @realdonaldtrump flip-flopped once again on a campaign promise), please look into @babyquestgrants. It's a wonderful charity that we are working with that specifically provides financial aid for fertility treatments,' Schulz's post read. Roughly one year ago, Trump pledged that he would mandate free in vitro fertilization treatment for women if he won a second term. 4 Comedian Andrew Schulz slammed Donald Trump for not following through on his campaign pledge to provide universal coverage for IVF fertility treatments in a social media post. Getty Images for Netflix 'I'm announcing today in a major statement that under the Trump administration, your government will pay for — or your insurance company will be mandated to pay for — all costs associated with IVF treatment,' Trump told supporters during a campaign rally in Michigan last August. 'Because we want more babies, to put it nicely.' In February, Trump signed an executive order expanding access to IVF and other fertility treatments through the reduction of out-of-pocket costs. The order directed the Domestic Policy Council to find ways to make IVF and other fertility treatments more affordable. 4 Roughly one year ago, Trump pledged that he would mandate free in vitro fertilization treatment for women if he won a second term. AFP via Getty Images 4 In February, Trump signed an executive order expanding access to IVF and other fertility treatments through the reduction of out-of-pocket costs. Suzi Media – The White House did not respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment. However, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told the Washington Post in response to its report that the president's work to expand IVF access was ongoing. 'President Trump pledged to expand access to fertility treatments for Americans who are struggling to start families,' Jackson said in a statement. 'The Administration is committed like none before to using its authorities to deliver on this pledge.' This is not the first time Schulz has taken aim at Trump. On a July 10 episode of his 'Flagrant' podcast, Schulz complained about Trump, 'Everything he campaigned on, I believe he wanted to do, and now he's doing the exact opposite thing of every single f—ing thing.' 4 In his social media post, he blasted Trump for flip-flopping 'once again' and directed his followers to a charity that helps pay for IVF services. Xavier Collin/Image Press Agency / Schulz specifically called out the president over increasing the national debt, funding foreign wars, and the recent announcement that there was no Jeffrey Epstein 'client list.' 'There'll be people, they'll DM and say, 'You see what your boy's doing? You voted for this.' I'm like, 'I voted for none of this!' He's doing the exact opposite of everything I've voted for!' he said at the time.
Time Magazine
28 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
GOP-Led House Panel Subpoenas Epstein Files and Testimony From Clintons
The Republican-led House Oversight Committee subpoenaed the Justice Department on Tuesday for files related to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, despite resistance from House GOP leadership and growing unease within the Trump Administration over the political and legal implications of such disclosures. The subpoena calls for the Justice Department to turn over all investigative materials related to Epstein's decades-long sex trafficking operation, with victims' identities redacted. The Committee also issued a broad array of subpoenas for deposition testimony from high-profile figures across both Democratic and Republican administrations—among them former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former FBI Directors James Comey and Robert Mueller, and six former U.S. attorneys general, including Merrick Garland and William Barr. The latest activity from the Committee follows Justice Department officials interviewing Epstein's former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, and then Maxwell being moved to a minimum-security facility in Texas. "While the Department undertakes efforts to uncover and publicly disclose additional information related to Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell's cases, it is imperative that Congress conduct oversight of the federal government's enforcement of sex trafficking laws generally and specifically its handling of the investigation and prosecution of Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell," Rep. James Comer, the Oversight Chair, wrote in a subpoena to Attorney General Pam Bondi. The subpoenas come nearly two weeks after one of the panel's subcommittees voted to compel the Justice Department to release the files, just before the House left for its summer recess. House Speaker Mike Johnson publicly resisted the effort, arguing the Administration needs 'room to act' before Congress intervenes. But the committee's decision to subpoena the Justice Department shows that interest in the Epstein files remains high among Republicans, even as President Donald Trump has repeatedly tried to move past the Justice Department's decision not to release a full accounting of the investigation. A July memo from the Justice Department stated that Epstein died by suicide and that no 'client list' of abusers had been recovered—a conclusion that has only deepened suspicion among conspiracy-minded conservatives and Democrats alike. Democrats first pushed to subpoena the Justice Department for its files on Epstein, and were joined by three Republicans to initiate the subpoena in July. The Justice Department will have until Aug. 19 to hand over the requested records. The committee is also requesting that the former government officials appear for depositions between August and October, concluding with Hillary Clinton on Oct. 9 and Bill Clinton on Oct. 14. While former Presidents have often been subpoenaed, none have ever appeared before lawmakers under compulsion. Clinton's association with Epstein has been publicly known for years and included travel on his plane after he left office, according to court records. The Wall Street Journal reported last month that a book assembled for Epstein's 50th birthday in 2003 included a message from Clinton, as well as Trump and others. Both Clinton and Trump were listed as 'friends' in the book. Trump has denied writing the letter and sued the Wall Street Journal. A spokesperson for Clinton said in 2019 that he cut off ties with Epstein prior to his 2019 arrest and was unaware of Epstein's alleged crimes.
