Why We Assume Yoda Is Woke and Darth Vader Wears a MAGA Hat

Consider Larry David.

After a tense interaction in a sushi restaurant, he realizes that donning a MAGA hat makes people avoid him. He weaponizes this discovery, using the hat to get out of obligations, escape small talk, and even deter an annoying seatmate at a coffee shop. The joke isn't about the politics of the hat itself; it’s a perfect real-world example of political projection and counter-projection: people don’t ask Larry about his actual views—they just assume them and react accordingly. It highlights how political identity operates as a powerful social cue, shaping interactions even in contexts where politics aren't explicitly discussed. A new study confirms Larry’s worldview. 

Before jumping into the study, a little about the theory of “political projection.” First impressions do matter. We have an expectation that others will be like us, anchoring our judgments using the individual we know best, ourselves. We frequently apply a positive or negative value; scientists use valance to a person, idea, or object based on emotional or moral judgment. If someone is seen as virtuous (positive valence), they are more likely to be associated with us; if they are seen as villainous (negative valence), they are more likely to be associated with them. 

“It is well-established that political ideology and partisanship serve as particularly strong informational cues: knowing someone’s political leanings generates many inferences about that person.”

Political viewpoints, deeply rooted in emotional and moral judgments, are strong determinants of valance but are frequently less visible than other characteristics like race, gender, age, or weight. Objects are often used to virtue signal. Consider the culture wars over Bud Light and Dylan Mulvaney or the whipsaw funding and now defunding of Tesla. 

Politics, deeply tied to moral reasoning, encourages black-and-white thinking, making partisan conflicts especially prone to this effect. Political projection is frequently motivated, meaning individuals assume political alignment based on personal admiration or disapproval rather than actual evidence. Rather than simply seeing opponents as different, people often view them as morally opposed, driven by animosity rather than neutral evaluation, strengthening in-group cohesion by sharpening the perceived contrast between "us" and "them." However, political projection isn’t just about assuming similarity; it also involves counter-projection, where people assign opposing political identities to those they dislike, reinforcing out-group (them) distinctions. 

Yoda, Spiderman, Darth Vader and Cruella deVille

In the first of two studies, 3,200 individuals in the US and UK were asked about which characters from popular cultural franchises [1] were likely to vote Democrat or Republican (Labour or Conservative in the UK), assessing whether respondents projected their political identity onto heroes while assigning opposing views to villains. 

The widely recognized fictional characters ensured they had clear hero or villain roles but no real-world political affiliation. Characters were balanced for gender, age, and socioeconomic background to control for biases, and pre-study validation confirmed participants consistently recognized their heroic or villainous status.

• Participants were 20 percentage points more likely to project their partisan identity onto heroes than villains.
• Counter-projection was stronger than projection: Participants were likelier to assign villains an out-group identity than to assume heroes shared their views. In the US, villains were assumed to be ideological opposites 61% of the time, while heroes were seen as ideologically similar 60% of the time. In Britain, the effect was weaker but still present
• Those with strong partisan identities showed higher levels of projection and counter-projection. Left-leaning individuals projected more strongly than right-leaning individuals.

As the researchers conclude,

“These findings are consistent with social identity theory and support the notion that political projection is motivational as opposed to being simply a means of reducing cognitive costs.”

In the second study, 1617 UK participants were given fictional stories about a local official without indicating political affiliation. In one scenario, the virtuous official donated money; in another, a corrupt official stole money from the charity. It aimed to see if people falsely recalled or inferred the politician’s political affiliation based on moral valence. After reading the vignette, participants answered recall questions, including the politician’s party affiliation (not actually provided) and a placebo question about the number of children. Those unsure could opt out or were prompted to make a guess, assessing whether moral perception influenced partisan assumptions.

• 15.4% of respondents falsely recalled a political identity. At a 20% increase, this was greater in those intensely partisan and left-leaning individuals projected more strongly than right-leaning individuals. “[The] left, who are conventionally more tolerant of diverse social groups, [are] being more politically intolerant than the right.”
• Corrupt politicians were assumed to be political opponents 74% of the time, while virtuous politicians were assumed to be political allies 60% of the time. Counter-projection was stronger than projection; individuals disidentify from the out-group identity more than they identify with and project their identity onto positively valenced targets.
• Valence signals did not influence recall of the politician’s children, confirming that projection was politically motivated.

“In a context where polarisation is high, projection appears to be more about defining who we are not, than who we are.” 

- Dr Turnbull-Dugarte, Associate Professor in Quantitative Political Science, University of Southampton

A “non-trivial” minority, one in six respondents, engaged in political projection or counter-projection without evidence of political affiliation. Counter-projection—assigning villains to the opposing party—was stronger than simply assuming heroes shared one’s views, particularly among left-leaning respondents. This suggests that negative partisanship is more prominent in political projection than in-group favoritism. This pattern aligns with previous research in the UK, showing that liberal partisans tend to display stronger negative emotions toward political opponents than conservatives do. 

Larry David’s MAGA hat experiment was meant to be a comedy, but the joke lands because it taps into a deeper truth—we don’t just perceive political identity; we assume it. Whether it’s a truck with a Tesla sticker or a barista with a septum piercing, we instantly categorize people as “us” or “them,” reinforcing the illusion of a world neatly divided into heroes and villains.

This political projection isn’t harmless—it fuels affective polarization, deepens partisan hostility, and creates a self-reinforcing feedback loop. Research confirms that we’re far more likely to assign villains to the opposing party than to assume our heroes share our beliefs. This suggests that modern political identity is increasingly defined by who we reject rather than who we align with. In a world where a beer choice or a car brand can trigger instant political assumptions, the real challenge isn’t spotting projection—it’s resisting it. If we ever hope to bridge political divides, maybe the first step is simple: ask before assuming—or at the very least, don’t let a hat do all the talking.

[1] “Marvel Cinematic Universe, Disney, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Games of Thrones and Star Wars.”

Source: Heroes and villains: motivated projection of political identities Political Science Research & Method DOI: 10.1017/psrm.2025.10