Political threats are typically conceptualized by scholars as targeting particular groups of people. We call for also conceptualizing threats as political attacks directed towards particular facets of an individual’s identity portfolio. We reason that individual political responses to political attacks depend on the strength of identity with the group under attack, just as Social Identity Theory anticipates, but we contend that responses also depends on the shared social categories across an identity portfolio. Drawing on data from 2006–2016, we compare the political assessments of various presidential candidates between Mexican heritage Latinos and other non-Mexican heritage Latinos. Given the specificity of the rhetoric towards Mexican heritage Latinos in 2016, we find evidence that Mexicans and non-Mexicans cast distinct judgments of Donald Trump. Yet, we observe no comparable distinction in prior electoral contexts, suggesting that 2016 uniquely politicized the responses among Mexican heritage Latinos.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
In this paper, we focus on three social identity categories (“American”,“national origin”, and “pan-ethnic”) among Latinos. We believe our identity portfolio framework can include other distinct identities such as religion, gender, and class. However, we don’t focus on those relationships here since Latinos in the context of the 2016 elections provides an ideal test of our implication. Although our identities are “ethnic,” we don’t think this has any impact on other set of salience social identities since we argue that each of these are indeed distinct social identity categories.
The Edison Exit Poll suggested that over 30% of Latinos supported Trump. However, after the election a number of political scientists found numbers much closer to 20% across a wide number of states.
Supplementary Material Fig. 0.8 shows this distribution in Supplementary Material.
Figure 2 shows the distribution for favorability.
A graphical distribution is shown in the Supplementary Material Fig. SI 0.10.
As a placebo check, we also model the probability of voting for Presidential candidate Hilary Clinton for Strong ID Mexican heritage Latinos. It could be the case that Strong ID Mexican heritage Latinos support presidential candidates differently and thus always support candidates at different rates compared to their non-Mexican counterparts. In an identical model specification, we find no support of any difference for the likelihood of voting for Clinton.
We also evaluate a model where attitudes towards Clinton serve as the dependent variable. In this analysis, we see no difference between strong ID Mexican heritage Latino and their non-Mexican counterparts.
Table SI 0.4 in Supplementary Material shows the full models for 2012, 2008 and 2006.
In analyses not included, we ran a linked fate model using the 2016 data and found consistent results with the results shown above. This suggests that linked fate, an alternative measure of identity centrality, fits our overall story that the 2016 election context was different from previous electoral contexts.
Babu, G. J. (1992). Subsample and half-sample methods. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 44(4), 703–720.
Barreto, M., Ramírez, R., & Woods, N. (2005). Are naturalized voters driving the Latino electorate? Measuring the impact of IRCA on Latino voting in California. Social Science Quarterly, 86, 792–811.
Beltran, C. (2010). The trouble with unity: Latino politics and the creation of identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Carter, N. M., & Pérez, E. O. (2016). Race and nation: How racial hierarchy shapes national attachments. Political Psychology, 37(4), 497–513.
Chandra, K. (2012). Constructivist theories of ethnic politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Conover, P. (1988). The role of social groups in political thinking. British Journal of Political Science, 18(1), 51–76.
Converse, P. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). New York: Free Press.
Dawson, M. C. (1994). Behind the mule: Race and class in African-American politics (Vol. 7). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 410–436.
Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1997). Sticking togetheror falling apart: In-group identification as psychological determinant of group commitment versus individual mobility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), 617–626.
Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). Social identity: Context, commitment, content. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.
Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. J. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 161–186.
Fraga, L., & Garcia, J. (2006). Su casa es nuestra casa: Latino politics research and the development of American political science. American Political Science Review, 100(6), 515–521.
Fraga, L. R., Garcia, J. A., Hero, R., Jones-Correa, M., Martinez-Ebers, V., & Segura, G. M. (2010). Latinos in the new millennium: An almanac of opinion, behavior, and policy preferences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Garcia Bedolla, L. (2005). Fluid borders: Latino power, identity, and politics in Los Angeles. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Huddy, L. (2003). Group identity and political cohesion. Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 511–558). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Huddy, L., & Turner, J. (2014). From social to political identity: Examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22(1), 127–156.
Jimenez, T. R. (2010). Replenished ethnicity: Mexican Americans, immigration, and identity. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Laitin, D. D. (1998). Identity in formation: The Russian-speaking populations in the new abroad. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Leach, C. W., Mosquera, P. M. R., Vliek, M. L. W., & Hirt, E. (2010). Group devaluation and group identification. Journal of Social Issues, 66(3), 535–552.
Leach, C. W., van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L. W., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., et al. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 144–165.
Lee, T. (2008). Race, immigration, and the identity-to-politics link. Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1), 457–478.
Masuoka, N. (2006). Together they become one: Examining the predictors of panethnic group consciousness among Asian Americans and Latinos. Social Science Quarterly, 87(5), 993–1011.
Mora, G. C. (2014). Making Hispanics: How activists, bureaucrats, and media constructed a new American. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pantoja, A. D., Ramirez, R., & Segura, G. M. (2001). Citizens by choice, voters by necessity: In political mobilization patterns Latinos by naturalized. Political Research Quarterly, 54(4), 729–750.
Pantoja, A. D., Ramirez, R., & Segura, G. M. (2004). Demography and political influence: Disentangling the Latino vote. Harvard Journal of Hispanic Policy, 16, 69–96.
Pérez, E. O. (2015a). Ricochet: How elite discourse politicizes racial and ethnic identities. Political Behavior, 37(1), 155–180.
Pérez, E. O. (2015b). Xenophobic rhetoric and its political effects on immigrants and their co-ethnics. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 549–564.
Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Posner, D. N. (2004). The political salience of cultural difference: Why Chewas and Tumbukas are Allies in Zambia and Adversaries in Malawi. American Political Science Review, 98(4), 529–545.
Ramírez, R. (2013). Mobilizing opportunities: State contexts, mobilization and the evolving Latino electorate. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.
Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 88–106.
Sanchez, G. R., & Masuoka, N. (2010). Brown-utility heuristic? The presence and contributing factors of Latino linked fate. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 32(4), 519–531.
Shao, J., & Xhi, X. (1989). Half-sample variance estimation. Communications in Statistics—Theory and Methods, 18(11), 4197–4210.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 33(47), 74.
Tate, K. (1993). From protest to politics: The new black voters in American elections. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26(4), 347–348.
Valenzuela, A. A., & Michelson, M. R. (2016). Turnout, status, and identity: Mobilizing Latinos to vote with group appeals. American Political Science Review, 110(04), 615–630.
Vargas, E. D., Sanchez, G. R., & Valdez, J. A. (2017). Immigration policies and group identity: How immigrant laws affect linked fate among U.S. Latino populations. The Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics, 2, 35–62.
Wilcox-Archuleta, B. Local origins: Group identity, context, and the politics of place. Political Research Quarterly. (in press).
Young, I. M. (2002). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford University Press on Demand.
We thank Matt Barreto, Vincent Hutchings, Efrén Peréz, Loren Collingwood, Chinbo Chong, Nicole Yadon, Hannah Walker, Mackenzie Israel Trummel, Hakeem Jefferson, David O. Sears, Angela X. Ocampo, and Tyler Reny for their helpful comments and insight. We also thank the helpful comments and feedback from participants at the 2016 CMPS PRIEC at UCLA, UCLA’s Political Psychology Lab, and the American Politics Working Group at the University of Michigan. Last, we are grateful to the anonymous reviewers. Replication materials are available at https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/UX39M4.
Author names are presented in alphabetical order, contribution was equal.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
About this article
Cite this article
Garcia-Rios, S., Pedraza, F. & Wilcox-Archuleta, B. Direct and Indirect Xenophobic Attacks: Unpacking Portfolios of Identity. Polit Behav 41, 633–656 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9465-5
- Social Identity Theory
- Latino politics
- Race and ethnic politics
- Political attitudes