People appreciate others who seem similar to themselves. Two well-documented similarity-attraction effects are in-group favoritism (i.e., preference for in-groups over out-groups) and ideological favoritism (i.e., preference for the groups whose ideologies align [vs. conflict] with one’s own beliefs). There is debate about whether ideological favoritism is stronger among conservatives, progressives, or neither, and research has yet to explore ideological asymmetry in in-group favoritism. Across five studies (Ntotal = 6,631), we confirmed a double dissociation: ideological favoritism was stronger among U.S. progressives, whereas in-group favoritism was stronger among U.S. conservatives. This pattern was robust across different samples of perceivers and groups and across various measures of aligned ideological beliefs, shared group membership, and attitudes toward the groups (i.e., judgments and feelings). We discuss potential explanations for the double dissociation. Certain psychological differences between conservatives and progressives (e.g., community orientation and cosmopolitanism) may direct their attention to different markers of allegiance.
AbeleA. E.EllemersN.FiskeS. T.KochA.YzerbytV. (2021). Navigating the social world: Toward an integrated framework for evaluating self, individuals, and groups. Psychological Review, 128(2), 290–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000262
2.
AzevedoF.JostJ. T. (2021). The ideological basis of antiscientific attitudes: Effects of authoritarianism, conservatism, religiosity, social dominance, and system justification. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(4), 518–549. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430221990104
3.
BallietD.WuJ.De DreuC. K. W. (2014). Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1556–1581. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037737
4.
BaronJ.JostJ. T. (2019). False equivalence: Are liberals and conservatives in the United States equally biased?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(2), 292–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618788876
5.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
6.
BledaP. R. (1974). Toward a clarification of the role of cognitive and affective processes in the similarity-attraction relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(3), 368–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036003
7.
BondM.ByrneD.DiamondM. J. (1968). Effect of occupational prestige and attitude similarity on attraction as a function of assumed similarity of attitude. Psychological Reports, 23(3), 1167–1172. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1968.23.3f.1167
8.
BrambillaM.HewstoneM.ColucciF. P. (2013). Enhancing moral virtues: Increased perceived outgroup morality as a mediator of intergroup contact effects. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(5), 648–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430212471737
BrandtM. J.CassarioA. (2023). Distinguishing between worldview conflict and shared alliances: Commentary on Pinsof, Sears, and Haselton. Psychological Inquiry, 34(3), 168–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2023.2274421
11.
BrandtM. J.ChambersJ. R.CrawfordJ. T.WetherellG.ReynaC. (2015). Bounded openness: The effect of openness to experience on intolerance is moderated by target group conventionality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(3), 549–568. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000055
12.
BrandtM. J.CrawfordJ. T. (2020). Worldview conflict and prejudice. In GawronskiB. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 61, pp. 1–66). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2019.09.002
13.
BrandtM. J.Van TongerenD. R. (2017). People both high and low on religious fundamentalism are prejudiced toward dissimilar groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(1), 76–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000076
14.
BrechwaldW. A.PrinsteinM. J. (2011). Beyond homophily: A decade of advances in understanding peer influence processes. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 166–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00721.x
15.
BrewerM. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate?Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00126
16.
BrewerM. B.BuchanN. R.OzturkO. D.GrimaldaG. (2023). Parochial altruism and political ideology. Political Psychology, 44(2), 383–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12852
17.
ByrneD. (1961). Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(3), 713–715. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044721
18.
ByrneD.GouauxC.GriffittW.LamberthJ.MurakawaN.PrasadM.PrasadA.RamirezM. (1971). The ubiquitous relationship: Attitude similarity and attraction: A cross-cultural study. Human Relations, 24(3), 201–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872677102400302
19.
CarneyD. R.JostJ. T.GoslingS. D.PotterJ. (2008). The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind. Political Psychology, 29(6), 807–840. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00668.x
20.
ChambersJ. R.SchlenkerB. R.CollissonB. (2013). Ideology and prejudice: The role of value conflicts. Psychological Science, 24(2), 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612447820
21.
CikaraM.BruneauE.Van BavelJ. J.SaxeR. (2014). Their pain gives us pleasure: How intergroup dynamics shape empathic failures and counter-empathic responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 110–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.06.007
22.
CorrellJ.JuddC.ParkB.WittenbrinkB. (2010). Measuring prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination. In DovidioJ. F.HewstoneM.GlickP.EssesV. M. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination (pp. 45–62). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446200919
23.
CrawfordJ. T. (2014). Ideological symmetries and asymmetries in political intolerance and prejudice toward political activist groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 284–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.08.002
24.
CrawfordJ. T.BrandtM. J. (2019). Who is prejudiced, and toward whom? The big five traits and generalized prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(10), 1455–1467. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219832335
25.
CrawfordJ. T.BrandtM. J. (2020). Ideological (a)symmetries in prejudice and intergroup bias. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 40–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.11.007
26.
CrawfordJ. T.BrandtM. J.InbarY.ChambersJ. R.MotylM. (2017). Social and economic ideologies differentially predict prejudice across the political spectrum, but social issues are most divisive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(3), 383–412. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000074
CzarnekG.SzwedP.KossowskaM. (2019). Right-and left-wing prejudice toward dissimilar groups in cultural and economic domains. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(4), 807–823. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2548
29.
DiasN.LelkesY. (2021). The nature of affective polarization: Disentangling policy disagreement from partisan identity. American Journal of Political Science, 66(3), 775–790. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12628
30.
EnkeB.Rodríguez-PadillaR.ZimmermannF. (2023). Moral universalism and the structure of ideology. The Review of Economic Studies, 90(4), 1934–1962. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdac066
31.
FiskeS. T.RuscherJ. B. (1993). Negative interdependence and prejudice: Whence the affect? In MackieD. M.HamiltonD. L. (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 239–268). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-088579-7.50015-6
32.
GaertnerL.IuzziniJ.WittM. G.OriñaM. M. (2006). Us without them: Evidence for an intragroup origin of positive in-group regard. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3), 426–439. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.426
33.
GallardoR. A.SmithA.ZakU.LopezD.KirgiosE.KochA. (2025). Being in the minority boosts in-group love: Explanations and boundary conditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000485
34.
GanzachY.SchulY.KrampfA.PazyA. (2023). Political ideology is not meaningfully explained by alliances and is not inconsistent with attitudinal inconsistencies. Psychological Inquiry, 34(3), 180–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2023.2274419
35.
GötzF. M.GoslingS. D.RentfrowP. J. (2022). Small effects: The indispensable foundation for a cumulative psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620984483
36.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.NosekB. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015141
37.
GreenP.MacLeodC. J. (2016). SIMR: An R package for power analysis of generalized linear mixed models by simulation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7, 493–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12504
38.
GutsellJ. N.InzlichtM. (2012). Intergroup differences in the sharing of emotive states: Neural evidence of an empathy gap. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(5), 596–603. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsr035
39.
HaidtJ. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon/Random House.
40.
HoggM. A.HohmanZ. P.RiveraJ. E. (2008). Why do people join groups? Three motivational accounts from social psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(3), 1269–1280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00099.x
41.
ImhoffR.KochA.FladeF. (2018). (Pre)occupations: A data-driven model of jobs and its consequences for categorization and evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 77, 76–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.04.001
42.
JiangL.HoeggJ.DahlD. W.ChattopadhyayA. (2010). The persuasive role of incidental similarity on attitudes and purchase intentions in a sales context. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 778–791. https://doi.org/10.1086/605364
43.
JonesJ. T.PelhamB. W.CarvalloM.MirenbergM. C. (2004). How do I love thee? Let me count the Js: Implicit egotism and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 665i683. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.665
44.
JordanJ. J.McAuliffeK.WarnekenF. (2014). Development of in-group favoritism in children’s third-party punishment of selfishness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(35), 12710–12715. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1402280111
45.
JostJ. T. (2017). Ideological asymmetries and the essence of political psychology. Political Psychology, 38(2), 167–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12407
46.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
47.
KandelD. B. (1978). Similarity in real-life adolescent friendship pairs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(3), 306–312. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.3.306
KochA.DorroughA.GlöcknerA.ImhoffR. (2020). The ABC of society: Perceived similarity in agency/socioeconomic success and conservative-progressive beliefs increases intergroup cooperation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 90, 103996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.103996
50.
KochA.ImhoffR.DotschR.UnkelbachC.AlvesH. (2016). The ABC of stereotypes about groups: Agency/socioeconomic success, conservative–progressive beliefs, and communion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(5), 675–709. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000046
51.
KochA.ImhoffR.DotschR.UnkelbachC.AlvesH. (2025). Ideological beliefs as cues to exploitation-exploration behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 117, 104718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104718
52.
KochA.ImhoffR.UnkelbachC.NicolasG.FiskeS.TeracheJ.CarrierA.YzerbytV. (2020). Groups’ warmth is a personal matter: Understanding consensus on stereotype dimensions reconciles adversarial models of social evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 89, 103995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.103995
53.
KochA.KervynN.KervynA.ImhoffR. (2018). Studying the cognitive map of the U.S. states: Ideology and prosperity stereotypes predict interstate prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(5), 530–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617715070
54.
KochA.YzerbytV.AbeleA.EllemersN.FiskeS. T. (2021). Social evaluation: Comparing models across interpersonal, intragroup, intergroup, several-group, and many-group contexts. In GawronskiB. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 63, pp. 1–68). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2020.11.001
55.
KteilyN. S.BrandtM. J. (2024) Ideology: Psychological similarities and differences across the ideological spectrum reexamined. Annual Review of Psychology, 76(1), 501–529. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020124-115253
56.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). LmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
LickelB.HamiltonD. L.WieczorkowskaG.LewisA.ShermanS. J.UhlesA. N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 223–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.223
MackieD. M.SmithE. R. (1998). Intergroup relations: Insights from a theoretically integrative approach. Psychological Review, 105(3), 499–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.105.3.499
62.
MontoyaR. M.HortonR. S.KirchnerJ. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(6), 889–922. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407508096700
PaveyL.GreitemeyerT.SparksP. (2011). Highlighting relatedness promotes prosocial motives and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(7), 905–917. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211405994
65.
PinsofD.SearsD. O.HaseltonM. G. (2023a). Strange bedfellows: The alliance theory of political belief systems. Psychological Inquiry, 34(3), 139–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2023.2274433
66.
PinsofD.SearsD. O.HaseltonM. G. (2023b). The strange epicycles of political psychology: A response to commentaries. Psychological Inquiry, 34(3), 226–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2023.2274618
67.
R Core Team. (2023). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
68.
RobertsR.KochA. (2024). Perceived power polarizes moral evaluations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241245181
69.
RomanoA.SutterM.LiuJ. H.BallietD. (2021). Political ideology, cooperation and national parochialism across 42 nations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 376(1822), 20200146. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0146
70.
RuischB. C.SternC. (2021). The confident conservative: Ideological differences in judgment and decision-making confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(3), 527–544. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000898
71.
SchoenmuellerV.NetzerO.StahlF. (2023). Frontiers: Polarized America: From political polarization to preference polarization. Marketing Science, 42(1), 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2022.1408
72.
ShookN. J.FazioR. H. (2009). Political ideology, exploration of novel stimuli, and attitude formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 995–998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.003
73.
SinnJ. S.HayesM. W. (2017). Replacing the moral foundations: An evolutionary-coalitional theory of liberal-conservative differences. Political Psychology, 38(6), 1043–1064. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12361
74.
SternC.CrawfordJ. T. (2021). Ideological conflict and prejudice: An adversarial collaboration examining correlates and ideological (a)symmetries. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(1), 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620904275
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
77.
TalhelmT.OishiS. (2014). Residential mobility affects self-concept, group support, and happiness of individuals and communities. In RentfrowP. J. (Ed.), Geographical psychology: Exploring the interaction of environment and behavior (pp. 219–239). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14272-012
78.
Turner-ZwinkelsF. M.van NoordJ.KesbergR.García-SánchezE.BrandtM. J.KuppensT.EasterbrookM. J.SmetsL.GorskaP.MarchlewskaM.Turner-ZwinkelsT. (2025). Affective polarization and political belief systems: The role of political identity and the content and structure of political beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 51(2), 222–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672231183935
79.
Van HielA. V.MervieldeI. (2004). Openness to experience and boundaries in the mind: Relationships with cultural and economic conservative beliefs. Journal of Personality, 72(4), 659–686. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00276.x
80.
WaytzA.IyerR.YoungL.HaidtJ.GrahamJ. (2019). Ideological differences in the expanse of the moral circle. Nature Communications, 10(1), 4389. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12227-0
81.
WetherellG. A.BrandtM. J.ReynaC. (2013). Discrimination across the ideological divide: The role of value violations and abstract values in discrimination by liberals and conservatives. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(6), 658–667. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613476096
82.
WoitzelJ.KochA. (2023). Ideological prejudice is stronger in ideological extremists (vs. moderates). Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 26(8), 1685–1705. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302221135083
83.
WoitzelJ.KochA. (2024). Political rule (vs. opposition) predicts whether ideological prejudice is stronger in U.S. conservatives or progressives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 153(10), 2454–2469. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001643
84.
YzerbytV.KochA.BrambillaM.EllemersN.FiskeS. T.NicolasG. (2025). Dimensions of stereotypes about groups. Unpublished manuscript.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
