Mass–Elite Divides in Aversion to Social Change and Support for Donald Trump
Abstract
Donald Trump won the American presidency in 2016 by overperforming expectations in upper Midwest states, surprising even Republican political elites. We argue that attitudes toward social change were an underappreciated dividing line between supporters of Trump and Hillary Clinton as well as between Republicans at the mass and elite levels. We introduce a concept and measure of aversion to (or acceptance of) social diversification and value change, assess the prevalence of these attitudes in the mass public and among political elites, and demonstrate its effects on support for Trump. Our research uses paired surveys of Michigan’s adult population and community of political elites in the Fall of 2016. Aversion to social change is strongly predictive of support for Trump at the mass level, even among racial minorities. But attitudes are far more accepting of social change among elites than the public and aversion to social change is not a factor explaining elite Trump support. If elites were as averse to social change as the electorate—and if that attitude mattered to their vote choice—they might have been as supportive of Trump. Views of social change were not as strongly related to congressional voting choices.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Individuals who identify as more liberal and endorse more leftist attitudes place a higher value on equality and progressive forms of social change than those who identify as more conservative and rightist.
“By contrast, those who identify as more liberal and endorse more leftist attitudes place a higher value on equality and progressive forms of social change43,47,82,107,171–173.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [171]
Individuals who identify as more conservative and endorse more rightist attitudes place a higher value on tradition, social order and stability, and the maintenance of existing hierarchical social arrangements than those who identify as more liberal and leftist.
“those who identify as more conservative and endorse more rightist attitudes place a higher value on tradition, social order and stability, and the maintenance of existing hierarchical social arrangements.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [171]
Cites
A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006) · Journal of personality and social psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751 · Cited by 8,964 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Second, political elites who work in and around government, building coalitions and serving broad constituencies, may be more likely to have regular positive interpersonal contact with members of diverse groups—another factor that reduces prejudice toward outgroups (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006).”
BackgroundSides, J., Tesler, M., & Vavreck, L. (2017) · Journal of Democracy · doi:10.1353/jod.2017.0022 · Cited by 182 · see citing works
Racial Realignment: The Transformation of American Liberalism, 1932-1965
Schickler, E. (2016) · doi:10.1515/9781400880973 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts
Jost, J. T., Baldassarri, D. S., & Druckman, J. N. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-022-00093-5 · Cited by 276 · see citing works
- Authors
- Grossmann, M., & Thaler, D.
- Affiliations
- Michigan State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Grossmann, Matt
- Venue
- American Politics Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2018-05-07
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 753-784
- ISSN
- 0044-7803 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-673X
- 1552-3373
- OpenAlex
- W2801288869
- Cited by
- 48
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 23.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Politics Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › American Political and Social Dynamics
- Keywords
- social diversification, value change, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, 2016 US presidential election, political elites, racial minorities, congressional voting
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
