Alberto López Ortega

How widespread is sexual liberalism in tolerant societies? Theoretical and descriptive evidence suggests an overall liberalization in societal views on topics such as women’s rights and homosexuality. Yet, relying on sexual norms theory, this study unveils persistent sexual prejudice. We differentiate between "normalized" sexual issues, like same-gender marriage, which have gained mainstream acceptance, and "nonnormalized" issues, such as nontraditional sexual practices and relationships, which remain stigmatized. Through a conjoint experiment in Catalonia, Spain, we investigate public attitudes toward adoptive parents with varying sexual orientations, relationship types, and age differences, confirming that discriminatory preferences are prevalent in contexts with low social desirability. By highlighting the continued prejudice against both normative and nonnormative sexual issues, this research contributes to our understanding of the dynamics of sexual attitudes and the challenges facing LGBTQ+ politics and rights.

Does group-based tribal thinking against ethnic out-groups condition support for both liberal and illiberal policies? Our thesis is that, irrespective of the direction of the policy (progressive or conservative), nativists express selective support for policies based on different signals of group-identity: descriptive markers, group-based substantive representation, in- and out-group norms, and group-based reasoning. We test this theoretical expectation using a novel AI-powered visual conjoint experiment in the Netherlands and Germany that asked individuals to select between hypothetical educational reform proposals presented by civic actors during a public consultation. Empirically, our results demonstrate that citizens, on average, are indeed selectively (il)liberal and that this instrumental policy support is greater among those with higher levels of underlying nativism. Specifically, we show that – among our multidimensional markers of group-based identities, norms, and reasoning – group-based substantive representation and in-group norms are the strongest determinants of support for diverse reform proposals. These findings have key implications on the malleable nature of citizens’ support for the backsliding of the liberal tenets of democracy as well as the persuasive power of out-group disidentification.

Are radical right supporters penalized by a social norm against the radical right on the dating market? This paper investigates this question by leveraging diverse empirical sources, including a unique and behavioral visual conjoint experiment conducted in Britain and Spain. Theoretically, we argue that the radical right is accommodated within the dating market as a result of the affective spillovers among those on the center-right who view dating those from the opposing ideological bloc as more socially costly than dating their own in-bloc partners. Empirically, we test this by examining the behavior of center-right partisans and assessing whether they follow a polity-based norm which places a premium on ostracizing stigmatized parties, or a bloc-logic norm which incentivizes the rejection of out-bloc partisans. The results demonstrate that center-right partisans accommodate the radical right and are actively expected to do so by fellow in-group partisans. Any dating market penalty for radical right partisans is based on the composition of those on the dating market rather than any polity-level norm enforcement. An accommodating bloc-logic in dating preferences among the mainstream right has large normative implications as it suggests that affective polarization and out-bloc rejection between overarching political camps contributes to facilitating the social normalization of radical right supporters who often hold preferences incompatible with liberal democracy.