Putting US First: How Outgroup Hostilities and Defense of the Status Quo Motivate White Evangelical Affect Toward Candidates in U.S. Elections 2004 to 2016
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2021
Putting US First: How Outgroup Hostilities and Defense of the Status Quo Motivate White Evangelical Affect Toward Candidates in U.S. Elections 2004 to 2016
How do voters construct feelings toward inparty elites? More specifically, how do they do so when they lack a shared policy agenda or shared salient social identity with candidates beyond partisan identification? In this paper, I investigate this puzzle by developing a theory of Putting America First to explain white evangelical affect toward Republican presidential candidates from 2004 to 2016. Using ANES surveys from 2004 to 2016, I test the effectiveness of this model of candidate affect. I find that shared outgroup hostility, what I call Putting Us First, motivates positive affect for presidential candidates among white evangelicals, regardless of shared policy objectives and descriptive representation. Overtime, white evangelicals’ affect is driven by outgroup hostilities rather than Culture Wars values. Overall, this informs our understanding of voter affect toward candidates and the increasingly important role of social outgroup hostility in defense of the status quo.
American National Election Studies (ANES). The ANES Time Series Studies 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2016. The University of Michigan and Stanford University. https://electionstudies.org/data-center/
2.
AbramowitzA. I.WebsterS. W. (2016). The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of U.S. elections in the 21st century. Electoral Studies, 41, 12–22.
3.
AbramowitzA. I.WebsterS. W. (2018). Negative partisanship: Why Americans dislike parties but behave like rabid partisans. Political Psychology, 39, 119–135.
4.
AhlerD. J. (2014). Self-fulfilling misperceptions of public polarization. Journal of Politics, 76(3), 607–620.
5.
AhlerD. J. (2018). The group theory of parties: Identity politics, party stereotypes, and polarization in the 21st century. The Forum (Germany), 16(1), 3–22.
6.
AhlerD. J.SoodG. (2018). The parties in our heads: Misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. Journal of Politics, 80(3), 964–981.
7.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
8.
AmiraK.WrightJ. C.Goya-TocchettoD. (2021). In-group love versus out-group hate: Which is more important to partisans and when?Political Behavior, 43, 473–494.
9.
AzevedoF.JostJ. T.RothmundT. (2017). “Making American great again”: System justification in the U.S. presidential election of 2016. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 3, 231–240.
10.
BowlerK. (2013). Blessed: A history of the American prosperity gospel. Oxford University Press.
11.
BrewerM. B. (1981). Ethnocentrism and its role in intergroup trust. In BrewerM.CollinsB. (Eds.), Scientific inquiry in the social sciences (pp. 214–231). Jossey-Bass.
12.
BrewerM. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate?Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444.
13.
BrewerM. B. (2001). The many faces of social identity: Implications for political psychology. Political Psychology, 22(1), 115–125.
14.
BrewerM. B.PierceK. P. (2005). Social identity complexity and outgroup tolerance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(3), 428–437.
15.
CampbellA.ConverseP. E.MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (1960). The American voter. University of Chicago Press.
16.
CampbellD. E. (2002). Getting along versus getting ahead: Why the absense of partisan competition leads to high voter turnout. Midwest Political Science Association.
17.
CampbellD. E. (2006). Religious threat in contemporary presidential elections. Journal of Politics, 68, 104–115.
18.
CampbellD. E.GreenJ. C.MonsonQ. Q. (2012). The stained glass ceiling: Social contact and Mitt Romney’s “religion problem”. Political Behavior, 34(2), 277–299.
19.
CampbellD. E.LaymanG. C.GreenJ. C.SumaktoyoN. G. (2018). Putting politics first: The impact of politics on American religious and secular orientations. American Journal of Political Science, 62(3), 551–565.
20.
ChomaB. L.HanochY. (2017). Cognitive ability and authority: Understanding support for Trump and Clinton. Personality and Individual Differences, 106(1), 287–291.
21.
CrowsonH. M.BrandesJ. A. (2017). Differentiating between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton voters using facets of right-wing authoritarianism and social-dominance orientation: A brief report. Psychological Reports, 120(3), 364–373.
22.
DjupeP. A.CalfanoB. R. (2012). Religious value priming, threat, and political tolerance. Political Research Quarterly, 66(4), 768–780.
23.
GuthJ. L. (2019). Are white evangelicals populists? The view from the 2016 American National Election Study. The Review of Faith & International Affairs, 17(3), 20–35.
24.
Haney-LópezI. (2013). Dog whistle politics. Oxford University Press.
25.
HetheringtonM. J.WeilerJ. D. (2009). Authoritarianism and polarization in American politics. Cambridge University Press.
26.
HuddyL. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22(1), 127–156.
27.
HuddyL.MasonL.AaroeL. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1–17.
28.
HunterJ. D. (1991). Culture wars: The struggle to define America. Basic Books.
29.
IyengarS.SoodG.LelkesY. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431.
30.
IyengarS.WestwoodS. (2014). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707.
31.
JardinaA. (2019). White identity politics. Cambridge University Press.
32.
JohnsonA. (2016, October17). What’s behind evangelical support for Donald Trump? Less than you think. News.
33.
JonesR. P. (2016). The end of white Christian America. Simon & Schuster.
34.
JonesR. P. (2020). White too long. Simon & Schuster.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27.
37.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R.NosekB. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–919.
38.
JostJ. T.HawkinsC.NosekB.HennesE.SternC.GoslingS.GrahamJ. (2014). Just belief in one God: Religion as a form of justification of the system. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 24, 56–81.
39.
JostJ. T.HunyadyO. (2002). The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology. European Review of Social Psychology, 13, 111–153.
40.
JostJ. T.PelhamB.SheldonO.SullivanB. (2003). Social inequality and the reduction of ideological dissonance on behalf of the system: Evidence of enhanced system justification among the disadvantaged. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 13–36.
41.
JostJ. T.PietrzakJ.LiviatanI.MandisodzaA. N.NapierJ. L. (2007). System justification as conscious and nonconscious goal pursuit. In ShahJ. Y.GardnerW. L. (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 591–605). Guilford Press.
42.
JostJ. T.van der ToornJ. M. (2011). System justification theory. In VanLangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 313–343). SAGE Publications.
43.
KnightK. (1984). The dimensionality of partisan and ideological affect. American Politics Quarterly, 12, 305–334.
44.
LaymanG. C. (2001). The great divide. Columbia University Press.
45.
LaymanG. C. (2016, March29). Where is Trump’s evangelical base? Not in church. The Washington Post (“Monkey Cage” online section).
46.
LaymanG. C.CarseyT. M.HorowitzJ. M. (2006). Party polarization in American politics: Characteristics, causes, and consequences. Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 83–110.
47.
LaymanG. C.HusseyL. S. (2007). George W. Bush and the evangelicals: Religious commitment and partisan change among evangelical protestants, 1960-2004. In CampbellD. E. (Ed.), A matter of faith: Religion in the 2004 election (pp. 180–198). Brookings Institution Press.
48.
Lewis-BeckM. S.JacobyW. G.NorpothH.WeisbergH. F. (2008). The American voter revisited. University of Michigan Press.
49.
MacWilliamsM. C. (2016). Who decides when the party doesn’t? Authoritarian voters and the rise of Donald Trump. Political Science & Politics, 49(4), 716–721.
50.
MargolisM. F. (2018). From politics to the pews. University of Chicago Press.
51.
MargolisM. F. (2019). Who wants to make America great again? Understanding evangelical support for Donald Trump. Politics and Religion, 13, 1–30.
52.
MarshW. Z.RamírezR. (2019). Unlinking fate? Discrimination, group-consciousness, and political participation among Latinos and Whites. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 7(3), 625–641.
53.
MartherusJ. L.MartinezA. G.PiffP. K.TheodoridisA. G. (2021). Party animals? Extreme partisan polarization and dehumanization. Political Behavior, 43, 517–540.
54.
MasonL. (2016). A cross-cutting calm: How social sorting drives affective polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 351–377.
55.
MasonL. (2018a). Ideologues without issues: The polarizing consequences of ideological identities. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(S1), 128–145.
56.
MasonL. (2018b). Losing common ground: Social sorting and polarization. The Forum, 16(1), 47–66.
57.
MasonL. (2018c). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. University of Chicago Press.
58.
MasonL.WronskiJ. (2018). One tribe to bind them all: How our social group attachments strengthen partisanship. Advances in Political Psychology, 39(S1), 128–145.
59.
MutzD. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press.
60.
MutzD. C. (2018). Status threat, not economic hardship explains the 2016 presidential vote. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(19), E4330–E4339.
61.
NorrisP.InglehartR. (2004). Sacred and secular: Religion and politics worldwide (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
62.
ParkerC. S.BarretoM. A. (2013). Change they can’t believe in: The tea party and reactionary politics in America. Princeton University Press.
63.
PatrikiosS. (2008). American republican religion? Disentangling the causal link between religion and politics in the US. Political Behavior, 30(3), 367–389.
64.
PatrikiosS. (2013). Self-stereotyping as ‘evangelical republican’: An empirical test. Politics and Religion, 6(4), 800–822.
65.
PettigrewT. F. (2016). In pursuit of three theories: Authoritarianism, relative deprivation, and intergroup contact. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 7–24.
66.
PettigrewT. F. (2017). Social psychological perspectives on Trump supporters. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 5(1), 107–116.
67.
RamírezR. (2013). Mobilizing opportunities: State contexts, mobilization, and the evolving Latino electorate. University of Virginia Press.
68.
SmidtC. E. (2007). Evangelical and Mainlin protestants at the turn of the Millenium: Taking stock and looking forward. In WilsonJ. M. (Ed.), From pews to polling places: Faith and politics in the American religious mosaic (pp. 29–52). Georgetown University Press.
69.
SmithC. (1998). American evangelicalism: Embattled and thriving. University of Chicago Press.
70.
SmithC. (2003). The secular revolution: Power, interests, and conflict in the secularization of American public life. University of California Press.
SteenslandB.RobinsonL. D.WilcoxW. B.ParkJ. Z.RegnerusM. D.WoodberryR. D. (2000). The measure of American religions: Toward improving the state of the art. Social Forces, 79(1), 291–318.
73.
Van BavelJ. J.PereiraA. (2018). The partisan brain: An identity-based model of political belief. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(3), 213–224.
74.
WebsterS. W. (2018). It’s personal: The big five personality traits and negative partisan affect in polarized U.S. politics. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(1), 127–145.
75.
WebsterS. W.AbramowitzA. I. (2017). The ideological foundations of affective polarization in the U.S. electorate. American Politics Research, 45(4), 621–647.
76.
WilcoxC. (2000). Onward Christian soldiers? The religious right in American politics. West-view Press.
77.
WilcoxC.RobinsonC. (2007). Prayers, parties, and preachers: The evolving nature of political and religious mobilization. In WilsonJ. M. (Ed.), From pews to polling places: Faith and politics in the American religious mosaic (pp. 1–28). Georgetown University Press.
78.
WilcoxC.SigelmanL.CookE. (1989). Some like it hot: Individual differences in responses to group feeling thermometers. Public Opinion Quarterly, 53(2), 246–257.
79.
WongJ. S. (2018). Immigrants, evangelicals, and politics, in an era of demographic change. Russell Sage Foundation.
80.
WongJ. S. (2019, January22). We are all evangelicals now. Religion and Politics.
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.
