CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 69Populism, Right-Wing MovementsSocial and Intergroup PsychologyElectoral Systems and Political Participation

The social‐psychological bases of far‐right support in Europe and the United States

Open access
Van Assche, Jasper, Dhont, Kristof, Pettigrew, Thomas F.·2019·Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology
DOI 10.1002/casp.2407
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Abstract The roles of authoritarianism, social dominance orientation (SDO), and prejudice in the prediction of far‐right support were examined in Europe and the United States. A meta‐analysis shows remarkably similar, positive, and strong associations of far‐right support with these three variables in previous studies conducted in Europe, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Results from two cross‐sectional studies in the United States further indicated that higher levels of authoritarianism and SDO related to higher voting intentions and support for Trump, via increased prejudice. In a three‐wave longitudinal study in the United Kingdom, authoritarianism and SDO predicted pro‐Brexit attitudes and support for the U.K. Independence Party, again via prejudice. These results shed a new light on the widely held beliefs in “American and British exceptionalism,” as Trump and Brexit adherents share the same social‐psychological underpinnings as far‐right supporters observed in several European countries.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/casp.2407

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Conservative-rightist ideology is associated with valuing tradition, social order and maintenance of the status quo, whereas liberal-leftist ideology is associated with a push for egalitarian social change.

    “Whereas conservative-rightist ideology is associated with valuing tradition, social order and maintenance of the status quo, liberal-leftist ideology is associated with a push for egalitarian social change.”

    From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [165]

    The paper’s discussion of right-wing ideologies describes resistance to change and social conservatism, and its section on European far-right followers says supporters tend to resist cultural change and endorse inequality. It associates lower authoritarianism and social-dominance scores with left-wing support, but does not say that liberal-leftist ideology pushes for egalitarian social change. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Decades of research in political psychology demonstrate that those who embrace more conservative-rightist attitudes, identities and leaders are more authoritarian and social-dominance-oriented than those who embrace more liberal-leftist attitudes, identities and leaders.

    “In addition, decades of research in political psychology demonstrate that those who embrace more conservative-rightist attitudes, identities and leaders are more authoritarian and social-dominance-oriented (that is, supportive of group-based hierarchies) than those who embrace more liberal-leftist attitudes, identities and leaders107,149,163–169.”

    From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [165]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 62 · Cited by 69

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.
  2. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5. DOI: 10.1177/1745691610393980 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Choma, B. L., & Hanoch, Y. (2017). Cognitive ability and authoritarianism: Understanding support for Trump and Clinton. Personality and Individual Differences, 106, 287-291. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.054 · DOI
  4. Clifford, S., Jewell, R. M., & Waggoner, P. D. (2015). Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology? Research & Politics, 2, 1-9. DOI: 10.1177/2053168015622072 · DOI
  5. Cornelis, I., & Van Hiel, A. (2015). Extreme right-wing voting in Western Europe: The role of social-cultural and anti-egalitarian attitudes. Political Psychology, 36, 749-760. DOI: 10.1111/pops.12187 · DOI
  6. de Tocqueville, A. (1985). de La Démocratie en Amérique [Democracy in America]. Saunders and Otley, London, United Kingdom.
  7. de Zavala, A. G., Guerra, R., & Simão, C. (2017). The relationship between the Brexit vote and individual predictors of prejudice: collective narcissism, right wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2023. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02023 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 41- 113. DOI: 10.1016/S0065-2601(01)80004-6 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Duckitt, J., Bizumic, B., Krauss, S. W., & Heled, E. (2010). A tripartite approach to right-wing authoritarianism: The authoritarianism- conservatism-traditionalism model. Political Psychology, 31, 685-715. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00781.x · DOI
  10. Eatwell, R. (2000). The extreme right and British exceptionalism: The primacy of politics. In Hainsworth, P. (Ed.), The Politics of the Extreme Right: From the Margins to the Mainstream (pp. 172-192). London: Printer.
  11. Federico, C. M., & de Zavala, A. G. (2018). Collective narcissism and the 2016 US Presidential Vote. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(1), 110-121.
  12. † Feldman, S. (2017). Authoritarianism, threat, and intolerance. In E. Borgida, C., Federico, C., & J. Miller (Eds.), At the forefront of political psychology: Essays in honor of John L. Sullivan. New York: Routledge.
  13. Feldman, S., & Stenner, K. (1997). Perceived threat and authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 18, 741-770. DOI: 10.1111/0162-895X.00077 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Golder, M. (2016). Far right parties in Europe. Annual Review of Political Science, 19, 477-497.
  15. Goodwin, M., & Milazzo, C. (2015). UKIP: Inside the campaign to redraw the map of British politics. Oxford University Press.
  16. Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J, Pratto, F., Henkel, K. E., Foels, R., & Stewart, A. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO7 scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 1003-1028. DOI: 10.1037/pspi0000033 · DOI
  17. Ivarsflaten, E. (2008). What unites right-wing populists in Western Europe? Re-examining grievance mobilization models in seven successful cases. Comparative Political Studies, 41, 3-23. DOI: 10.1177/0010414006294168 · DOI
  18. Kellner, D. (2016). American Nightmare: Donald Trump, media spectacle, and authoritarian populism (Vol. 117). Springer, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-6300-788-7 · DOI
  19. † Leone, L., Desimoni, M., & Chirumbolo, A. (2014). Interest and expertise moderate the relationship between right-wing attitudes, ideological self-placement and voting. European Journal of Personality, 28, 2-14. DOI: 10.1002/per.1880 · DOI
  20. Lipset, S. M. (1996). American exceptionalism: A double-edged sword. New York, NY: Norton. DOI: 10.2307/2675314 · DOI
  21. Liu, J. H., Huang, L. L., & McFedries, C. (2008). Cross-sectional and longitudinal differences in social dominance orientation and right wing authoritarianism as a function of political power and societal change. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 11(2), 116-126.
  22. Lubbers, M., & Scheepers, P. (2002). French Front National voting: A micro and macro perspective. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 25, 120-149. DOI: 10.1080/01419870120112085 · DOI
  23. Marchlewska, M., Cichocka, A., Panayiotou, O., Castellanos, K., & Batayneh, J. (2018). Populism as identity politics: Perceived in-group disadvantage, collective narcissism, and support for populism. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(2), 151-162
  24. Martens, A. L., Stratmoen, E., & Saucier, D. A. (2018). To Preserve, Protect, and Defend: Masculine Honor Beliefs and Perceptions of the 2016 Presidential Candidates. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 40(5), 308-319.
  25. McClosky, H., & Chong, D. (1985). Similarities and differences between left- wing and right-wing radicals. British Journal of Political Science, 15(3), 329-363.
  26. McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism scale. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 91-126). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
  27. Meleady, R., Seger, C. R., & Vermue, M. (2017). Examining the role of positive and negative intergroup contact and anti-immigrant prejudice in Brexit. British Journal of Social Psychology, 56(4), 799-808.
  28. Meloen, J. D., Van der Linden, G., & De Witte, H. (1996). A test of the approaches of Adorno et al., Lederer and Altemeyer of authoritarianism in Belgian Flanders: A research note. Political Psychology, 643-656. DOI: 10.2307/3792131 · DOI
  29. Meuleman, B., Abts, K., Schmidt, P., Pettigrew, T. F., & Davidov, E. (2019). Economic conditions, group relative deprivation and ethnic threat perceptions: A cross-national perspective. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies.
  30. Mudde, C. (Ed.). (2016). The populist radical right: A reader. London, U.K., Routledge.
  31. Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (1998-2012). Mplus user's guide. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. † Peitz, L., Dhont, K., & Seyd, B. (2018). The psychology of supranationalism: Its ideological correlates and implications for EU attitudes and post-Brexit preferences. Political Psychology, 39(6), 1305-1322.
  32. Pettigrew, T. F. (2017). Social psychological perspectives on Trump supporters. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 5, 107-116. DOI: 10.5964/jspp.v5i1.750 · DOI
  33. Pettigrew, T. F., & Hewstone, M. (2017). The single factor fallacy: Implications of missing critical variables from an analysis of intergroup contact theory. Social Issues and Policy Review, 11, 8-37. DOI: 10.1111/sipr.12026 · DOI
  34. Portelinha, I., & Elcheroth, G. (2016). From marginal to mainstream: The role of perceived social norms in the rise of a far-right movement. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46(6), 661-671. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.2224 · DOI
  35. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741-763. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741 · DOI
  36. Schmidt, P., Darowska, L., & Fischer, D G. (2017). What drives threat, attitudes toward migrants and identification with populist parties? - Deprivation, values or racism? A comparative analysis of Poland and Germany. In Sztabinski, P. (Ed.), New results of the seventh round of the European Social Survey. Peter Lang: Frankfurt.
  37. Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2008). Personality and prejudice: A meta- analysis and theoretical review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(3), 248-279.
  38. Sibley, C. G., & Wilson, M. S. (2007). Political attitudes and the ideology of equality: Differentiating support for liberal and conservative political parties in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 36(2), 72- 84.
  39. † Swyngedouw, M., & Giles, I. (2001). The extreme right utopia in Belgium and France: The ideology of the Flemish Vlaams Blok and the French Front National. West European Politics, 24(3), 1-22. DOI: 10.1080/01402380108425450 · DOI
  40. Tournier-Sol, K. (2015). Reworking the Eurosceptic and conservative traditions into a populist narrative: UKIP's winning formula?. Journal of Common Market Studies, 53(1), 140-156. DOI: 10.1111/jcms.12208 · DOI
  41. Van Assche, J., Dhont, K., Van Hiel, A., & Roets, A. (2018). Ethnic diversity and support for populist parties: The "right" road through political cynicism and lack of trust. Social Psychology, 49 (3), 182-189.
  42. Van Assche, J., Roets, A., Dhont, K., & Van Hiel, A. (2014). Diversity and out-group attitudes in the Netherlands: The role of authoritarianism and social threat in the neighbourhood. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40, 1414-1430. DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2013.876895 · DOI
  43. † Van Assche, J., Van Hiel, A., Dhont, K., & Roets, A. (2019). Broadening the individual differences lens on party support and voting behavior: Cynicism and prejudice as relevant attitudes referring to modern-day political alignments. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49 (1), 190-199.
  44. Van Hiel, A. (2012). A psycho-political profile of party activists and left- wing and right-wing extremists. European Journal of Political Research, 51, 166-203. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2011.01991.x · DOI
  45. † Van Hiel, A., Cornelis, I., Roets, A., & De Clercq, B. (2007). A comparison of various authoritarianism scales in Belgian Flanders. European Journal of Personality, 21, 149-168. DOI: 10.1002/per.617 · DOI
  46. † Van Hiel, A., & Mervielde, I. (2002).Explaining conservative beliefs and political preferences: A comparison of social dominance orientation and authoritarianism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 965-976. DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00250.x · DOI
  47. Walker, I., & Pettigrew, T. F. (1984). Relative deprivation theory: An overview and conceptual critique. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23(4), 301-310.
  48. Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 73-90. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.73 · DOI

Authors
Van Assche, J., Dhont, K., & Pettigrew, T. F.
Affiliations
  • Department of Developmental, Personality and Social Psychology Ghent University Ghent Belgium
  • University of Kent (GB)
  • University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-04-29
Volume
29
Issue
5
Pages
385-401
ISSN
  • 1052-9284 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1298
DOI
10.1002/casp.2407
OpenAlex
W2943337321
Cited by
69
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1
FWCI
27.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (submittedVersion)
  • Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Dépôt institutionnel de l'Université libre de Bruxelles (Université Libre de Bruxelles) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (FWO.3E0.2018.0049.01)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
Keywords
far-right support, authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, prejudice, Trump voters, Brexit, UK Independence Party, voting intention, American exceptionalism, British exceptionalism, cross-national comparison

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