Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T08:02:20.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Populism and Candidate Support in the US: The Effects of “Thin” and “Host” Ideology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2022

Bruno Castanho Silva
Affiliation:
Cologne Center for Comparative Politics, University of Cologne, Herbert-Lewin Str. 2, 50931 Cologne, Germany
Fabian Guy Neuner
Affiliation:
School of Politics and Global Studies, Arizona State University, Lattie F. Coor Hall, 975 S. Myrtle Ave, Tempe, AZ 85281, USA
Christopher Wratil*
Affiliation:
University of Vienna, Department of Government, Rooseveltplatz 3/1, 1090, Vienna, Austria
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Much of the contemporary literature on populism focuses on its status as a “thin” ideology comprising three key components: people-centrism, anti-elitism, and anti-pluralism. Populist politicians pair this “thin” ideology with extreme positions on policy issues such as immigration or taxation (referred to as “host” or “thick” ideologies). A recent study using German samples leveraged conjoint experiments to disentangle the effects of these appeals on vote choice. The results not only showed that extreme host-ideological positions mattered more than so-called “thin” populist appeals, but also that effects of populist appeals were nearly identical among populist and non-populist voters. Our replication in the US context reaffirms both the importance of host-ideological positions and the lack of heterogeneous effects by voters’ “thin” populist attitudes. Furthermore, by uncovering some divergence from the German case (e.g. anti-elite appeals trumping people-centric appeals), we highlight the need to experimentally examine the effects of populism’s constituent components across contexts.

Type
Replication Study
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained prior to any commercial use.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Experimental Research Section of the American Political Science Association

Introduction

As populists score electoral victories across the globe, from India to the US to Hungary, the extant political science literature has begun to converge on a common understanding of populism. The so-called Ideational approach (Hawkins et al., Reference Hawkins, Carlin, Littvay and Rovira Kaltwasser2018) posits that populism is a “thin-centered” ideology (Mudde, Reference Mudde2004), meaning that it comprises a few basic tenets but can be combined with a range of different “host” (or “thick”) ideologies from across the political spectrum. The three basic components of populism are: a) people-centrism: a romanticized view of common people and a belief that implementing the people’s will is the only goal of democratic politics; b) anti-elitism: perceiving existing political or economic elites as an evil group keen on oppressing common people; and c) anti-pluralism: the belief that politics is a struggle between good (the people) and evil (the elites), in which there are no other meaningful cleavages (e.g. Aslanidis, Reference Aslanidis2016; Canovan, Reference Canovan1981; Canovan, Reference Canovan1999; Hawkins and Kaltwasser, Reference Hawkins and Rovira Kaltwasser2017).

Empirical research relying on observational data has consistently found that populist attitudes, operationalized based on this “thin” ideology definition, predict support for populist parties and politicians, alongside voters’ particular, extreme issue positions (e.g. Akkerman, Mudde and Zaslove, Reference Akkerman, Mudde and Zaslove2014; Castanho Silva et al., Reference Castanho Silva, Jungkunz, Helbling and Littvay2020; Hawkins, Kaltwasser and Andreadis, Reference Hawkins, Rovira Kaltwasser and Andreadis2020; Hieda, Zenkyo and Nishikawa, Reference Hieda, Zenkyo and Nishikawa2019; Marcos-Marne, Plaza-Colodro and Freyburg, Reference Marcos-Marne, Plaza-Colodro and Freyburg2020; Van Hauwaert and Van Kessel, Reference Van Hauwaert and Van Kessel2018). However, little is known about which components of this thin populist ideology are driving this support and how these factors combine with the host ideologies – such as anti-immigration or pro-redistribution stances – that populist politicians adopt. Indeed, Art (Reference Art2020) recently argued that the emphasis on thin ideology is obscuring the role of nativism as the defining feature of populism. More generally, Hunger and Paxton (Reference Hunger and Paxton2021) argue that researchers often conflate populism with host ideology and suggest that scholars clarify whether they are examining the role of thin ideology (e.g. people-centric or anti-elite appeals) or of substantive issue positions (i.e. the host ideology).

Some studies have sought to disentangle the role of host ideologies and thin populist ideology as well as their constitutive components. Research on support for radical right parties has long highlighted the importance of left-right ideology and issue attitudes, in particular anti-immigrant sentiment (i.e. a key host ideology), while finding little evidence for explanations related to thin populist ideology, such as voters’ protest motives (e.g. Van der Brug, Fennema, and Tillie, Reference Van der Brug, Fennema and Tillie2000; Van der Brug, Fennema, and Tillie, Reference Van der Brug, Fennema and Tillie2005). More generally, Loew and Faas (Reference Loew and Faas2019) show that the much touted trifecta of people-centrism, anti-elitism, and anti-pluralism only partially explains support, and that issue positions have at least as large an impact, while Bakker, Schumacher and Rooduijn (Reference Bakker, Schumacher and Rooduijn2021) show that both anti-establishment and host ideology messages matter and that different personality traits moderate these relationships. In a different vein, Busby, Gubler, Hawkins (Reference Busby, Gubler and Hawkins2019) show that framing populist rhetoric using dispositional blame as opposed to situational blame increases support for populists, and that this effect is moderated by populist attitudes.

Neuner and Wratil (Reference Neuner and Wratil2022) were among the first to approach this issue experimentally using conjoint experiments fielded on representative samples in Germany. Their results suggest that while some thin people-centric political priorities appeal to voters, others such as anti-elite appeals do not. Importantly, the authors found no evidence for differential effects of these appeals by respondents’ populist attitudes. Moreover, positions on host ideology issues such as redistribution and immigration exerted greater influence on populist respondents’ vote choice. Footnote 1 However, as Neuner and Wratil (Reference Neuner and Wratil2022, p. 563) themselves note, the German case might not be generalizable, and thus the design should be replicated across a variety of contexts. We take up this call and replicate their design in a different context: the US in 2019, which featured a populist president in office (Hawkins and Littvay, Reference Hawkins and Littvay2019), a different party and electoral system as well as different dimensions of political competition. Our findings suggest that Neuner and Wratil’s (Reference Neuner and Wratil2022) main results hold: the most effective populist appeal is a host ideology appeal and there are no heterogeneous effects by respondents’ thin populist attitudes. In contrast to the original study, however, we find limited effects of thin people-centric appeals but a strong effect of an anti-elite appeal criticizing political parties, suggesting that the power of various thin priorities differs across contexts. These results confirm the need for a reappraisal of research on populist attitudes, which seems to overemphasize the role of thin ideology, while overlooking the actual issue positions that attract voters to populists.

The Original Study

Neuner and Wratil (Reference Neuner and Wratil2022) leverage conjoint experiments to evaluate which components of candidates’ populist ideology garner electoral support. Their paired conjoint design presents respondents with five pairs of fictitious candidates who exhibit a range of different attributes, and in each of the five rounds respondents have to choose which of the two candidates they would rather vote for in a “Bundestag” election. Candidates’ populism is operationalized with six attributes. First, candidates are described as having a first and second political priority, which can include populist valence issues such as “Overthrow the political elite” or “Strengthen direct democracy,” but also non-populist priorities such as “Fight crime” or “Promote economic growth.” Second, candidates’ descriptions include their positions on four host ideology issues on which populist parties often embrace a particular position: a) refugees (with levels ranging from accepting many to deporting many); b) taxation of the rich (from much lower to much higher taxes); c) position on the EU (from more integration to leaving the EU); and d) trade and globalization (from much more to much less). Positions advocating for the deportation of refugees are usually linked to right-wing populism, whereas positions advocating for the taxation of the rich are associated with left-wing populism, while anti-globalization as well as anti-EU stances unite both left- and right-wing populists. Footnote 2 The authors also measure respondents’ populist attitudes with a range of items extending the commonly used populist attitudes scale developed by Akkerman, Mudde and Zaslove (Reference Akkerman, Mudde and Zaslove2014).

The original study finds that, among the general public, two ideological positions often held by populists increase the probability of a candidate being chosen (deporting many refugees and taxing the rich), while two issue positions often held by populists decrease that probability (Euroscepticism and being anti-globalization). Regarding thin populist appeals, the people-centric “Strengthen direct democracy” and “Defend citizens’ interests” increase support, while the anti-elite “Overthrow the political elite” is a clear electoral liability and “End the abuse of power by the parties” has no effect. When breaking the results down by voters’ pretreatment thin populist attitudes, Neuner and Wratil (Reference Neuner and Wratil2022, p. 567) find that these attitudes have little impact: there are “virtually no differences in the appeal of populist priorities by populist attitudes. Thin populists are not significantly more swayed by thin populist appeals than non-populists or thick populists.”

Adapting the Design to the American Context

Replicating Neuner and Wratil (Reference Neuner and Wratil2022) in the US context is important. First, while the US has a history of populist movements, it traditionally lacks major parties commonly classified as “populist” (such as the AfD or other right-wing parties in Europe), thus providing a party system context that differs markedly from the German and many European cases. That said, the recent rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders as well as the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements have reignited debates about populism in the US (Oliver and Rahn, Reference Oliver and Rahn2016; Bonikowski, Reference Bonikowski2016). Though note, Art (Reference Art2020) points out that it is questionable whether the defining feature of prominent US populists such as George Wallace or Donald Trump is (thin) populism or nativism (i.e. a host ideology), thus highlighting the need to disentangle the two. Second, empirical research on the impact of individual-level populist attitudes on vote choice has been largely confined to Europe and Latin America (e.g. Andreadis et al., Reference Andreadis, Hawkins, Llamazares, Singer, Hawkins, Carlin, Littvay and Kaltwasser2018; Van Hauwaert and Van Kessel Reference Van Hauwaert and Van Kessel2018).

To closely replicate the original study, we framed the experiment in terms of a choice between two candidates in a Congressional election (as the counterpart to the “Bundestag”), without providing party labels (see Online Appendix C and discussion in the conclusion). Footnote 3 However, we adapted the design slightly to ensure that attributes reflect salient domains of US party competition. A side-by-side comparison of the original German conjoint and our US conjoint is presented in Online Appendix Table A.2. For candidates’ priorities, we deleted the context-specific priorities “Lead Germany out of the crisis” and “Create a social Europe” but included “End the abuse of power by the parties,” a less charged anti-elite appeal that Neuner and Wratil (Reference Neuner and Wratil2022) used in their amended design. Footnote 4 For candidates’ positions, we changed the immigration attribute from being about “refugees” to “legal immigrants,” which better reflected the US discourse at the time. Lastly, we replaced the EU cooperation issue with the issue of military intervention, which constitutes a similarly isolationist foreign policy perspective that makes sense in the US context. As isolationism and non-interventionism constitute populist positions in Jacksonian, Tea Party, and Trumpian populist narratives (see e.g. Mead, Reference Mead2011; Lacatus, Reference Lacatus2020; Kazin, Reference Kazin2016), we consider advocating for “much less military intervention” to represent the populist position.

A central concern in Neuner and Wratil (Reference Neuner and Wratil2022) was examining heterogeneous effects by both thin populist attitudes and positions on host ideology issues commonly associated with populism (referred to as “thick” populist attitudes in the original study). Briefly, to capture thin populist attitudes, we construct a latent variable model based on items from the Akkerman, Mudde and Zaslove (Reference Akkerman, Mudde and Zaslove2014) populist attitudes scale as well as additional items suggested by Castanho Silva et al. (Reference Castanho Silva, Jungkunz, Helbling and Littvay2020) and classify respondents below the mean as “non-populists” and those above the mean as “populists.” Footnote 5 Following Neuner and Wratil (Reference Neuner and Wratil2022), we also attempted to measure populist host ideology attitudes (i.e. views toward legal immigration, globalization, taxation of the rich, etc.). However, contrary to the German case, these variables failed to load onto a single factor, suggesting that these views are less consistently correlated in the US. Consequently, given the importance of partisanship in the US, we disaggregate the results by thin populist attitudes as well as partisanship. Online Appendix E provides comprehensive information on the measurement of populist attitudes.

Data

We fielded our experiment on a broad national sample of US adults (n = 3,024) provided by Lucid with quotas for gender, age, ethnicity, and region between July 30 and August 4, 2019 (Castanho Silva, Neuner and Wratil, Reference Castanho Silva, Neuner and Wratil2022). Estimates from Lucid samples have been shown to converge to those from US high-quality probability samples and to outperform convenience samples such as Amazon’s MTurk (Coppock and McClellan, Reference Coppock and McClellan2019). Only half of the sample was randomly allocated to participate in the conjoint discussed here, and thus the resulting sample size for this experiment is 1,505. Including leaners, 39% of respondents identify as Republicans, 48% as Democrats, and 13% as Independents, which is in line with estimates from probability samples (e.g. ANES) (see also Online Appendix A).

Results

Figure 1 shows the results of our experiment for the full sample. Footnote 6 The estimates are marginal means (MMs) and the dashed line denotes the 0.5 probability of a candidate being chosen, meaning that estimates to the left indicate that the attribute level has a negative effect on vote choice, while estimates to the right signify a positive effect. Footnote 7 Among the thin populist priorities, we find that some lead to increased support among the general public: “Fight political corruption,” “End the abuse of power by the parties,” and “Defend citizens’ interests.” However, “Overthrow the political elite” and “Strengthen direct democracy” have negative albeit nonsignificant effects on the probability of the candidate being chosen. In contrast to Neuner and Wratil (Reference Neuner and Wratil2022), our results suggest a stronger appeal of “soft” anti-elitism in the US. While Germans were very clearly repelled by the idea of overthrowing the political elite, this effect is much smaller and marginally not significant in the US. In addition, appealing to “End the abuse of power by the parties” is a significant electoral asset for candidates in the US – but had no effect on candidate choice in Germany. In turn, people-centric appeals had some consistent, positive effects in Germany, whereas in the US, “Defend citizens’ interests” is a small asset but “Strengthen direct democracy” presents a liability.

Figure 1 Marginal means of attribute levels. Notes: Marginal means; 95% confidence intervals as horizontal bars; dashed line indicates Pr(Y = 1) = 0.5.

Regarding populist host ideology positions, we find that the populist call for higher taxes on the rich also resonates in the US. Like in Germany, populist anti-globalization stances do not garner support. The effects of anti-immigrant positions are similar in structure but clearly muted in the US. We also find that the populist position of “less military intervention” significantly increases support. In Figure 2, we zoom in on those attribute levels representing populist priorities and positions and examine whether their effects vary by respondents’ populist attitudes. In line with the German results, we find no evidence for effect heterogeneity by thin populist attitudes, as both populist and non-populist US respondents react to candidates’ populist positions on host ideology issues (top panel) as well as thin populist priorities (bottom panel) in the same manner. This is particularly noteworthy for the thin populist priorities (e.g. “End the abuse of power by the parties”), as populist attitudes scales were developed to capture voters’ preferences on precisely such appeals. In fact, none of the differences in MMs between populist and non-populist respondents are close to being statistically significant. Footnote 8

Figure 2 Marginal means of populist positions (top) and priorities (bottom) by respondents’ populist attitudes. Notes: Marginal means; 95% confidence intervals as horizontal bars; dashed line indicates Pr(Y = 1) = 0.5.

Next, we disaggregate the results of the populist attribute levels by respondents’ partisanship in Figure 3 given its importance in the US context (see also Online Appendix G). First, compared to Republicans, Democrats prefer candidates who support much higher taxes on the rich and reject those who want to greatly decrease the number of legal immigrants, reflecting both parties’ stances on these issues. Second, regarding thin populist priorities, the results corroborate the finding that the effect of thin populist appeals is largely homogeneous across individuals, as differences between the groups are small, except for the “Defend citizens’ interests” position, which significantly increases support among Republicans but not Democrats or Independents. There are no other priorities for which we find a statistically significant difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Figure 3 Marginal means of populist positions (top) and priorities (bottom) by respondents’ partisanship. Notes: Marginal means; 95% confidence intervals as horizontal bars; dashed line indicates Pr(Y = 1) = 0.5.

Conclusion

Scholars who find that populist attitudes predict support for populist parties in observational studies usually interpret this as evidence that voters are drawn to those parties because of the thin ideological components of the parties’ populist discourse. Neuner and Wratil (Reference Neuner and Wratil2022) use conjoint experiments and show that this is not the case in Germany, and we substantively replicate this finding in the US. First, we find that a populist issue appeal (taxing the rich) has the largest effect on candidate support. Second, while some thin populist priorities such as fighting corruption and combating party elites increase support, they do so universally rather than being moderated by respondents’ populist attitudes. This raises doubts about whether “populist voters” are uniquely mobilized by populist appeals and/or whether current survey scales measuring thin populist attitudes truly capture a disposition that influences populist voting.

One caveat worth noting is that we did not include party labels in the experiment. We did so primarily to closely mirror the original study. Moreover, as noted above, there was no moderation by thin populist attitudes in the original study. As party labels tend to diminish or crowd out other effects on candidate choice (Kirkland and Coppock, Reference Kirkland and Coppock2018), we wanted to ensure that any replication of a null finding on populist attitudes in the US could not simply be due to the inclusion of party labels. That said, we conducted exploratory analyses to probe whether the inclusion of party labels would possibly change our results and whether populist appeals would be more persuasive if tested in a party primary setting, where thin ideological appeals may be more influential (see Online Appendices I and J). Despite low power, these analyses provide suggestive evidence that when respondents can infer the candidate’s party label from their host ideology positions, this does not seem to alter the effect of other attributes. Moreover, they provide no evidence that the effect of thin populist attitudes would be heightened in contests where candidates with similar host ideology are pitted against one another (i.e. a primary setting). Future research should more directly test how populist appeals fare in experimental settings where party labels are varied or where respondents are asked to choose between candidates from the same party.

In conclusion, our findings echo those of Neuner and Wratil (Reference Neuner and Wratil2022) in suggesting that the role of thin populist attitudes may be exaggerated, and that the typical populist positions on host ideology issues should play a more central role in our explanations of the global rise of populism. Finally, by uncovering some divergence from the German case in the precise components of populism that matter to voters (e.g. anti-elite as opposed to people-centric appeals), we further highlight the need to disaggregate populism into its constituent parts and to experimentally examine the effects of these various components across contexts.

Supplementary material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2022.9

Data availability

Support for this research was provided by the Center for Social and Economic Behavior (C-SEB) at the University of Cologne. The data and code required to replicate all analyses in this article are available at the Journal of Experimental Political Science Dataverse within the Harvard Dataverse Network, at: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/5AEGPM (Castanho Silva, Neuner and Wratil, Reference Castanho Silva, Neuner and Wratil2022).

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Ethics statement

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences at the University of Cologne. The research adheres to APSA’s Principles and Guidance for Human Subjects Research. The study used no deception and participants provided informed consent. Additional information regarding ethics and reporting standards is provided in Online Appendix B.

Footnotes

This article has earned badges for transparent research practices: Open Data and Open Materials. For details see the Data Availability Statement.

1 While Neuner and Wratil (Reference Neuner and Wratil2022) refer to these as “thick” ideology positions, we adopt the more common terminology of “host” ideology positions.

2 A list with all attributes and their levels is presented in Online Appendix Table A.2.

3 Like in the original study respondents completed five choice tasks in each of which they had to choose between two candidates.

4 We also slightly amended the “Stop Islamization” priority to “Prevent Islamization,” to better reflect the US context.

5 We report results using an alternative classification using quartiles in Online Appendix H.

6 Our results are virtually identical when we exclude 13% of respondents who failed an attention check (see Online Appendix J).

7 In presenting marginal means (Leeper, Hobolt and Tilley, Reference Leeper, Hobolt and Tilley2020), we follow the empirical approach in Neuner and Wratil (Reference Neuner and Wratil2022), rather than relying on average marginal component effects (AMCEs) (Hainmueller, Hopkins and Yamamoto, Reference Hainmueller, Hopkins and Yamamoto2014).

8 For three attributes (military intervention, globalization, and defending citizens’ interests), we find significant deviations from the grand mean for populist but not non-populist respondents. However, we cannot reject the null hypothesis of no differential treatment effects between the two groups.

References

Akkerman, Agnes, Mudde, Cas and Zaslove, Andrej. 2014. How Populist are the People? Measuring Populist Attitudes in Voters. Comparative Political Studies 47(9):13241353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreadis, Ioannis, Hawkins, Kirk A, Llamazares, Ivan and Singer, Matthew. 2018. “Conditional Populist voting in Chile, Greece, Spain, and Bolivia.” The Ideational Approach to Populism: Concept, Theory, and Method, edited by Hawkins, Kirk A., Carlin, Ryan E., Littvay, Levente, and Kaltwasser, Cristóbal Rovira. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Art, David. 2020. The Myth of Global Populism. Perspectives on Politics pp. 113.Google Scholar
Aslanidis, Paris. 2016. Is Populism an Ideology? A Refutation and a New Perspective. Political Studies 64(1): 88104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, Bert N, Schumacher, Gijs and Rooduijn, Matthijs. 2021. The Populist Appeal: Personality and Antiestablishment Communication. The Journal of Politics 83(2): 589601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonikowski, Bart. 2016. Three Lessons of Contemporary Populism in Europe and the United States. The Brown Journal of World Affairs 23: 9.Google Scholar
Busby, Ethan C, Gubler, Joshua R and Hawkins, Kirk A. 2019. Framing and Blame Attribution in Populist Rhetoric. The Journal of Politics 81(2): 616630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canovan, Margaret. 1981. Populism. London: Junction Books.Google Scholar
Canovan, Margaret. 1999. Trust the People! Populism and the Two Faces of Democracy. Political Studies 47(1): 216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castanho Silva, Bruno, Neuner, Fabian G. and Wratil, Christopher. 2022. Replication Data for: Populism and Candidate Support in the US: The Effects of “Thin” and “Host” Ideology. URL: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/5AEGPM CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castanho Silva, Bruno, Jungkunz, Sebastian, Helbling, Marc and Littvay, Levente. 2020. An Empirical Comparison of Seven Populist Attitudes Scales. Political Research Quarterly 73(2): 409424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, Alexander and McClellan, Oliver A.. 2019. Validating the Demographic, Political, Psychological, and Experimental Results Obtained from a New Source of Online Survey Respondents. Research and Politics 6(1): 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, Jens, Hopkins, Daniel J and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2014. Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments. Political Analysis 22(1): 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, Kirk A and Rovira Kaltwasser, Cristóbal. 2017. The Ideational Approach to Populism. Latin American Research Review 52: 513528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, Kirk A, Rovira Kaltwasser, Cristóbal and Andreadis, Ioannis. 2020. The Activation of Populist Attitudes. Government and Opposition 55(2): 283307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, Kirk A, Carlin, Ryan, Littvay, Levente and Rovira Kaltwasser, Cristóbal. 2018. The Ideational Approach to Populism: Theory, Method & Analysis. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, Kirk and Littvay, Levente. 2019. Contemporary US Populism in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hieda, Takeshi, Zenkyo, Masahiro and Nishikawa, Masaru. 2019. Do Populists Support Populism? An Examination through an Online Survey Following the 2017 Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly Election. Party Politics 27: 112.Google Scholar
Hunger, Sophia and Paxton, Fred. 2021. What’s in a Buzzword? A Systematic Review of the State of Populism Research in Political Science. Political Science Research and Methods (forthcoming (accepted for publication: August 2021)).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kazin, Michael. 2016. Trump and American Populism: Old Whine, New Bottles. Foreign Affairs 95: 17.Google Scholar
Kirkland, Patricia A and Coppock, Alexander. 2018. Candidate Choice without Party Labels. Political Behavior 40(3): 571591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacatus, Corina. 2020. Populism and President Trump’s Approach to Foreign Policy: An Analysis of Tweets and Rally Speeches. Politics 41: 0263395720935380.Google Scholar
Leeper, Thomas J, Hobolt, Sara B and Tilley, James. 2020. Measuring Subgroup Preferences in Conjoint Experiments. Political Analysis 28(2): 207221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loew, Nicole and Faas, Thorsten. 2019. Between Thin-and Host-Ideologies: How Populist Attitudes Interact with Policy Preferences in Shaping Voting Behaviour. Representation 55(4): 493511.10.1080/00344893.2019.1643772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcos-Marne, Hugo, Plaza-Colodro, Carolina and Freyburg, Tina. 2020. Who Votes for New Parties? Economic Voting, Political Ideology and Populist Attitudes. West European Politics 43(1): 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mead, Walter Russell. 2011. The Tea Party and American Foreign Policy: What Populism Means for Globalism. Foreign Affairs 90: 2844.Google Scholar
Mudde, Cas. 2004. The Populist Zeitgeist. Government and Opposition 39(4): 542563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuner, Fabian G and Wratil, Christopher. 2022. The Populist Marketplace: Unpacking the Role of “Thin” and “Thick” Ideology. Political Behavior 44: 551574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, J Eric and Rahn, Wendy M. 2016. Rise of the Trumpenvolk: Populism in the 2016 Election. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 667(1): 189206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Brug, Wouter, Fennema, Meindert and Tillie, Jean. 2000. Anti-immigrant Parties in Europe: Ideological or Protest Vote? European Journal of Political Research 37(1): 77102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Brug, Wouter, Fennema, Meindert and Tillie, Jean. 2005. Why Some Anti-immigrant Parties Fail and Others Succeed: A Two-step Model of Aggregate Electoral Support. Comparative Political Studies 38(5): 537573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Hauwaert, Steven M and Van Kessel, Stijn. 2018. Beyond Protest and Discontent: A Cross-national Analysis of the Effect of Populist Attitudes and Issue Positions on Populist Party Support. European Journal of Political Research 57(1): 6892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1 Marginal means of attribute levels. Notes: Marginal means; 95% confidence intervals as horizontal bars; dashed line indicates Pr(Y = 1) = 0.5.

Figure 1

Figure 2 Marginal means of populist positions (top) and priorities (bottom) by respondents’ populist attitudes. Notes: Marginal means; 95% confidence intervals as horizontal bars; dashed line indicates Pr(Y = 1) = 0.5.

Figure 2

Figure 3 Marginal means of populist positions (top) and priorities (bottom) by respondents’ partisanship. Notes: Marginal means; 95% confidence intervals as horizontal bars; dashed line indicates Pr(Y = 1) = 0.5.

Supplementary material: Link

Castanho Silva et al. Dataset

Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Castanho Silva et al. supplementary material

Castanho Silva et al. supplementary material

Download Castanho Silva et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 623.9 KB