Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Questioning white losses and anti-white discrimination in the United States

Abstract

Political polarization and far-right movements across the West are thought to be partly driven by beliefs that white people face discrimination in societies that supposedly favour non-white people. We compared perceptions of racial discrimination with reported discrimination experiences in large, US national samples to shed light on the veracity of such beliefs. Regarding experiences, we find that white people consistently experienced less discrimination than black people, and that declines in anti-black discrimination have not coincided with increases in anti-white discrimination. Regarding perceptions, respondents overall did not express zero-sum discrimination beliefs. Moreover, black respondents and Democrats perceived that black people face much more discrimination than white people, whereas white respondents and Republicans perceived a smaller discrimination gap between black and white people, relative to reported discrimination experiences. Overall, improvements for black people do not seem to coincide with disadvantages for white people, and discrimination perceptions differ from reported discrimination experiences. Implications for racial attitudes, political polarization and voting behaviour are discussed.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Mean amounts of discrimination perceived to be faced by black and white people among different respondent groups.
Fig. 2: Percentages of black and white participants who reported having experienced workplace discrimination between 2002 and 2018.
Fig. 3: Number of hate crime victims between 1996 and 2017.
Fig. 4: Mean discrimination experiences reported by white and black people estimated using full information maximum likelihood.

Data availability

All data are publicly accessible online. Data from Sample 1 can be found at https://electionstudies.org/. Data from Sample 2 can be found at http://www.gss.norc.org/Get-The-Data. Data from Sample 3 can be found at https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime. Data from Sample 4 can be found at http://midus.wisc.edu/. Names for variables used in the present investigation are listed as they appear in the datasets in the Supplementary Information.

References

  1. 1.

    Dovidio, J. F. & Gaertner, S. L. Aversive racism. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 36, 1–52 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Brewer, M. B. In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: a cognitive motivational analysis. Psychol. Bull. 86, 307–324 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Greenwald, A. G. & Pettigrew, T. F. With malice toward none and charity for some: ingroup favoritism enables discrimination. Am. Psychol. 69, 669–684 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Martell, R. F., Lane, D. M. & Emrich, C. Male-female differences: a computer simulation. Am. Psychol. 51, 157–158 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Sidanius, J. & Pratto, F. Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1999).

  6. 6.

    McConahay, J. G., Hardee, B. B. & Batts, V. Has racism declined in America? It depends on who’s asking and what is asked. J. Conflict Resolut. 25, 563–579 (1981).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Swim, J. K., Aiken, K. J., Hall, W. S. & Hunter, B. A. Sexism and racism: old-fashioned and modern prejudices. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 68, 199–214 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Gomer, J. & Petrella, C. How the Reagan administration stoked fears of anti-white racism. The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/10/10/how-the-reagan-administration-stoked-fears-of-anti-white-racism/ (2019).

  9. 9.

    Gazer, N. Affirmative Discrimination: Ethnic Inequality and Public Policy (Basic Books, 1976).

  10. 10.

    Nature. Beware the rise of the radical right. Nature 563, 599 (2018).

  11. 11.

    Blake, J. Are whites racially oppressed? CNN http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/21/white.persecution/index.html (2019).

  12. 12.

    Daillo, R. Is there anti-white racism in France? Al Jazeera https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/anti-white-racism-france-181009095244289.html (2019).

  13. 13.

    Saunders, D. The real reason Donald Trump got elected? We have a white extremism problem. The Globe and Mail https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-politics/the-real-reason-donald-trump-got-elected-we-have-a-white-extremism-problem/article32817625/ (2019).

  14. 14.

    Major, B., Blodorn, A. & Major Blascovich, G. The threat of increasing diversity: why many white Americans support Trump in the 2016 presidential election. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 21, 931–940 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Mutz, D. C. Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 1–10 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Norton, M. I. & Sommers, S. R. Whites see racism as a zero-sum game that they are now losing. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 6, 215–218 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Wilkins, C. L. & Kaiser, C. R. Racial progress as threat to the status hierarchy: implications for perceptions of anti-white bias. Psychol. Sci. 25, 439–446 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Lodge, M., Steenbergen, M. R. & Brau, S. The responsive voter: campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 89, 309–326 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Lodge, M. & Taber, C. S. The automaticity of affect for political leaders, groups, and issues: an experimental test of the hot cognition hypothesis. Polit. Psychol. 26, 455–482 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Carter, N. M. & Pérez, E. O. Race and nation: how racial hierarchy shapes national attachments. Polit. Psychol. 37, 497–513 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Abrajano, M. & Hajnal, Z. White Backlash: Immigration, Race, and American Politics (Princeton Univ. Press, 2015).

  22. 22.

    Hajnal, Z. & Rivera, M. U. Immigration, Latinos, and white partisan politics: the new Democratic defection. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 58, 773–789 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Wilkins, C. L., Hirsch, A. A., Kaiser, C. R. & Inkles, M. P. The threat of racial progress and the self-protective nature of perceiving anti-white bias. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 20, 801–812 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Wilkins, C. L., Wellman, J. D., Babbitt, L. G., Toosi, N. R. & Schad, K. D. You can win but I can’t lose: bias against high-status groups increases their zero-sum beliefs about discrimination. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 57, 1–14 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Rozin, P. & Royzman, E. B. Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 5, 296–320 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. Choices, values, and frames. Am. Psychol. 39, 341–350 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Prislin, R., Limbert, W. M. & Bauer, E. From majority to minority and vice versa: the asymmetrical effects of losing and gaining majority position within a group. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 79, 385–397 (2000).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Eibach, R. P. & Keegan, T. Free at last? Social dominance, loss aversion, and white and black Americans’ differing assessments of racial progress. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90, 453–467 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Esses, V. M., Hodson, G. & Dovidio, J. F. in Canadian Immigration Policy for the 21st Century (eds Beach, C. M., Green, A. G. & Jeffrey, G. R.) 507–535 (John Deutsch Institute, 2003).

  30. 30.

    Pinker, S. The Better Angels of Our Nature (Viking, 2011).

  31. 31.

    Pinker, S. Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress (Viking, 2018).

  32. 32.

    Fallows, J. & Fallows, D. Our Towns: A 100,000-Mile Journey into the Heart of America (Pantheon, 2018)

  33. 33.

    Bosson, J. K., Vandelo, J. A., Michniewicz, K. S. & Lenes, J. G. American men’s and women’s beliefs about gender discrimination: for men, it’s not quite a zero-sum game. Masc. Soc. Change 1, 210–239 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Major, B., Quinton, W. J. & McCoy, S. K. Antecedents and consequences of attributions to discrimination: theoretical and empirical advances. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 34, 251–330 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Crocker, J., Major, B. & Steele, C. in The Handbook of Social Psychology 4th ed. (eds Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T. & Gardner, L.) 504–553 (McGraw-Hill, 1998).

  36. 36.

    Crosby, F., Pufall, A., Snyder, R. C., O’Connell, M. & Whalen, P. in Gender’s Thought: Psychological Perspectives (eds Crawford, M. & Gentry, M.) 79–99 (Springer, 1989).

  37. 37.

    Hodson, G. & Esses, V. M. Distancing oneself from negative attributes and the personal/group discrimination discrepancy. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 38, 500–507 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Taylor, D. M., Wright, S. C. & Porter, L. E. in The Psychology of Prejudice: The Ontario Symposium Vol. 7 (eds Zanna, M. P. & Olson, J. M.) 233–255 (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994).

  39. 39.

    Coleman, M. G., Darity, W. A. & Sharpe, R. V. Are reports of discrimination valid? Considering the moral hazard effect. Am. J. Econ. Sociol. 67, 149–175 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Taylor, D. M., Wright, S. C., Moghaddam, F. M. & Lalonde, R. N. The personal/group discrimination discrepancy: perceiving my group, but not myself, to be a target for discrimination. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 16, 254–262 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    2012 Time Series Study (American National Election Studies, 2012); https://electionstudies.org/project/2012-time-series-study/

  42. 42.

    2016 Time Series Study (American National Election Studies, 2016); https://electionstudies.org/project/2016-time-series-study/

  43. 43.

    Smith, T. W., Davern, M., Freese, J. & Morgan, S. L. General Social Surveys, 1972–2018 (2019); https://gss.norc.org/get-the-data

  44. 44.

    Hate Crime (FBI, UCR, 2017); https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime

  45. 45.

    Midlife in the United States (MIDUS 1), 1995–1996 Data File 2760 (ICPSR, 1996); https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/2760

  46. 46.

    Midlife in the United States (MIDUS 2), 2004–2006 Data File 4652 (ICPSR, 2006); https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/4652?archive=ICPSR&q=MIDUS+

  47. 47.

    Midlife in the United States (MIDUS 3), 2013–2014 Data File 36346 (ICPSR, 2014); https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/36346

  48. 48.

    Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics (Sage, 2013).

  49. 49.

    Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. Using Multivariate Statistics 6th edn (Pearson, 2016).

  50. 50.

    Allen, P. & Bennett, K. SPSS for the Health and Behavioural Sciences (Thomson Learning, 2007).

  51. 51.

    Muthen, L. K. & Muthen, B. O. Testing main effects and interactions in latent curve analysis. Psychol. Methods 9, 220–237 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Curran, P. J., Bauer, D. J. & Willoughby, M. T. Mplus User's Guide 7th edn (Muthen & Muthen, 2015).

  53. 53.

    Curran, P. J. & Hussong, A. M. The use of latent trajectory models in psychopathology research. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 112, 526–544 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Durlak, J. A. How to select, calculate, and interpret effect sizes. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 39, 917–928 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

M.E. and G.H. conceived the project, analysed the data and wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Megan Earle or Gordon Hodson.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Primary handling editor: Aisha Bradshaw.

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs. 1–2 and Supplementary Methods.

41562_2019_777_MOESM2_ESM.pdf

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Earle, M., Hodson, G. Questioning white losses and anti-white discrimination in the United States. Nat Hum Behav 4, 160–168 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0777-1

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing