Group-Based Dominance and Authoritarian Aggression Predict Support for Donald Trump in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Abstract
In three convenience samples (combined N = 3,755) and one nationally representative survey ( N = 1,500), we investigated whether and how right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) were associated with support for Donald Trump during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. In all samples, facets of RWA and SDO predicted support for Trump (compared to other Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian candidates), even after adjusting for demographic factors and religious affiliation. In comparison with supporters of other Republican candidates, Trump supporters were consistently higher in group-based dominance and authoritarian aggression (but not submission or conventionalism). These results highlight the real-world significance of psychological theories and constructs and establish that Trump voters were uniquely driven by the desire to dominate out-group members in an aggressive manner.
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?
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 [166]
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 [166]
Individuals who identify as more conservative or rightist in political orientation are more susceptible to out-group animus and affective polarization than more liberal and leftist individuals who reject these sentiments.
“who identify as more conservative or rightist in political orientation, are more susceptible to out-group animus and affective polarization than the more liberal and leftist respondents who reject these sentiments166,170.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [166]
There are meaningful ideological asymmetries in democratic tolerance and other key outcomes.
“Finally, when it comes to democratic tolerance and other key outcomes, there are meaningful ideological asymmetries that should not be ignored.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [166]
Liberal-leftists are more willing to challenge the societal status quo and push for egalitarian forms of social change, whereas conservative-rightists are more authoritarian and more protective of cultural traditions as well as longstanding social, economic and political institutions.
“Whereas liberal-leftists are more willing to challenge the societal status quo and push for egalitarian forms of social change, conservative-rightists are more authoritarian and more protective of cultural traditions as well as longstanding social, economic and political institutions101,107,149,166,168,172.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [166]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 33 · Cited by 149
- Authors
- Womick, J., Rothmund, T., Azevedo, F., King, L. A., & Jost, J. T.
- Affiliations
- University of Missouri (US)
- University of Koblenz and Landau (DE)
- University of Cologne, Köln, Germany
- New York University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Womick, Jake
- Venue
- Social Psychological and Personality Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2018-06-20
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 643-652
- ISSN
- 1948-5506 (ISSN-L)
- 1948-5514
- OpenAlex
- W2809278386
- Cited by
- 149
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 21
- FWCI
- 30.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Social Psychological and Personality Science (publishedVersion)
- Kölner Universitäts PublikationsServer (Universität zu Köln) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
- Keywords
- Donald Trump, 2016 US presidential election, right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, authoritarian aggression, political support, Trump voters
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
