Selectively (il)liberal: theory & evidence on nativist disidentification
Selectively (il)liberal: theory & evidence on nativist disidentification
Does group-based tribal thinking against ethnic out-groups condition support for both liberal and illiberal policies? Our thesis is that, irrespective of the direction of the policy (progressive or conservative), nativists express selective support for policies based on different signals of group-identity: descriptive markers, group-based substantive representation, in- and out-group norms, and group-based reasoning. We test this theoretical expectation using a novel AI-powered visual conjoint experiment in the Netherlands and Germany that asked individuals to select between hypothetical educational reform proposals presented by civic actors during a public consultation. Empirically, our results demonstrate that citizens, on average, are indeed selectively (il)liberal and that this instrumental policy support is greater among those with higher levels of underlying nativism. Specifically, we show that – among our multidimensional markers of group-based identities, norms, and reasoning – group-based substantive representation and in-group norms are the strongest determinants of support for diverse reform proposals. These findings have key implications on the malleable nature of citizens’ support for the backsliding of the liberal tenets of democracy as well as the persuasive power of out-group disidentification.
López Ortega, Alberto
f21b60d3-b242-47ce-96cc-e3552c022aa6
Turnbull-Dugarte, Stuart J.
e25c6280-842c-407f-a961-6472eea5d845
López Ortega, Alberto
f21b60d3-b242-47ce-96cc-e3552c022aa6
Turnbull-Dugarte, Stuart J.
e25c6280-842c-407f-a961-6472eea5d845
López Ortega, Alberto and Turnbull-Dugarte, Stuart J.
(2025)
Selectively (il)liberal: theory & evidence on nativist disidentification.
Political Science Research and Methods.
(In Press)
Abstract
Does group-based tribal thinking against ethnic out-groups condition support for both liberal and illiberal policies? Our thesis is that, irrespective of the direction of the policy (progressive or conservative), nativists express selective support for policies based on different signals of group-identity: descriptive markers, group-based substantive representation, in- and out-group norms, and group-based reasoning. We test this theoretical expectation using a novel AI-powered visual conjoint experiment in the Netherlands and Germany that asked individuals to select between hypothetical educational reform proposals presented by civic actors during a public consultation. Empirically, our results demonstrate that citizens, on average, are indeed selectively (il)liberal and that this instrumental policy support is greater among those with higher levels of underlying nativism. Specifically, we show that – among our multidimensional markers of group-based identities, norms, and reasoning – group-based substantive representation and in-group norms are the strongest determinants of support for diverse reform proposals. These findings have key implications on the malleable nature of citizens’ support for the backsliding of the liberal tenets of democracy as well as the persuasive power of out-group disidentification.
Text
PSRM_accepted
- Accepted Manuscript
Restricted to Repository staff only until 13 November 2025.
Request a copy
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 21 August 2025
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 505547
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/505547
ISSN: 2049-8470
PURE UUID: 9f1ec3d4-a9fa-4547-9199-08c9aeb166df
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 13 Oct 2025 16:59
Last modified: 14 Oct 2025 02:03
Export record
Contributors
Author:
Alberto López Ortega
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics
