Lastly, we are super thankful to those who helped us make the better: @elizabethsim0n.bsky.social @gabrielemagni.bsky.social @grahn.bsky.social @katharinalawall.bsky.social @ronjasczepanski.bsky.social @markuskollberg.bsky.social @polpsychjoe.bsky.social @markuswagner.bsky.social and more :)
(11/11)

The paper is open access at PSRM: doi.org/10.1017/psrm...

Replication materials on Harvard Dataverse: doi.org/10.7910/DVN/... (10/11)

This paper is very special to us: it extends the selective liberalism framework we introduced in our APSR homonationalism paper.

Moving from a single policy domain to multiple issues (gender, LGBTQ+, environment) and multiple identity cues strengthens our confidence in the theory. More to come!

What does this mean?

Citizens are selectively (il)liberal: they update preferences to disidentify from ethnic out-groups, whether the policy is pro-LGBTQ+ education or opposing environmental lessons.

(9/11)

The Muslim penalty is nearly double among nativists (8pp) compared to non-nativists (4pp).

This means that even non-nativists show this bias. The rejection of Muslim-associated proposals isn't limited to the usual suspects. (8/11)

Key findings on what drives policy support:

📌 Proposals from Muslim-associated organizations receive a ~5pp penalty—across all policy types (progressive AND conservative)

📌 In-group norms matter most: when told 80% of nationals support a policy, individual support jumps 13pp vs. 20% support

We test this with a novel AI-powered visual conjoint experiment in the Netherlands 🇳🇱 and Germany 🇩🇪 (N=2,527).

Respondents chose between hypothetical education reform proposals from civic actors, with randomized identity cues.

Example of task:

(5/11)

We identify four identity markers shaping policy support:

- Descriptive markers (perceived ethnicity)
- Substantive representation (participation in group-linked organizations)
- In-group norms (national support levels)
- Out-group norms (external rejection cues)

(4/11)

This elite strategy is well-documented (homo/femonationalism, environmental nationalism). But do citizens also hold selectively liberal attitudes?

We theorize that nativists support policies based on ethnic identity cues *regardless of whether a policy is progressive or conservative*. (3/11)

Far-right leaders invoke liberal values (women’s, LGBTQ+ and environmental rights) to justify anti-immigration stances, while eroding those values at home.

Think Elon Musk's sudden concern for women's rights, but only when *Muslim* men are perpetrators. (2/11)

"The Credibility Revolution in Political Science"

osf.io/preprints/so...