![[Imagen 3]](https://sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_glossy,ret_img,w_750,h_375/https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/sad-slightly-angry-man-dark-room-750x375.jpg)
A new study published in American Behavioral Scientist sheds light on why some citizens embrace right-wing populist attitudes, particularly in Western democracies. Researchers found that when people feel disrespected or unrecognized by political elites—not as individuals, but as members of the national community—it can trigger feelings of social identity threat. This threat, in turn, drives two emotional responses that help reassert a sense of belonging: contempt toward elites and rejection of national minorities.
Populism, and especially its right-wing form, has gained significant traction in recent decades. At its core, right-wing populism divides society into two camps: the virtuous, “ordinary people” and the corrupt elites. It often couples this framing with nationalist rhetoric, arguing that the interests of “natives” should be prioritized over those of minorities or immigrants. This worldview promises recognition, respect, and restored status for those who feel ignored by the political establishment.
Previous studies have linked support for right-wing populism to economic hardship or cultural change. But researchers Julia Elad-Strenger and Thomas Kessler suggest that these are surface-level expressions of a deeper psychological driver: a feeling of misrecognition. In other words, support for the populist right may arise from a sense that one’s value as a full member of the nation is denied. The researchers aimed to explore how this perceived lack of respect from the elites leads people to embrace divisive views that reassert their worth.
To test this theory, they conducted three studies in Germany, a country where the right-wing populist party Alternative for Germany (AfD) has gained ground in recent years. The studies combined surveys and experimental methods to test a proposed model: when people feel misrecognized by elites as nationals, they experience a threat to their social identity. To cope with that threat, they express contempt for elites and endorse negative attitudes toward national minorities.
In the first study, a nationally representative sample of 382 German adults answered a series of questions designed to measure their perceived recognition by elites and fellow citizens, social identity threat, contempt toward elites, and rejection of minorities such as immigrants, Muslims, Jews, and Black people. The results showed that people who felt unrecognized by elites reported greater feelings of threat to their national identity, and in turn, expressed more contempt toward elites and stronger rejection of minorities. This pattern held even after accounting for political ideology, education, income, and nationalistic orientation. Interestingly, feelings of misrecognition from peers—not elites—did not have the same effect.
The second study tested whether misrecognition could be experimentally induced and whether it would cause the predicted responses. A new sample of 155 German adults read a fabricated news excerpt that either portrayed politicians as recognizing or failing to recognize “ordinary Germans.” Those exposed to the misrecognition condition felt more threatened in their national identity, and in response, expressed more contempt for elites and greater rejection of minorities. Again, these effects persisted even when controlling for background variables.
In the third study, the researchers directly manipulated participants’ sense of being marginalized. Using a quiz and fake feedback, they told some participants they were “highly marginalized” as ordinary Germans, and others that they were “lowly marginalized.” Those in the high-marginalization group expressed significantly more contempt for elites and stronger negative attitudes toward minorities. While the manipulation was not fully randomized—participants had to answer quiz items a certain way to qualify for the feedback—the results provided additional support for the proposed psychological mechanism.
Together, the three studies provide a coherent explanation for how and why feelings of being “left behind” lead some individuals to adopt right-wing populist beliefs. Rather than economic hardship alone, it is the experience of symbolic exclusion—the belief that elites do not respect or value “ordinary nationals”—that drives these attitudes. This misrecognition is experienced as a group-based insult, not a personal slight. It undermines people’s sense of national belonging and spurs defensive responses aimed at restoring that sense of inclusion and status.
One way people reassert their worth, the study suggests, is through contempt. Contempt is not just dislike; it implies that the target is inferior and unworthy of respect. When people feel unseen by elites, they may respond by casting those elites as morally corrupt or undeserving of their positions. Another response is to look down on minorities, which serves to bolster one’s relative status in society. These behaviors help reaffirm a threatened social identity by comparing oneself favorably to out-groups.
While the researchers focused on Germany, they believe the psychological process they identified is likely relevant in other democracies where right-wing populism is rising. Their findings help explain why efforts to address populism through material compensation alone—such as economic relief—may fall short. If the underlying issue is a lack of symbolic recognition, then people may continue to feel excluded even when their material needs are met.
The study has limitations. The third experiment used a non-random assignment to conditions based on participants’ responses, which limits the strength of the causal claims. Also, while the researchers controlled for many variables, it is possible that other unmeasured factors could influence the results. The sample sizes, while adequate, may not capture the full diversity of experiences within the German population.
Future research could expand on these findings by testing the model in other countries and political contexts. It could also examine whether left-wing populism, which emphasizes different group identities and grievances, operates through similar psychological processes. Another open question is whether misrecognition always leads to rejection of minorities, or whether certain individuals or social conditions can interrupt this pattern.
The study, “The Role of Misrecognition in Driving Support for Right-Wing Populism,” was authored by Julia Elad-Strenger and Thomas Kessler.
