https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217722554 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 1–15 © 2017 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0146167217722554 pspb.sagepub.com Article Hierarchy is a common and persistent aspect of social life. The group that controls positions of power and authority within a society commands the lion’s share of available resources, often leaving little for subordinated groups. However, groups that have been deprived of resources are often unhappy with their situation and push for social change. Because it is in the dominant group’s interest to maintain the hierarchy, members of dominant groups might try to minimize upset among their less powerful counterparts to prevent disruptive conflicts. Literature on hierarchy maintenance suggests that domi- nant groups strategically manage their relationships with sub- ordinated groups to avoid conflicts that could threaten the status quo (Jackman, 1994; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In social hierarchies maintained through consent, the dominant group’s position is at least partially contingent upon subordinated groups’ acceptance of the hierarchy (De Weerd & Klandermans, 1999; Gramsci, 1971; Marx & Engels, 1846/1970; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; Tyler, 2006; Van Zomeren & Iyer, 2009; White, 1989). For this reason, an interest in maintaining the acquies- cence of subordinated group members can lead dominant group members to engage in a variety of counterintuitive hier- archy-bolstering activities, including supporting policies that benefit subordinated groups (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2000; Chow, Lowery, & Hogan, 2013) and appointing subordinated group members to positions of authority (Knowles, Lowery, & Schaumberg, 2009). In this article, we theorize that dominant group members’ motivation to maintain intergroup hierarchy stability drive them to manage intragroup behaviors. In the context of the racial hierarchy, we suggest that a desire to maintain the hierar- chy might counterintuitively motivate Whites to withhold their support for highly racially identified White political candi- dates—even though these candidates may be those most will- ing to promote the immediate interests of Whites—because of concerns that their election will upset minority group members, and consequently, disrupt the existing racial hierarchy. Hierarchy Maintenance and Subordinate Group Acquiescence Many hierarchies, such as the racial pecking order in U.S. society, are maintained through acquiescence—a process 722554PSP XX X 10.1177/0146167217722554Personality and Social Psychology BulletinJun et al. research-article 2017 1 Stanford University, CA, USA 2 Patreon, CA, USA Corresponding Author: Sora Jun, The University of Texas at Dallas, 800 West Campbell Road, Richardson, TX 75080, USA. Email: sora.jun@utdallas.edu Keeping Minorities Happy: Hierarchy Maintenance and Whites’ Decreased Support for Highly Identified White Politicians Sora Jun 1 , Brian S. Lowery 1 , and Lucia Guillory 2 Abstract We test the hypothesis that, to avoid provoking minorities, Whites will withhold their support for White political candidates who are highly identified with their race. In Study 1, we found that White Republicans were less supportive of White candidates the higher the perceived White identity of the candidate due to beliefs that such candidates would provoke racial minorities. In Study 2, we replicated this effect with a manipulation of candidates’ White identity. Study 3 found that Whites reported less support for high-identity candidates when they were led to believe that the hierarchy was unstable rather than stable. Consistent with our hypothesis that those who have the most to lose are most likely to avoid provoking minorities, in Study 4, we found that Whites with high subjective socioeconomic status (SES) varied their support for provocative White candidates as a function of hierarchy stability, whereas those with low subjective SES did not. Keywords White identity, hierarchy maintenance, race, politics, intergroup relations Received March 14, 2016; revision accepted June 18, 2017