Authoritarianism and support for Trump and Clinton in the 2016 primaries

Trent Ollerenshaw
{"title":"Authoritarianism and support for Trump and Clinton in the 2016 primaries","authors":"Trent Ollerenshaw","doi":"10.1177/20531680231188258","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research in the wake of the contentious 2016 presidential primaries contends both Democrats and Republicans were internally divided along psychological lines. Specifically, MacWilliams (2016) finds authoritarian personality was strongly related to Trump support among Republican primary voters, and Wronski et al. (2018) finds authoritarianism was strongly related to Clinton support among Democratic primary voters. In this paper, I reassess the relationships between authoritarianism and 2016 primary candidate preferences for both Republicans and Democrats. I analyze two new large, probability-based surveys and generate random effects estimates using these surveys and two national surveys from Wronski et al. (2018) . Overall, I find authoritarianism was moderately associated with support for Clinton over Sanders among Democratic primary voters, but weakly associated with support for Trump among Republican primary voters. My findings indicate authoritarianism may have played a more limited role in shaping Americans’ candidate preferences in the 2016 presidential primary elections than past studies have suggested.","PeriodicalId":125693,"journal":{"name":"Research & Politics","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research & Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680231188258","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research in the wake of the contentious 2016 presidential primaries contends both Democrats and Republicans were internally divided along psychological lines. Specifically, MacWilliams (2016) finds authoritarian personality was strongly related to Trump support among Republican primary voters, and Wronski et al. (2018) finds authoritarianism was strongly related to Clinton support among Democratic primary voters. In this paper, I reassess the relationships between authoritarianism and 2016 primary candidate preferences for both Republicans and Democrats. I analyze two new large, probability-based surveys and generate random effects estimates using these surveys and two national surveys from Wronski et al. (2018) . Overall, I find authoritarianism was moderately associated with support for Clinton over Sanders among Democratic primary voters, but weakly associated with support for Trump among Republican primary voters. My findings indicate authoritarianism may have played a more limited role in shaping Americans’ candidate preferences in the 2016 presidential primary elections than past studies have suggested.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
威权主义以及在2016年初选中对特朗普和克林顿的支持
在2016年有争议的总统初选之后进行的研究认为,民主党和共和党内部都存在心理分歧。具体而言,MacWilliams(2016)发现威权主义人格与共和党初选选民对特朗普的支持密切相关,Wronski等人(2018)发现威权主义与民主党初选选民对克林顿的支持密切相关。在本文中,我重新评估了威权主义与2016年共和党和民主党初选候选人偏好之间的关系。我分析了两个新的基于概率的大型调查,并使用这些调查和Wronski等人(2018)的两个全国性调查生成随机效应估计。总体而言,我发现威权主义与民主党初选选民对克林顿的支持与桑德斯的支持之间存在适度关联,但与共和党初选选民对特朗普的支持之间存在微弱关联。我的研究结果表明,威权主义在2016年总统初选中影响美国人对候选人偏好的作用可能比过去的研究表明的要有限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
PhD stipends and program placement success in political science Does affective empathy capacity condition individual variation in support for military escalation? Evidence from a survey vignette It’s the robots, stupid? Automation risk, labour market resources and incumbent support in Europe Using MI-LASSO to study populist radical right voting in times of pandemic Political trust and public support for propaganda in China
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1