How do stigmatized political preferences become normalized? I argue that the parliamentary representation of the radical right normalizes radical right support. Radical right politicians breach established social norms. Hence their supporters have an incentive to conceal that support. When the radical right enters parliament, however, its voters are likely to perceive that their views have been legitimized, becoming more likely to display their private preferences. I use three studies to test this argument. Study 1 employs a regression discontinuity comparing the underreport of voting for radical right parties (RRPs) above and below thresholds of parliamentary representation. Study 2 compares how much individuals report liking RRPs in post-electoral surveys depending on interview mode. Study 3 employs a difference-in-differences that looks into the underreport of UKIP vote before and after entering parliament. The results support the argument and highlight the role of political institutions in defining the acceptability of behaviors in society.
Abou-ChadiT. (2016). Niche party success and mainstream party policy shifts–How green and radical right parties differ in their impact. British Journal of Political Science, 46(2), 417–436.
2.
Abou-ChadiT.KrauseW. (2018). The causal effect of radical right success on mainstream parties’ policy positions: A regression discontinuity approach. British Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123418000029
3.
AndreoniJ.PetrieR. (2004). Public goods experiments without confidentiality: A glimpse into fund-raising. Journal of public Economics, 88(7–8), 1605–1623.
4.
AriasE. (2019). How does media influence social norms? Experimental evidence on the role of common knowledge. Political Science Research and Methods, 7(3), 561–578.
5.
ArielyD.BrachaA.MeierS. (2009). Doing good or doing well? Image motivation and monetary incentives in behaving prosocially. American Economic Review, 99(1), 544–555.
6.
ArzheimerK. (2015). The AfD: Finally a successful right-wing populist eurosceptic party for germany?West European Politics, 38(3), 535–556.
7.
AslanidisP.KaltwasserC. R. (2016). Dealing with populists in government: The SYRIZA-ANEL coalition in Greece. Democratization, 23(6), 1077–1091.
8.
AuersD.KasekampA. (2013). Comparing radical-right populism in Estonia and Latvia. In RuthW.MajidK.BrigitteM. (Eds.), Right-wing populism in Europe: Politics and discourse (pp. 235–248). Bloomsbury.
9.
BakkerR.de VriesC.EdwardsE.HoogheL.JollyS.MarksG.PolkJ.RovnyJ.SteenbergenM.VachudovaM. A. (2015). Measuring party positions in Europe: The Chapel Hill expert survey trend file, 1999–2010. Party Politics, 21(1), 143–152.
10.
BaleT. (2003). Cinderella and her ugly sisters: The mainstream and extreme right in Europe’s bipolarising party systems. West European Politics, 26(3), 67–90.
11.
BaleT.Green-PedersenC.KrouwelA.LutherK. R.SitterN. (2010). If you can’t beat them, join them? Explaining social democratic responses to the challenge from the populist radical right in Western Europe. Political Studies, 58(3), 410–426.
12.
BeamanL.ChattopadhyayR.DufloE.PandeR.TopalovaP. (2009). Powerful women: Does exposure reduce bias? (MIT Press). The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(4), 1497–1540.
13.
BerentM. K.KrosnickJ. A.LupiaA. (2016). Measuring voter registration and turnout in surveys do official government records yield more accurate assessments?Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(3), 597–621.
BernsteinR.ChadhaA.MontjoyR. (2001). Overreporting voting: Why it happens and why it matters. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65(1), 22–44.
16.
BicchieriC. (2017). Norms in the wild: How to diagnose, measure, and change social norms. Oxford University Press.
17.
BicchieriC.MercierH. (2014). Norms and beliefs: How change occurs. In XenitidouM.EdmondsB. (Eds.), The complexity of social norms (pp. 37–54). Springer.
18.
BicchieriC.XiaoE. (2009). Do the right thing: But only if others do so. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 22(2), 191–208.
19.
BilligM. (1991). Ideology and opinions: Studies in rhetorical psychology. SAGE.
20.
BilligM.CondorS.EdwardsD.GaneM.MiddletonD.RadleyA. (1988). Ideological dilemmas: A social psychology of everyday thinking. SAGE.
BlairG.ImaiK. (2012). Statistical analysis of list experiments. Political Analysis, 20(1), 47–77.
23.
BursztynL.EgorovG.FiorinS. (2020). From extreme to mainstream: The erosion of social norms. American Economic Review, 11, 3522–3548.
24.
ByfordJ. (2009). Denial and repression of anti-semitism. Central European University Press.
25.
CalonicoS.CattaneoM. D.FarrellM. H.TitiunikR. (2017). rdrobust: Software for regression discontinuity designs. Stata Journal, 17(2), 372–404.
26.
CalonicoS.CattaneoM. D.TitiunikR. (2014). Robust data-driven inference in the regression-discontinuity design. Stata Journal, 10(2), 1–36.
27.
CantoniD.HagemeisterF.WestcottM. (2017). Persistence and activation of right-wing political ideology. Volkswirtschaftliche Fakultät Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München.
28.
CarminesE. G.StimsonJ. A. (1989). Issue evolution: Race and the transformation of American politics. Princeton University Press.
29.
CatterbergG.MorenoA. (2006). The individual bases of political trust: Trends in new and established democracies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18(1), 31–48. https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/18/1/31/797103
30.
ChauchardS. (2014). Can descriptive representation change beliefs about a stigmatized group? Evidence from rural India (JSTOR). American Political Science Review, 108(2), 403–422.
31.
ChweM. S. -Y. (2013). Rational ritual: Culture, coordination, and common knowledge. Princeton University Press.
32.
CowleyP.KavanaghD. (2016). The British general election of 2015. Springer.
33.
CuestaB. D.ImaiK. (2016). Misunderstandings about the regression discontinuity design in the study of close elections. Annual Review of Political Science, 19, 375–396.
34.
De VriesC. E.EdwardsE. E. (2009). Taking Europe to its extremes: Extremist parties and public euroscepticism. Party Politics, 15(1), 5–28.
35.
De VriesC. E.HoboltS. B. (2012). When dimensions collide: The electoral success of issue entrepreneurs. European Union Politics, 13(2), 246–268.
36.
DinasE.GeorgiadouV.KonstantinidisI.RoriL. (2016). From dusk to dawn: Local party organization and party success of right-wing extremism. Party Politics, 22(1), 80–92.
37.
DinasE.RieraP.RoussiasN. (2015). Staying in the first league: Parliamentary representation and the electoral success of small parties. Political Science Research and Methods, 3(2), 187–204.
38.
de LangeS. L.ArtD. (2011). Fortuyn versus wilders: An agency-based approach to radical right party building. West European Politics, 34(6), 1229–1249.
39.
EllinasA. A. (2013). The rise of Golden Dawn: The new face of the far right in Greece. South European Society and Politics, 18(4), 543–565.
40.
EwingG. (2001). Altruistic, egoistic, and normative effects on curbside recycling. Environment and Behavior, 33(6), 733–764.
41.
FanJ. (2018). Local polynomial modelling and its applications: Monographs on statistics and applied probability 66. Routledge.
42.
Fernández-VázquezP.DinasE. (2012). Projection bias in the survey placement of Spanish political parties: Differences between national and regional parties. South European Society and Politics, 17(3), 519–531.
43.
GattinaraP. C. (2017). Framing exclusion in the public sphere: Far-right mobilisation and the debate on Charlie Hebdo in Italy. South European Society and Politics, 22(3), 345–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608746.2017.1374323
44.
GerberA. S.GreenD. P.LarimerC. W. (2008). Social pressure and voter turnout: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. American Political Science Review, 102(1), 33–48.
45.
GerberA. S.RogersT. (2009). Descriptive social norms and motivation to vote: Everybody’s voting and so should you. The Journal of Politics, 71(1), 178–191.
GoldsteinN. J.CialdiniR. B.GriskeviciusV. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 472–482.
48.
GottliebJ. (2016). Common knowledge and voter coordination: Experimental evidence from Mali. In BlaisA.LaslierJ. -F.Van der StraetenK. (Eds.), Voting experiments (pp. 89–113). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40573-5_5
49.
GulzarS.KhanM. Y. (2017). Why do citizens become politicians? Experimental evidence on the social dimensions of candidacy (Technical report working paper).
50.
HanK. J. (2015). The impact of radical right-wing parties on the positions of mainstream parties regarding multiculturalism. West European Politics, 38(3), 557–576.
51.
HoboltS. B.De VriesC. E. (2015). Issue entrepreneurship and multiparty competition. Comparative Political Studies, 48(9), 1159–1185.
52.
IgnaziP. (1992). The silent counter-revolution. European Journal of Political Research, 22(1), 3–34.
53.
ImbensG.KalyanaramanK. (2012). Optimal bandwidth choice for the regression discontinuity estimator. The Review of Economic Studies, 79(3), 933–959.
54.
ImbensG. W.LemieuxT. (2008). Regression discontinuity designs: A guide to practice. Journal of Econometrics, 142(2), 615–635.
55.
KarpJ. A.BrockingtonD. (2005). Social desirability and response validity: A comparative analysis of overreporting voter turnout in five countries. Journal of Politics, 67(3), 825–840.
KluknavskáA.SmolíkJ. (2016). We hate them all? Issue adaptation of extreme right parties in Slovakia 1993–2016. Communist and Post-Communist Studies (The transformations of far right and far left in Europe), 49(4), 335–344.
58.
KormosC.GiffordR.BrownE. (2015). The influence of descriptive social norm information on sustainable transportation behavior: A field experiment. Environment and Behavior, 47(5), 479–501.
59.
KuklinskiJ. H.CobbM. D.GilensM. (1997). Racial attitudes and the “New South”. The Journal of Politics, 59(2), 323–349.
60.
KuranT. (1987). Preference falsification, policy continuity and collective conservatism. The Economic Journal, 97(387), 642–665.
61.
KuranT. (1995). Private truths, public lies: The social consequences of preference falsification. Harvard University Press.
MarchL. (2011). Radical left parties in Europe (1st ed.). Routledge.
64.
MarešM.StojarR. (2016). Extreme right perpetrators. In FredholmM. (Ed.), Understanding lone actor terrorism (pp. 82–102). Routledge.
65.
McConahayJ. B.HoughJ. C. (1976). Symbolic racism. Journal of Social Issues, 32(2), 23–45.
66.
McCraryJ. (2008). Manipulation of the running variable in the regression discontinuity design: A density test. Journal of Econometrics (The regression discontinuity design: Theory and applications), 142(2), 698–714.
67.
McDonaldM. (2005). Reporting bias. In RadcliffB.BestS. (Eds.), Polling in America: An encyclopedia of public opinion. Greenwood Press.
68.
MuddeC. (2004). The populist zeitgeist. Government and Opposition, 39(4), 542–563.
69.
MuddeC. (2007). Populist radical right parties in Europe. Cambridge University Press.
70.
MuddeC. (2013). Three decades of populist radical right parties in Western Europe: So what?European Journal of Political Research, 52(1), 1–19.
71.
MuddeC. (2014). Fighting the system? Populist radical right parties and party system change. Party Politics, 20(2), 217–226.
NorrisP. (2005). Radical right: Voters and parties in the electoral market. Cambridge University Press.
74.
PanagopoulosC. (2010). Affect, social pressure and prosocial motivation: Field experimental evidence of the mobilizing effects of pride, shame and publicizing voting behavior. Political Behavior, 32(3), 369–386.
75.
PedersenS.GrønhøjA.ThøgersenJ. (2015). Following family or friends. Social norms in adolescent healthy eating. Appetite (Social influences on eating), 86, 54–60.
76.
PytlasB. (2015). Radical right parties in Central and Eastern Europe: Mainstream party competition and electoral fortune. Routledge.
77.
RikerW. H. (1986). The art of political manipulation. Yale University Press.
78.
RimalR. N.RealK. (2005). How behaviors are influenced by perceived norms. Communication Research, 32(3), 389–414.
79.
RydgrenJ. (2005). Is extreme right-wing populism contagious? Explaining the emergence of a new party family. European Journal of Political Research, 44, 413–427.
ZallerJ. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University Press.
87.
ZhirkovK. (2014). Nativist but not alienated: A comparative perspective on the radical right vote in Western Europe. Party Politics, 20(2), 286–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068813511379
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
