Skip to main content Accessibility help

An Asymmetrical “President-in-Power” Effect



When political polarization is high, it may be assumed that citizens will trust the government more when the chief executive shares their own political views. However, evidence is accumulating that important asymmetries may exist between liberals and conservatives (or Democrats and Republicans). We hypothesized that an asymmetry may exist when it comes to individuals’ willingness to trust the government when it is led by the “other side.” In an extensive analysis of several major datasets (including ANES and GSS) over a period of five decades, we find that in the United States, conservatives trust the government more than liberals when the president in office shares their own ideology. Furthermore, liberals are more willing to grant legitimacy to democratic governments led by conservatives than vice versa. A similar asymmetry applies to Republicans compared with Democrats. We discuss implications of this asymmetrical “president-in-power” effect for democratic functioning.


Corresponding author

*Davide Morisi, Assistant Professor, Department of Government, University of Vienna,
John T. Jost, Professor, Department of Psychology, New York University,
Vishal Singh, Associate Professor, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, New York University,


Hide All

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the conference of the International Society of Political Psychology in Edinburgh in July 2017. We thank Hanspeter Kriesi, participants in the Social Justice Lab at New York University, and three anonymous reviewers for extremely helpful feedback. Replication files are available at the American Political Science Review Dataverse:



Hide All
Abramowitz, Alan I. 2015. The New American Electorate. Partisan, Sorted, and Polarized. In American Gridlock: The Sources, Character, and Impact of Political Polarization, eds. Thurber, James A. and Yoshinaka, Antoine. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1944.
Alford, John R. 2001. We’re All in This Together. The Decline of Trust in Government, 1958–1996. In What Is It about Government That Americans Dislike? eds. Hibbing, John R. and Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2846.
Barber, Michael, and McCarty, Nolan. 2015. Causes and Consequences of Polarization. In Political Negotiation. A Handbook, eds. Mansbridge, Jane and Martin, Cathie Jo. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 3790.
Barberá, Pablo, Jost, John T., Nagler, Jonathan, Tucker, Joshua A., and Bonneau, Richard. 2015. “Tweeting from Left to Right: Is Online Political Communication More than an Echo Chamber?Psychological Science 26: 1531–42.
Brandt, Marc J., Reyna, Christine, Chambers, John R., Crawford, Jarret T., and Wetherell, Geoffrey. 2014. “The Ideological-Conflict Hypothesis: Intolerance Among Both Liberals and Conservatives.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 23: 2734.
Boutyline, Andrei, and Willer, Robb. 2017. “The Social Structure of Political Echo Chambers: Variation in Ideological Homophily in Online Networks.” Political Psychology 38 (3): 551–69.
Citrin, Jack, and Green, Donald Philip. 1986. “Presidential Leadership and the Resurgence of Trust in Government.” British Journal of Political Science 16 (4): 431–53.
Citrin, Jack, and Luks, Samantha. 2001. Political Trust Revisited: Déjà Vu All Over Again? In What Is It about Government that Americans Dislike? eds. Hibbing, John R. and Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 927.
Federico, Christopher M., Deason, Grace, and Fisher, Emily L.. 2012. “Ideological Asymmetry in the Relationship between Epistemic Motivation and Political Attitudes.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 103 (3): 381–98.
Fiorina, Morris P., and Abrams, Samuel J.. 2008. “Political Polarization in the American Public.” Annual Review of Political Science 11: 563–88.
Frimer, Jeremy A., Skitka, Linda J., and Motyl, Matt. 2017. “Liberals and Conservatives Are Similarly Motivated to Avoid Exposure to One Another’s Opinions.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 72: 112.
Gambetta, Diego, ed. 1988. Trust: Making and Breaking Social Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grossmann, Matt, and Hopkins, David A.. 2016. Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hacker, Jacob S., and Pierson, Paul. 2006. Off Center: The Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hare, Christopher, and Poole, Keith T.. 2014. “The Polarization of Contemporary American Politics.” Polity 46 (3): 411–29.
Hetherington, Marc J. 2005. Why Trust Matters: Declining Political Trust and the Demise of American Liberalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hetherington, Marc J., and Rudolph, Thomas J.. 2015. Why Washington Won’t Work. Political Trust and the Governing Crisis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Hibbing, John R., Smith, Kevin B., and Alford, John R.. 2014. Predisposed: Liberals, Conservatives, and the Biology of Political Differences. New York: Routledge.
Iyengar, Shanto, Sood, Gaurav, and Lelkes, Yphtach. 2012. “Affect, Not Ideology. A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization.” Public Opinion Quarterly 76 (3): 405–31.
Jost, John T. 2017. “Ideological Asymmetries and the Essence of Political Psychology.” Political Psychology 38 (2): 167208.
Jost, John T., Federico, Christopher M., and Napier, Jaime L.. 2009. “Political Ideology: Its Structure, Functions, and Elective Affinities.” Annual Review of Psychology 60: 307–37.
Jost, John T., van der Linden, Sander, Panagopoulos, Costas, and Hardin, Curtis D.. 2018. “Ideological Asymmetries in Conformity, Desire for Shared Reality, and the Spread of Misinformation.” Current Opinion in Psychology 23: 7783.
Keele, Luke. 2005. “The Authorities Really Do Matter: Party Control and Trust in Government.” The Journal of Politics 67 (3): 873–86.
Levendusky, Matthew. 2010. The Partisan Sort How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mann, Thomas E., and Ornstein, Norman J.. 2012. It’s Even Worse than It Looks. How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. New York: Basic Books.
Mara, Gerald M. 2001. “Thucydides and Plato on Democracy and Trust.” The Journal of Politics 63 (3): 820–45.
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miller, Joanne M., Saunders, Kyle L., and Farhart, Christina E.. 2015. “Conspiracy Endorsement as Motivated Reasoning: The Moderating Roles of Political Knowledge and Trust.” American Journal of Political Science 60 (4): 824–44.
Rudolph, Thomas J., and Evans, Jillian. 2005. “Political Trust, Ideology, and Public Support for Government Spending.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (3): 660–71.
Schwartz, Shalom H., Caprara, Gian Vittorio, and Vecchione, Michele. 2010. “Basic Personal Values, Core Political Values, and Voting: A Longitudinal Analysis.” Political Psychology 31 (3): 421–52.
Stern, Chadly, West, Tessa V., Jost, John T., and Rule, Nicholas O.. 2014. “‘Ditto Heads’: Do Conservatives Perceive Greater Consensus within Their Ranks than Liberals?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 40 (9): 1162–77.
Warren, Mark E. 1999. “Democratic Theory and Trust.” In Democracy and Trust, ed. Warren, Mark E.. New York: Cambridge University Press, 310–45.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

American Political Science Review
  • ISSN: 0003-0554
  • EISSN: 1537-5943
  • URL: /core/journals/american-political-science-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Morisi et al. supplementary material
Online Appendix

 PDF (1.4 MB)
1.4 MB
Supplementary materials

Morisi et al. Dataset



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed