When are Explicit Racial Appeals Accepted? Examining the Role of Racial Status Threat

Abstract

Evidence has emerged demonstrating that whites no longer reject negative, explicit racial appeals as they had in the past. This seeming reversal of the traditional logic of the powerlessness of explicit appeals raises the question: Why are explicit racial appeals accepted sometimes but rejected at other times? Here, I test whether the relative acceptance of negative, explicit racial appeals depends on whites’ feelings of threat using a two-wave survey experiment that manipulates participants’ feelings of threat, and then examines their responses to an overtly racist political appeal. I find that when whites feel threatened, they are more willing to approve of and agree with a negative, explicit racial appeal disparaging African Americans—and express willingness to vote for the candidate who made the explicit racial appeal.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    White (2007) also finds that explicit appeals can be effective among Blacks—but this is a different process than for whites, as it is activating in-group considerations rather than out-group animus (White 2007).

  2. 2.

    Part of a larger, multi-investigator survey (Hetherington et al. 2018). The first wave was fielded from November 27, 2018 to December 20, 2018 and the second wave was fielded from January 22 to February 7, 2019.

  3. 3.

    Modeled off Craig and Richeson's (2018) treatment.

  4. 4.

    Because the item asks about the news article and does not directly ask for their attitudes about demographic change, self-monitoring effects are relatively unlikely.

  5. 5.

    Some of the language used in this flyer was adapted from the language in one of Valentino, Neuner, and Vandenbroek’s (2018a)’s explicit racial appeals. In their work, this language is part of a news story about the Affordable Care Act.

  6. 6.

    All power, balance, and manipulation tests presented in Online Appendix B, along with descriptive statistics of key variables and the demographic and ideological features of the sample.

  7. 7.

    2018 ACS Estimates obtained from IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (Ruggles et al. 2020).

  8. 8.

    Note that this is not simply a feature of people who are higher in racial resentment or Republicans. In the control condition, there were almost no differences in anxiety development. See Online Appendix B.

  9. 9.

    However, it does require the assumption of sequential ignorability—I address this assumption by (1) random assignment of treatment and (2) inclusion of potential confounders like racial resentment. See Online Appendix B for greater discussion of this assumption, the mediation model, and for sensitivity tests.

  10. 10.

    See Online Appendix B for greater discussion of how this statistic is obtained.

  11. 11.

    Regression-based mediation models similarly reveal significant effects at various times for anxiety, anger, and worry. See Online Appendix C.9 for more detail, and supplemental analyses of subgroup analyses in Online Appendix C.10.

  12. 12.

    Anxiety and anger correlate at 0.70; anxiety and worry correlate at 0.78; and anger and worry correlate at 0.74.

References

  1. Albertson, B., & Gadarian, S. K. (2015). Anxious politics: Democratic citizenship in a threatening world. Cambridge University Press.

  2. Arora, M. (2019). Which race card? Understanding racial appeals in U.S. politics. Doctoral Dissertation, UC Irvine. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9f46x25t.

  3. Banks, A. J., & Bell, M. A. (2013). Racialized campaign ads: The emotional content in implicit racial appeals primes White racial attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 77(2), 549–560. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nft010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Banks, A. J., & Hicks, H. M. (2019). The effectiveness of a racialized counterstrategy. American Journal of Political Science, 63(2), 305–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Best, S. J., & Krueger, B. S. (2011). Government monitoring and political participation in the United States: The distinct roles of anger and anxiety. American Politics Research, 39(1), 85–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X10380848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Blumer, H. (1958). Race prejudice as a sense of group position. Pacific Sociological Review, 1(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.2307/1388607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bobo, L. (1988). Group conflict, prejudice, and the paradox of contemporary racial attitudes. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism (pp. 85–114). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bobo, L., & Hutchings, V. L. (1996). Perceptions of racial group competition: Extending Blumer’s theory of group position to a multiracial social context. American Sociological Review, 61(6), 951–972. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brader, T., Valentino, N. A., & Suhay, E. (2008). What triggers public opposition to immigration? Anxiety, group cues, and immigration threat. American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 959–978. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00353.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bullock, J. G., Green, D. P., & Ha, S. E. (2010). Yes, but what’s the mechanism? (don’t expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 550–558. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Citrin, J., Green, D. P., Muste, C., & Wong, C. (1997). Public opinion toward immigration reform: The role of economic motivations. The Journal of Politics, 59(3), 858–881. https://doi.org/10.2307/2998640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Craig, M. A., & Richeson, J. A. (2014a). More diverse yet less tolerant? How the increasingly diverse racial landscape affects White Americans’ racial attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(6), 750–761. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214524993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Craig, M. A., & Richeson, J. A. (2014b). On the precipice of a “majority–minority” America: Perceived status threat from the racial demographic shift affects white Americans’ political ideology. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1189–1197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614527113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Craig, M. A., & Richeson, J. A. (2018). Hispanic population growth engenders conservative shift among non-Hispanic racial minorities. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(4), 383–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617712029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Craig, M. A., Rucker, J. M., & Richeson, J. A. (2018a). The pitfalls and promise of increasing racial diversity: Threat, contact, and race relations in the 21st century. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(3), 188–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417727860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Craig, M. A., Rucker, J. M., & Richeson, J. A. (2018b). Racial and political dynamics of an approaching “majority–minority” United States. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 677(1), 204–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716218766269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Craig, T., & Shear, M. D. (2006). Allen quip provokes outrage, apology. The Washington Post, Retrieved July 20, 2018 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2006/08/15/allen-quip-provokes-outrage-apology-span-classbankheadname-insults-webb-volunteerspan/64f96498-cdfc-48f3-ade6-bcd8a4ea7514/

  18. Desjardins, L. (2017). Every moment in Trump’s charged relationship with race. PBS News Hour. Retrieved July 20, 2018 from https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/every-moment-donald-trumps-long-complicated-history-race.

  19. Dixon, T. L. (2008). Network news and racial beliefs: Exploring the connection between national television news exposure and stereotypical perceptions of African Americans. Journal of Communication, 58(2), 321–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00387.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Edwards, G. S., & Rushin, S. (2018). The effect of president Trump’s election on hate crimes. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3102652.

  21. Effron, D. A., Cameron, J. S., & Monin, B. (2009). Endorsing Obama licenses favoring whites. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 590–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Forrest, A. (2018). Jair Bolsonaro: The worst quotes from Brazil’s far-right presidential frontrunner. The Independent. Retrieved February 12, 2020, from https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jair-bolsonaro-who-quotes-brazil-president-election-run-latest-a8573901.html.

  23. Garber, M. (2020). Do you speak Fox? How Donald Trump’s favorite news source became a language. The Atlantic. Retrieved September 16, 2020, from https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/09/fox-news-trump-language-stelter-hoax/616309/

  24. Gilens, M. (2009). Why Americans hate welfare: Race, media, and the politics of antipoverty policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Harris-Perry, M. V. (2011). Sister citizen: Shame, stereotypes, and Black women in America. New Haven: Yale University Press.

  26. Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hetherington, M., Conover, P., Aziz, A., Christiani, L., McDonald, M., & Treul, S. (2018). Survey data collection: Public attitudes in the 2018 election. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, UNC IRB 18-2732.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Huber, G. A., & Lapinski, J. S. (2006). The “race card” revisited: Assessing racial priming in policy contests. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 421–440. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00192.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Huddy, L., Feldman, S., Taber, C., & Lahav, G. (2005). Threat, anxiety, and support of antiterrorism policies. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 593–608. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00144.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hurwitz, J., & Peffley, M. (2005). Playing the race card in the post-willie Horton era: The impact of racialized code words on support for punitive crime policy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69(1), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfi004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hutchings, V. L., & Jardina, A. E. (2009). Experiments on racial priming in political campaigns. Annual Review of Political Science, 12, 397–402. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.12.060107.154208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hutchings, V. L., Walton, H, Jr., & Benjamin, A. (2010). The impact of explicit racial cues on gender differences in support for confederate symbols and partisanship. The Journal of Politics, 72(4), 1175–1188. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381610000605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Imai, K., Keele, L., Tingley, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2011). Unpacking the black box of causality: Learning about causal mechanisms from experimental and observational studies. American Political Science Review, 105(4), 765–789. https://doi.org/10.2307/23275352 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Jardina, A. (2019). White Identity Politics. Cambridge University Press.

  35. Kaiser, C. R., Drury, B. J., Spalding, K. E., Cheryan, S., & O’Brien, L. T. (2009). The ironic consequences of Obama’s election: Decreased support for social justice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 556–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.01.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kenny, D. A., & Judd, C. M. (2014). Power anomalies in testing mediation. Psychological Science, 25(2), 334–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613502676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kinder, D. R. (2003). Belief systems after converse. In M. MacKuen & G. Rabinowitz (Eds.), Electoral Democracy (pp. 13–47). University of Michigan Press.

  38. Kinder, D. R., & Kam, C. D. (2010). Us against them: Ethnocentric foundations of American opinion. University of Chicago Press.

  39. Knowles, E. D., & Peng, K. (2005). White selves: Conceptualizing and measuring a dominant-group identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(2), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.2.223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lawrence, C. R. (1990). If he hollers let him go: Regulating racist speech on campus. Duke Law Journal, 1990(3), 431–483. https://doi.org/10.2307/1372554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Loeys, T., Moerkerke, B., & Vansteelandt, S. (2015). A cautionary note on the power of the test for the indirect effect in mediation analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1549. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. University of Chicago Press.

  43. Marx, S. (2006). Revealing the invisible: Confronting passive racism in teacher education. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  44. Matsuda, M. J. (1989). Public response to racist speech: Considering the victim’s story. Michigan Law Review, 87(8), 2320–2381. https://doi.org/10.2307/1289306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Mendelberg, T. (2001). The race card: Campaign strategy, implicit messages, and the norm of equality. Princeton University Press.

  46. Mendelberg, T. (2008). Racial priming revived. Perspectives on Politics, 6(1), 109–123.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Müller, K., & Schwarz, C. (2018). From hashtag to hate crime: Twitter and anti-minority sentiment. (March 30, 2018) Available at SSRNhttps://ssrn.com/abstract=3149103

  48. Neubeck, K. J., & Cazenave, N. A. (2002). Welfare racism: Playing the race card against America’s poor. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  49. Nteta, T. M., Lisi, R., & Tarsi, M. R. (2016). Rendering the implicit explicit: Political advertisements, partisan cues, race, and white public opinion in the 2012 presidential election. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 4(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2015.1050407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. O’Rourke, H. P., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2015). When the test of mediation is more powerful than the test of the total effect. Behavior Research Methods, 47(2), 424–442. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0481-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Paluck, E. L. (2009). Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media: A field experiment in Rwanda. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 574–587. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0011989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Paluck, E. L., & Green, D. P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339–367. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Paradies, Y. (2006). A systematic review of empirical research on self-reported racism and health. International Journal of Epidemiology, 35(4), 888–901. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyl056.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Pearson, A. (2018). Viktor orban’s most controversial migration comments. DW (2018). Retrieved 12 February 2020 from: https://www.dw.com/en/viktor-orbans-most-controversial-migration-comments/g-42086054.

  55. Pew. (2018). Trump has met the public’s modest expectations for his presidency. Washington: Pew Research Center. Retrieved July 20, 2018 from https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/23/trump-has-met-the-publics-modest-expectations-for-his-presidency/.

  56. Phoenix, D. L. (2019). The Anger Gap: How Race Shapes Emotion in Politics. Cambridge University Press.

  57. Quillian, L. (1995). Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review, 60(4), 586–611. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Rhodes-Purdy, M., Navarre, R., & Utych, S. M. (2020). Measuring simultaneous emotions: Existing problems and a new way forward. Journal of Experimental Political Science, First View, 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2019.35.

  59. Rucker, D. D., Preacher, K. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2011). Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(6), 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00355.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Ruggles, S., Flood, S., Goeken, R., Grover, J., Meyer, E., Pacas, J., & Sobek, M. (2020). IPUMS USA Version 10.0 [dataset]

  61. Scheve, K. F., & Slaughter, M. J. (2001). Labor market competition and individual preferences over immigration policy. Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(1), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465301750160108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2008). Intergroup emotions. In Lewis, M., Haviland-Jones, J. M., & Barrett, L. F. (Eds.) Handbook of Emotions  (3rd ed. pp. 428–439).

  64. Sniderman, P. M., Hagendoorn, L., & Prior, M. (2004). Predisposing factors and situational triggers: Exclusionary reactions to immigrant minorities. American Political Science Review, 98(1), 35–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Stephens-Dougan, L. (2016). Priming racial resentment without stereotypic cues. The Journal of Politics, 78(3), 687–704. https://doi.org/10.1086/685087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. SurveyUSA. (2006). GOP Allen’s once large lead evaporates. Survey USA. Retrieve July 20, 2018 from http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport_main.aspx?g=a99a9b7d-89aa-4e5f-9a0e-35d657ae1db3

  67. Valentino, N. A. (1999). Crime news and the priming of racial attitudes during evaluations of the President. Public Opinion Quarterly, 63(3), 293–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Valentino, N. A., & Brader, T. (2011). The sword’s other edge: Perceptions of discrimination and racial policy opinion after Obama. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(2), 201–226. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Valentino, N. A., Brader, T., Groenendyk, E. W., Gregorowicz, K., & Hutchings, V. L. (2011). Election night’s alright for fighting: The role of emotions in political participation. The Journal of Politics, 73(1), 156–170. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381610000939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Valentino, N. A., Hutchings, V. L., Banks, A. J., & Davis, A. K. (2008). Is a worried citizen a good citizen? Emotions, political information seeking, and learning via the internet. Political Psychology, 29(2), 247–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00625.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Valentino, N. A., Hutchings, V. L., & White, I. K. (2002). Cues that matter: How political ads prime racial attitudes during campaigns. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 75–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Valentino, N. A., Neuner, F. G., & Vandenbroek, L. M. (2018a). The changing norms of racial political rhetoric and the end of racial priming. The Journal of Politics, 80(3), 757–771. https://doi.org/10.1086/694845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Valentino, N. A., Newburg, J., & Neuner, F. G. (2018b). From dog whistles to bullhorns: Racial rhetoric in us presidential campaigns, 1984–2016. In: Annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA.

  74. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The Panas scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. White, I. K. (2007). When race matters and when it doesn’t: Racial group differences in response to racial cues. American Political Science Review, 101(2), 339–354. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055407070177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G, Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank Dave Attewell, Frank Baumgartner, Lucy Britt, Ted Enamorado, Marc Hetherington, Andreas Jozwiak, Eroll Kuhn, Santiago Olivella, Tim Ryan, Candis Smith, Jim Stimson, Emily Wager, Ismail White, members of the University of North Carolina’s American Politics Research Group and State Politics Working Group, discussants and participants of the 2019 meetings of the Harvard Experimental Working Group, Midwest Political Science Association, Society for Political Methodology, and American Political Science Association, and the editor and three anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful feedback, helpful comments, and support. Replication materials are available at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/ZNBYLT.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leah Christiani.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Electronic supplementary material 1 (PDF 1771 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Christiani, L. When are Explicit Racial Appeals Accepted? Examining the Role of Racial Status Threat. Polit Behav (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-021-09688-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Racial priming
  • Threat
  • Racial attitudes
  • Public opinion