Cited by 110Populism, Right-Wing MovementsSocial and Intergroup PsychologyTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence

A Psychological Profile of the Alt-Right

Open access
Forscher, Patrick S., Kteily, Nour S.·2020·Perspectives on Psychological Science

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

The 2016 U.S. presidential election coincided with the rise of the "alternative right," or alt-right . Alt-right associates have wielded considerable influence on the current administration and on social discourse, but the movement's loose organizational structure has led to disparate portrayals of its members' psychology and made it difficult to decipher its aims and reach. To systematically explore the alt-right's psychology, we recruited two U.S. samples: An exploratory sample through Amazon's Mechanical Turk ( N = 827, alt-right n = 447) and a larger, nationally representative sample through the National Opinion Research Center's Amerispeak panel ( N = 1,283, alt-right n = 71-160, depending on the definition). We estimate that 6% of the U.S. population and 10% of Trump voters identify as alt-right. Alt-right adherents reported a psychological profile more reflective of the desire for group-based dominance than economic anxiety. Although both the alt-right and non-alt-right Trump voters differed substantially from non-alt-right, non-Trump voters, the alt-right and Trump voters were quite similar, differing mainly in the alt-right's especially high enthusiasm for Trump, suspicion of mainstream media, trust in alternative media, and desire for collective action on behalf of Whites. We argue for renewed consideration of overt forms of bias in contemporary intergroup research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1745691619868208

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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.”
  • 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.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Forscher, P. S., & Kteily, N. S.
Affiliations
  • Laboratoire Inter-universitaire de Psychologie: Personnalité, Cognition, Changement Social (FR)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Forscher, Patrick S.
Venue
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Published
2019-11-20
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
90-116
ISSN
  • 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-6924
OpenAlex
W2778100822
Cited by
110
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2016: 1
FWCI
59.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (5R01-GM111002-02)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Keywords
alt-right, political psychology, Trump voters, 2016 US presidential election, economic anxiety, alternative media, collective action, white identity, intergroup bias
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Attitude, Female, Group Processes, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Politics, Social Dominance, United States, Young Adult, Racism

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