69 2 Theory – positive distinctiveness and in-group favoritism The outcomes of this research were somewhat surprising to me. Before I gathered the data for this paper, I expected minority and woman voters to prefer in-group politicians over their out-group counterparts in an effort to achieve, what Social Identity Theory calls, positive distinctiveness through in-group favoritism (Tajfel and Turner, 1979), the tendency to seek a favorable comparison of one’s self (positive distinctiveness) through preferring members of one’s own group (in-group favoritism) (Haslam, 2001: 21). Indeed, there is much literature on the importance of descriptive representation for minorities (Mansbridge, 1999; Williams, 2000; Young, 2000) and I expected minority voters to follow these same lines of thought. I, therefore, preregistered hypotheses stating that minorities (voters with a migration background, Muslims and women) prefer their in-group over their out-group (Hypotheses 1a,b,c). Even though I found very limited evidence for all three of these hypotheses, I still see it as important to outline how I came to these expectations prior to gathering the data because it speaks to the literatures that helped form my expectations. I had mistakenly assumed that in-group favoritism is a universal phenomenon, despite the pioneers in Social Identity Theory specifying specific conditions under which this occurs (Tajfel and Turner 1979: 36). After presenting H1a, b and c, I highlight how individuals can be incentivized to consider alternative strategies to achieve positive distinctiveness without in-group favoritism and the role social status plays in these dynamics. I also outline the mechanisms that can lead to these alternative strategies, with a stronger preference for substantive over descriptive representation as an outcome, culminating in a hypothesis that contrasts identity and policy, suggesting that sharing the same policy position is ultimately the most important driver for vote choice. In-group favoritism as a strategy to achieve positive distinctiveness Migration background In the US, evidence shows that shared ethnic/racial identification influences voting choices for candidates (Burge et al., 2020; Schildkraut, 2017). Similarly, studies outside the US also suggest co-ethnic preferences in politics (Aguilar, Cunow, Desposato, et al., 2015; Chauchard, 2016; Poertner, 2022). In Europe, ethnicity is typically measured through migration background. Causes of voters preferring a shared migration background are concerns over immigration-related topics (Bergh and Bjørklund, 2011) and the concentration of immigrants in a particular neighborhood (Vermeulen et al., 2020). Other mechanisms mediating a co-ethnicity-effect are the assumed greater societal respect the in-group will receive (Ruedin, 2009), showing the public your group has “ability to rule” (Mansbridge, 1999: 628), a “survival strategy” when faced with a lack of societal acceptance (hooks 1995 as cited in Lemi and Brown, 2019: 272),
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw