A Psychological Profile of the Alt-Right

[elaina]

A study was done profiling the psychology of the alt right. The following is from an article about the findings, and then later an excerpt from the actual study itself. Both the article and the full study are linked below.

A lot of the findings align with what we intuit about the alt-right: This group is supportive of social hierarchies that favor whites at the top. It’s distrustful of mainstream media and strongly opposed to Black Lives Matter. Respondents were highly supportive of statements like, “There are good reasons to have organizations that look out for the interests of white people.” And when they look at other groups — like black Americans, Muslims, feminists, and journalists — they’re willing to admit they see these people as “less evolved.”

But it’s the degree to which the alt-righters differed from the comparison sample that’s most striking — especially when it came to measures of dehumanization, support for collective white action, and admitting to harassing others online. That surprised even Forscher, the lead author and a professor at the University of Arkansas, who typically doesn’t find such large group difference in his work.

There was a time when psychologists feared that “social desirability bias” — people unwilling to admit they’re prejudiced, for fear of being shamed — would prevent people from answering such questions about prejudice truthfully. But this survey shows people will readily admit to believing all sorts of vile things. And researchers don’t need to use implicit or subliminal measures to suss it all out.

Most troubling/disturbing part of the study:

The alt-right scores high on dehumanization measures

One of the starkest, darkest findings in the survey comes from a simple question: How evolved do you think other people are?

Kteily, the co-author on this paper, pioneered this new and disturbing way to measure dehumanization — the tendency to see others as being less than human. He simply shows study participants the following (scientifically inaccurate) image of a human ancestor slowly learning how to stand on two legs and become fully human.

Participants are asked to rate where certain groups fall on this scale from 0 to 100. Zero is not human at all; 100 is fully human.

On average, alt-righters saw other groups as hunched-over proto-humans.

On average, they rated Muslims at a 55.4 (again, out of 100), Democrats at 60.4, black people at 64.7, Mexicans at 67.7, journalists at 58.6, Jews at 73, and feminists at 57. These groups appear as subhumans to those taking the survey. And what about white people? They were scored at a noble 91.8. (You can look through all the data here.)

Here’s how the alt-right rated the following groups (and people) on a 0-to-100 scale of how “evolved” they are. Journalists, Nigerians feminists, muslims, and Hillary Clinton fall to the bottom. Forscher & Kteily

The comparison group, on the other hand, scored all these groups in the 80s or 90s on average. (In science terms, the alt-righters were nearly a full standard deviation more extreme in their responses than the comparison group.)

“If you look at the mean dehumanization scores, they’re about at the level to the degree people in the US dehumanize ISIS,” Forscher says. “The reason why I find that so astonishing is that we’re engaged in violent conflict with ISIS.”

Dehumanization is scary. It’s the psychological trick we engage in that allows us to harm other people (because it’s easier to inflict pain on people who are not people). Historically it’s been the fuel of mass atrocities and genocide.

SOURCE: Vox article on the findings

The following is the discussion section, et al of the experiment itself.
Note: The Dark Triad is a measure in psychology of three personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy.

A Psychological Profile of the Alt-Right

Discussion

Portrayals of the alt-right vary widely, with some emphasizing the movement’s anti-globalist and anti-establishment views (Guardian style editors, 2016; Bokhari & Yiannopoulos, 2016) and others emphasizing the movement’s interest in maintaining structures of group-based privilege (Lyons, 2017; SLPC, 2017; Caldwell, 2016; NPR staff, 2016; Armstrong, 2017).

We found some evidence for the populist portrayal, as alt-right supporters expressed suspicion of mainstream media and trust in alternative media. Interestingly, we found little evidence that this populism extended to economic issues: alt-right supporters were more optimistic about the current and future states of the economy than non-supporters.

In contrast, we found abundant support for portrayals of the alt-right that emphasize their perception that certain historically advantaged groups are superior to other groups and need their interests protected. Our alt-right sample reported high levels of social dominance orientation, strong support for collective action on behalf of White people, and strong opposition to collective action on behalf of Black people. They also tended to perceive their favored groups as less advantaged than their outgroups and adversaries, and saw discrimination against groups like Whites and men as more of a problem than that against groups like women and Blacks. Taken together, these results suggest that members of the alt-right feel that the social positions of their favored groups are under threat, consistent with theoretical accounts describing a conservative shift in response to status-anxiety (Craig & Richeson, 2014; Gest et al., 2017; Norton & Sommers, 2011). Alt-right adherents also expressed hostility that could be considered extremist: they were quite willing to blatantly dehumanize both religious/national outgroups and political opposition groups, reported high levels of the motivations to express prejudice towards Black people, and reported high levels of harassing and offensive behavior.

Although these patterns characterized our alt-right sample overall, our cluster analyses revealed heterogeneity in the form of subgroups. One of these, which we labeled “supremacists”, showed especially pronounced bias favoring certain groups over others and reported characteristics potentially reflective of extremism: they reported very high motivations to express prejudice, extreme dehumanization of religious, national, and political opposition groups, as well as very high Dark Triad scores and more frequent aggressive behavior. The other subgroup, which we labeled “populists”, reported lower extremist tendencies and greater concern about government corruption.

The exact relationship between these two subgroups is unclear. It is possible, for example,that the clusters represent two stages in a developmental trajectory of alt-right identification, with people starting in the populist cluster and then moving into the supremacist cluster as they acquire more alt-right friends—a possibility consistent our finding that those in the supremacist cluster were relatively ideologically embedded among fellow alt-righters. Becoming more embedded within alt-right social networks may further motivate people to express prejudice, both for value-based and normative reasons, causing more dehumanization and aggression. People in the two clusters may also simply have different personalities, a possibility consistent with the finding that those in the supremacist cluster reported higher Dark Triad scores.

Regardless, our findings clearly suggest that blatant, explicit forms of intergroup bias deserve continued empirical attention(see Forscher et al., 2015; Kteily et al., 2015; Kteily & Bruneau, in press). Despite psychology’s rich history of examining intentional and/or blatant intergroup bias (e.g., Adorno et al., 1950; Westie, 1964; Pettigrew, 1958), contemporary intergroup research focuses on more subtle forms (e.g., Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2002; see Forscher & Devine, 2015). This pattern suggests an unstated—and perhaps unduly optimistic—assumption that blatant intergroup bias is a feature of a bygone past. Although our data do not permit statements about the relative prevalence of either alt-right support or blatant intergroup bias, they do support the argument that blatant intergroup bias has by no means disappeared and must be given greater attention in contemporary theorizing on intergroup issues.

Indeed, it was not just the mean levels of these variables that were notable: consistent with the work highlighting the predictive utility of explicit measures(e.g., Kteily et al., 2015; Forscher et al., 2015), we also observed that several explicit measures, including the motivations to express prejudice toward Blacks, relative dehumanization of Blacks versus Whites, social dominance, and right-wing authoritarianism all predicted self-reported aggression and support for race-based collective action. The fact that these constructs uniquely predicted separate outcomes supports the view that these variables have both discriminant and predictive validity and should be considered in combination rather than isolation. Of particular note, ascent dehumanization appears to be more than a motivation to express negativity toward a group, and the motivations to express prejudice appear to be more than blatant dehumanization.

Limitations

This study is not without its limitations.Our study is cross-sectional, so it can only speak strongly to the correlates rather than causes of alt-right membership.We also only measured a subset of potentially relevant variables, likely capturing an incomplete psychological profile of the alt-right. Of particular interest is whether alt-right adherents differ on variables like the full moral foundations questionnaire (we were only able to measure purity reliably), status anxiety, and trait-based trust.

Our participants were also recruited through convenience sampling. Thus, we cannot speak to whether the psychological profile we documented generalizes to either other alt-right members or other insurgent right-wing political movements. Lastly, our sampling depended on alt-right participants self-reporting their identification, which raises the possibility that they were lying (Chandler & Paolacci, 2017). We do not think this is likely for at least two reasons. First,we probed for alt-right membership a second time once the survey was complete, and ensured participants had no incentive to lie. Second, our participants’ free responses (available at(https://osf.io/xge8q/) match our quantitative findings and use terminology unique to the alt-right subculture. For example, several respondents used insults specific to the alt-right (e.g., “cuckservative”, “snowflake”) and dismissed accusations of racism on grounds of racial realism. One respondent answered the question, “What are your thoughts when people claim the alt-right is racist?” with the following:

[...] If it were not for Europeans, there would be nothing but the third world. Racist really needs defined. Is it racist to not want your community flooded with 3,000 low IQ blacks from the Congo? I would suggest almost everyone would not. It is not racist to want to live among your own. [...] Through media [the Jews] lie about the Holohoax, and the slave trade. Jews were the slave traders, not Europeans.. many people don't even understand these simple things.[...]

We believe a person merely lying for money is unlikely to generate this kind of response.

Conclusion

Our work takes an important step toward examining the psychology underlying identification with the alt-right. Our work reveals support both for portrayals that emphasize their anti-establishment sentiments and those that highlight supremacist tendencies.The group also appears to have some extremist elements. Given the rise in hate groups since Trump’s election (Potok, 2017),and in light of recent calls for social scientists investigate the causes of extremism(Nature Human Behavior, 2017; Baez et al.,2017), understanding the psychological roots of the alt-right and other similar groups is a high priority for future research.

SOURCE - The study itself

[Independent voter]

I'm not sure what the difference between the alt-right is and your old fashioned racist. Can somebody tell me?

[Deleted]

I'm not sure what the difference between the alt-right is and your old fashioned racist. Can somebody tell me?

New name is mostly a marketing thing.

Extreme right/left wing people are all nuts and I am tired of these threads too. What else is going on in the world?

[elaina]

Pretty much it is a re-branding to try to gain a foothold in public support.

[Strangebrew]

and feminists at 57.

Guess alt-right is wrong afterall, it should be lower.

[Gamer8585]

I'm not sure what the difference between the alt-right is and your old fashioned racist. Can somebody tell me?

They traded pointy hoods and bed-sheets for polos and khakis.

Otherwise its the same dangerous combination of mouthbreathers and sociopaths its always been.

[Cerilis]

What an odd chart. As long as there isn't something like actual proto-humans like Australopithecus as one of the groups, wouldnt you score everything at 100?

[Deleted]

So it's an Opinion based Study done on Self-referencing participants of a known group of Trolls and Provocateurs. That should surely end well for a functional Psychological study.

[elaina]

What an odd chart. As long as there isn't something like actual proto-humans like Australopithecus as one of the groups, wouldnt you score everything at 100?

Yes. And the control group scores everyone 80+ on average vs 50s for AR.

- - - Updated - - -

So it's an Opinion based Study done on Self-referencing participants of a known group of Trolls and Provocateurs. That should surely end well for a functional Psychological study.

Do you think they are incentivized to make themselves look bad? The end of the discussion section goes over these external validity problems as well.

[GennGreymane]

Don;t worry. As an evil reptilian Jew I am supposedly going to replace them.

[Trollhammer]

"The study hasn’t been peer-reviewed yet"

[Powerogue]

I can't even follow their insane troll logic.

"On average, they rated Muslims at a 55.4 (again, out of 100), Democrats at 60.4, black people at 64.7, Mexicans at 67.7, journalists at 58.6, Jews at 73, and feminists at 57. These groups appear as subhumans to those taking the survey. And what about white people? They were scored at a noble 91.8. (You can look through all the data here.)"

So if someone was a black muslim democrat journalist with a heritage of mexican jews would it be additive or multiplicitively not-human? If it's additive would you eventually become negative-human? Not to mention how does this square with chimpanzees sharing 98.8% DNA with humans? If a banana is ~50% human, are all muslims bananas?



Not to mention if "white people" are only 91.8%, what are they using as a standard to gauge all this?

[Sunseeker]

So if someone was a black muslim democrat journalist with a heritage of mexican jews would it be additive or multiplicitively not-human? If it's additive would you eventually become negative-human? Not to mention how does this square with chimpanzees sharing 98.8% DNA with humans? If a banana is ~50% human, are all muslims bananas?

It's inversely exponential until they reach "anti-human" status.

[Dr Assbandit]

I can't even follow their insane troll logic.

"On average, they rated Muslims at a 55.4 (again, out of 100), Democrats at 60.4, black people at 64.7, Mexicans at 67.7, journalists at 58.6, Jews at 73, and feminists at 57. These groups appear as subhumans to those taking the survey. And what about white people? They were scored at a noble 91.8. (You can look through all the data here.)"

So if someone was a black muslim democrat journalist with a heritage of mexican jews would it be additive or multiplicitively not-human? If it's additive would you eventually become negative-human? Not to mention how does this square with chimpanzees sharing 98.8% DNA with humans? If a banana is ~50% human, are all muslims bananas?



Not to mention if "white people" are only 91.8%, what are they using as a standard to gauge all this?

TIL I'm a 50% human banana confirmed.

[Ryme]

Amusing but the sample is pretty... weak (offering some strangers on the internet $3 on the internet, filter out those who define alt-right via wikipedia). Study offers not much more than a few laughs at people on the internet.

[Dr Assbandit]

Amusing but the sample is pretty... weak. Study offers not much more than a few laughs at people on the internet.

Also hasn't been peer-reviewed. You can publish any number of nonsensical garbage to actually valuable information, they won't hold proper significance until they are broken down by experts in their field.

[Rooflesstoofless]

Isnt anyone who is racist have to put others humanity behind their own superiority?

I'm pretty sure Muslims are going to rank Jews and pork eating Christians lower than their own. Plenty of Mexicans out there that think their La Raza is superior to whites and especially blacks.

[melodramocracy]

Actually, it's about ethics in white supremacy.

- - - Updated - - -

Isnt anyone who is racist have to put others humanity behind their own superiority?

I'm pretty sure Muslims are going to rank Jews and pork eating Christians lower than their own. Plenty of Mexicans out there that think their La Raza is superior to whites and especially blacks.

To some degree, sure. I'm not sure I necessarily classify that as racism though. Wanting nothing to do with another person's culture doesn't mean I think they're a lesser person than me, I just have no desire to be involved in various aspects of said culture.

[Shibito]

Kinda broad stroke to take everyone at once isnt it?

[elaina]

Isnt anyone who is racist have to put others humanity behind their own superiority?

I'm pretty sure Muslims are going to rank Jews and pork eating Christians lower than their own. Plenty of Mexicans out there that think their La Raza is superior to whites and especially blacks.

To some degree, sure. I'm not sure I necessarily classify that as racism though. Wanting nothing to do with another person's culture doesn't mean I think they're a lesser person than me, I just have no desire to be involved in various aspects of said culture.

There's a stark difference between pride or even mild racism and this, which is blatantly calling other races subhuman/ unevolved.