Ideological principle or outgroup attitudes? An experimental analysis of cross-pressures, social dominance orientation, and vote choice among white Americans

How does the mass public resolve a cross-pressure when it is along the dimensions of ideological identity and outgroup attitudes? While previous literature has examined the power of these attachments and attitudes separate from one another, little work exists on how voters balance these dimensions when making electoral decisions. Utilizing two survey experiments, we find profound differences in the ways that ideologues evaluate candidates: while conservatives punish candidates who differ from them in ideology and outgroup attitudes, they only do so when the candidate’s outgroup attitudes and ideology align (e.g. liberal, low in social dominance orientation). Liberals, on the other hand, not only punish candidates with hostile outgroup attitudes, but they also actually reward candidates who espouse more egalitarian positions. In other words, conservatives and those higher in social dominance orientation maintain support for conservative candidates, regardless of their immigration stances, while liberals and those low in social dominance orientation punish candidates who diverge from one of these stances, but especially those who are anti-immigrant. This research displays how voters continue to conceptualize politics in different ways, with conservatives viewing it through a more individualistic lens while liberals oftentimes think about social groups and coalition partners when making electoral decisions.