NEW YORK, NY – More extreme candidates are running for office across the United States, and many are winning. The trend has alarmed party leaders, political experts, and the broader American public who worry it fuels dysfunction and political violence, creates legislative gridlock, and, more recently, a federal government shutdown. A first-of-its-kind study from Columbia Business School offers a much clearer picture on why extreme candidates are winning at historically higher rates: voter psychology. The research found that as political beliefs become central to voters’ identities—and a way to signal who they are—voters are more likely to adopt extreme positions and back extreme candidates.
The new study, Why Do People Choose Extreme Candidates? The Role of Identity Relevance, by Columbia Business School Professor Mohamed Hussein and his co-authors, Stanford University Graduate School of Business Professors Zakary Tormala and S. Christian Wheeler, explains what is pushing voters away from moderate candidates and towards more extreme ones. The researchers find that “identity relevance” – viewing political opinions and choices as self-defining – pushes voters towards more extreme views and candidates, because voters wish to make their views clear to others, and extreme views and candidates accomplish this goal. Across six studies with more than 3,000 participants recruited from Prolific Academic, choosing between various real and fictitious political candidates and political issues, the researchers find strong evidence that when people’s views on social and political issues become more self-defining—meaning higher identity relevance—they adopt more extreme opinions and support more extreme candidates. Participants were first evaluated on how strongly they tie their political views to their sense of self. They were then asked to choose between political candidates and indicate their level of support across a range of policy positions. Across every issue tested, the same pattern emerged: voters who more strongly tied their views to their identity were more likely to adopt extreme policy positions and support more extreme candidates. This held consistently across issues, including climate change, abortion, immigration, transgender rights, gun control, and even corn subsidies. The effect persisted even when participants were presented with a completely made-up ballot initiative; despite having no prior information, they still adopted more extreme positions.
As American political parties seek new direction and ways to appeal to voters, and major corporations look for effective ways to influence policy through lobbying and PACs, the researchers look at voters for answers. The new study unveils an important way to understand voters and why they are drawn to extreme views and candidates.
