The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Psychological Profile of the Alt-Right
Open accessPublished 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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“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 [167]
In the citing paper
“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 [167]
Citations
Cites
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Bruνswik, E., Levinson, D. M., & Sandford, R. N. (2001) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781446220986.n8 · Cited by 6,460
Mudde, C. (2004) · Government and Opposition · doi:10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00135.x · Cited by 5,286
Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. (1994) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741 · Cited by 4,872
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0021847 · Cited by 2,666
Jurczak, C. A., Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950) · The American Catholic Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/3707481 · Cited by 2,351
At what sample size do correlations stabilize?
Schönbrodt, F. D., & Perugini, M. (2013) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009 · Cited by 2,232
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.56.2.109 · Cited by 2,224
Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A Brief Measure of Dark Personality Traits
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/1073191113514105 · Cited by 2,162
Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice.
Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (1998) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.811 · Cited by 1,689
Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction.
Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. L. (2002) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.82.1.62 · Cited by 1,567
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Benkler Y., Faris R., Roberts H., Zuckerman E. (2017, March 3). Study: Breitbart-led right-wing media ecosystem altered broader media agenda. Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved from https://www.cjr.org/analysis/breitbart-media-trump-harvard-study.php
- Goldberg J. (2017). The alt-right is bad—and so is ‘Antifa.’ National Review. Retrieved from https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/08/alt-right-antifa-both-bad-groups-ideology/
- Kalton G., 2009, Survey Methodology, 35, 125
- Nagle A., 2017, Kill all normies: The online culture wars from Tumblr and 4chan to the alt-right and Trump
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
Dehumanization: trends, insights, and challenges
Kteily, N. S., & Landry, A. (2022) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2021.12.003 · Cited by 218
Self-citationThe role of cognitive rigidity in political ideologies: theory, evidence, and future directions
Zmigrod, L. (2020) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.10.016 · Cited by 162
Patterns of Implicit and Explicit Attitudes: IV. Change and Stability From 2007 to 2020
Charlesworth, T. E. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2022) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/09567976221084257 · Cited by 138
Rieger, D., Kümpel, A. S., Wich, M., Kiening, T., & Groh, G. (2021) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051211052906 · Cited by 102
Metadata
- 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
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-11-20
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 90-116
- ISSN
- 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-6924
- PMC
- PMC6980479
- 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
- FWCI
- 59.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- 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
