How Do Partisans Navigate Intra-Group Conflict? A Theory of Leadership-Driven Motivated Reasoning

When faced with co-partisan politicians who disagree publicly, what side do partisan voters take? We draw on social identity theory to develop a theory of partisan leadership cues arguing that leaders have a key role in social groups and because of that centrality, and accounting for affect-based motivation, co-partisan voters resist ingroup dissent. We test this theory with a series of experiments focused on leaders who violate democratic norms and responses from within the party that reflect loyalty or dissent. Our findings show that co-partisan voters are loathe to punish misbehaving leaders, except when their action represents a major threat and the criticism comes from a high ranking party member. Ingroup critics of the leader risk their own reputation in the process. Importantly, leadership effects occur even in fictitious partisan contexts when partisans have no prior affect for a leader or critic. Our findings point to the power of party leaders in groups and raise questions about the prospects for democratic criticism and accountability.