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


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.


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 Data from Sample 2 can be found at Data from Sample 3 can be found at Data from Sample 4 can be found at Names for variables used in the present investigation are listed as they appear in the datasets in the Supplementary Information.


  1. 1.

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

  2. 2.

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

  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).

  4. 4.

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

  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).

  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).

  8. 8.

    Gomer, J. & Petrella, C. How the Reagan administration stoked fears of anti-white racism. The Washington Post (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 (2019).

  12. 12.

    Daillo, R. Is there anti-white racism in France? Al Jazeera (2019).

  13. 13.

    Saunders, D. The real reason Donald Trump got elected? We have a white extremism problem. The Globe and Mail (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).

  15. 15.

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

  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).

  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).

  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).

  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).

  20. 20.

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

  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).

  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).

  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).

  25. 25.

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

  26. 26.

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

  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).

  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).

  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).

  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).

  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).

  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).

  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).

  41. 41.

    2012 Time Series Study (American National Election Studies, 2012);

  42. 42.

    2016 Time Series Study (American National Election Studies, 2016);

  43. 43.

    Smith, T. W., Davern, M., Freese, J. & Morgan, S. L. General Social Surveys, 1972–2018 (2019);

  44. 44.

    Hate Crime (FBI, UCR, 2017);

  45. 45.

    Midlife in the United States (MIDUS 1), 1995–1996 Data File 2760 (ICPSR, 1996);

  46. 46.

    Midlife in the United States (MIDUS 2), 2004–2006 Data File 4652 (ICPSR, 2006);

  47. 47.

    Midlife in the United States (MIDUS 3), 2013–2014 Data File 36346 (ICPSR, 2014);

  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).

  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).

  54. 54.

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

Download references


The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Author information

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

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.

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).

Download citation