In the first part of my research program, I examine how values and ideological orientation shape inter-group attitudes, socio-political behaviors, and the self-concept. In the past, I have found that values can predict how we feel about others, who we vote for, and to some extent, who we see ourselves to be. To elaborate, my colleagues and I show that our attitude toward others is primarily driven by whether “they” are perceived to share “our” beliefs and values. In contrast, whether “they” are capable of challenging “our” (advantaged) status does not seem to matter that much, once we find out about what “they” believe. In the political domain, a colleague of mine and I (2) suggest that citizens’ support for political candidates are more often predicted by symbolic concerns (i.e., symbolic threat, ideological incompatibility) than instrumental and realistic considerations (i.e., status threat and existential threat). 
           The primacy of symbolic considerations can allow us to overlook major group boundaries, even when the said symbolic considerations are about the group itself. For example, racists and sexists are thought to derogate racial out-groups and women. As a result, researchers have long assumed that racism and sexism undermine Black and female political candidates, such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, because of the politicians’ race and gender. Nonetheless, voters who score high on racism and sexism do not like them mainly because Obama and Clinton are liberals who support racial and gender equality (3). Prejudiced citizens still support Black and female candidates such as Ben Carson and Fiorina, whose platforms do not challenge the status quo with respect to racial and gender hierarchies. In contrast, racists and sexists “counterintuitively” oppose White male candidates, such as Bernie Sanders, whose policies would bring about more equality. Therefore, political expression of racism and sexism is primarily symbolic, and the political effect of racism and sexism, to some extent, can transcend group boundaries such as race and gender. It probably is no surprise that we are willing to amplify political voices that are consistent with our values and ideological inclinations more than voices that benefit “us” (4).
           In fact, our values can sometimes be more important than identities like race and gender, as they can not only outperform our identity in predicting our sociopolitical attitudes, but also potentially shape identity itself. For one thing, citizens regard their political values more central to their self-concept than their political identity (i.e., party identity), and they moralize their political values more than their political identity (5). When evaluating political candidates, citizens also more often consider whether they share political values with the candidate than whether they share a political identity with them (5). Similarly, when predicting whether a White American gravitates toward right-wing extremism, the predictive power of values (like egalitarianism) far exceeds that of identity (i.e., White identity; 6). Even when we are only considering the effect of identity, its effect manifests in an ideological fashion—White Americans who have a strong White identity or a narcissistic view of Whiteness do not intuitively support White political candidates; instead, they support candidates whose worldview is consistent with their own, even if the candidates are Black (7). The primacy of values and ideology over key social identity perhaps makes perfect sense then, if we consider that over time, who we believe we are is, in part, shaped by what we value and believe (8). 
           ​In short, my research reveals that the effects of values and ideological orientation are consistently powerful and robust, and yet, their roles are often under-appreciated or under-explored relative to the roles of major social identities like race or gender. 



References
1. Bai, H. & Simon, J. The Threat of Symbolic Incompatibility Looms Larger Than the Challenge 
of Status Rivalry: Symbolic Threat from Others Determines Feelings for Them More Than 
Status Threat. Pre-print: https://psyarxiv.com/7wux6/
2. Bai, H., & Federico, C. The Predictive Effect of Racial Threats on Politician Evaluation is 
Ideological, Not Racial (under preparation). 
3. Bai, H. (2020) When Racism and Sexism Benefit Black and Female Politicians: Politicians’ 
Ideology Moderates Prejudice’s Effect More than Politicians’ Demographic Background. 
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000314    
4. Craig, M., Zou, L., Bai, H., & Lee, M.. Racial-Political Stereotyping and Expectations of Alliances 
among American Racial Groups. (under review)
5. Bai, H. The Multiple Matching Perspective on Value versus Identity: Investigating How Political 
Ideology and Party Identity Contribute to Citizens’ Support for Political Candidates Pre-print: 
https://psyarxiv.com/t7jh9/
6. Bai, H. (2019) Whites’ Racial Identity Centrality and Social Dominance Orientation are 
Interactively Associated with Far-Right Extremism. British Journal of Social Psychology, 59, 
387–404 https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12350
7. Bai, H. The Ideological Effect of White Identity: White Identifiers Support Conservative 
Candidates, Not White Candidates (under preparation)
8. Bai, H. Longitudinal Evidence for the Theoretical Causal Effect of Social Dominance 
Orientation on Whites’ Racial Identity (under preparation).