Competing Loyalties: How Beliefs Shape Voting When Identities Clash

Abstract

Introduction

Voting is often portrayed as a rational act based on policy preferences, where individuals support candidates whose platforms align with their economic self-interest. However, real-world behavior often does not correspond to this assumption. People routinely vote against their material interests, for instance, migrants supporting anti-immigration parties [1] or low-income individuals opposing redistribution policies that would benefit them [2]. These contradictions point to a more complex understanding of voter behavior, where social identities such as ethnicity, class, and ideology play a central role. In contemporary politics, identity often outweighs policy. Even as voters maintain overlapping views on specific policy issues, political identities have become increasingly polarized. Voter loyalty, ideological rigidity, and affective partisanship are rising, indicating that identity can, in many cases, override issue-based considerations at the ballot box.

Theoretical Background

Recent cognitive models of political behavior question the assumption that identity and policy preferences are evaluated independently. Instead, they propose that they compete for limited cognitive resources, with the more salient dimension disproportionately influencing decision-making. Jenke and Huettel propose that when identity cues are made salient, policy considerations are cognitively suppressed, and vice versa [3]. This tradeoff is particularly pronounced in individuals with cross-cutting identities, for example, highly skilled members of disadvantaged groups, who must navigate internal tensions between solidarity with their identity group and the pursuit of economic self-interest.

Methodology

This study investigates how voters navigate such tradeoffs by experimentally examining the intersection of identity and skill level in shaping redistribution preferences. A 2x2 between-subjects design will be used to manipulate participants’ group status (privileged vs. disadvantaged) and skill level (high vs. low). The aim is to explore how these factors influence voting decisions and support for redistribution. Participants will also complete belief elicitation tasks to assess their expectations about how proposed policies will affect both themselves and others. To test causality, the study incorporates priming manipulations: in some conditions, participants will be primed to focus on their social identity, while in others, they will be primed to focus on policy outcomes.

Relevance

This study contributes to the growing body of literature that views political choice as a cognitively negotiated process between competing motivations. By combining identity theory, behavioral economics, and cognitive psychology, the research aims to shed light on how structural group memberships interact with individual-level cognition to influence political behavior. The findings may inform the design of political messaging and outreach strategies, particularly in polarized environments where identity-based appeals are prominent. They also carry implications for understanding the limitations of purely rational-choice-based models of voter behavior, especially among individuals who do not fall neatly into one group category.

References

[1] J. Jackson, Immigrants and Anti-Immigration Parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

[2] A. W. Cappelen, E. Ø. Sørensen, and B. Tungodden, “Distributive Justice and the Welfare State,” Science, vol. 375, no. 6585, pp. 1397–1401, Mar. 2022.

[3] L. Jenke and S. A. Huettel, “Issues or Identity? Cognitive Foundations of Voter Choice,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 794–804, Nov. 2016.