Shared Identities: Intersectionality,Linked Fate,and Perceptions of Political Candidates

Abstract

Scholars of gender and race have long acknowledged the importance that descriptive representation plays for marginalized groups, if not substantively than symbolically. Yet, as candidate pools diversify to better reflect the population, it becomes less clear which among intersecting and overlapping identities will matter and how. Employing data from the 2016 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey, we explore the association between minority voters’ sense of linked fate and their beliefs about candidates who share (or do not share) their gender and racial identities. Using this timely and unique data, collected immediately after the 2016 election when race and gender were of particular salience, we examine whether shared racial and gender identity is associated with Black and Latina/o voters’ beliefs about how well different candidates will represent their interests. We conclude by discussing the implications of our research for the changing face of American political candidates and voters.

Keywords

linked fate race gender ethnicity political attitudes descriptive representation

The past several election cycles have seen an increasingly diverse field of candidates, particularly in regard to the Democratic Party. The increase in men and women of color running for even the highest levels of office has come with some notable victories as well as significant losses, making it all the more pertinent to understand attitudes toward and the impact of such candidates. How does having a candidate with a shared identity shape perceptions of representation for traditionally underrepresented groups? Which identities matter and how?

Scholars of race and gender have long acknowledged the importance that descriptive representation plays for marginalized groups, if not substantively (impacting policies and procedures), then symbolically (impacting political attitudes and behavior) (Canon 1999; Casellas and Wallace 2014; Lublin 1997; Wallace 2014a, 2014b; Whitby 1997b). The mechanisms connecting particular identities with distinct patterns of political behavior, however, are complicated and multifaceted. Sharing a marginalized identity such as race or gender does not automatically translate into the belief that someone who looks like you will be able to represent you. Furthermore, individuals may hold membership to more than one group, but not all groups will inspire the same meaning, and that meaning may vary over time (García Bedolla 2007). Binary and static understandings of identity can overlook relevant power dynamics in a manner that obscures those with nonnormative positions at the intersection of multiple marginalities (Cohen 1997). Our use of intersectional minority linked fate seeks to complicate how and when gender influences Black and Latina/o perception of representation.

In this article, we explore the role that gender and race play in perceptions of representation of generic congressional candidates among and between African Americans and Latinas/os. Here we build on our previous work exploring the possibility and dynamics of an intersectional minority linked fate (Gershon et al. 2019). Linked fate, the belief that what happens in the group will impact the individual, was an important development in understandings of the racial consciousness and political behavior of African Americans (Dawson 1994; Tate 1994). We bridge together two strands of important but underexplored areas of inquiry within that literature. First is the race-gendered analysis of linked fate and political behavior (e.g., Cohen 1999; Gay, Hochschild, and White 2016; Gay and Tate 1998; Simien 2005). Here scholars have cautioned against overemphasizing intragroup commonality and have documented the gendered differences in ethnoracial linked fate. Second is the research exploring the possibility of developing a sense of linked fate that works across ethnoracial minority groups, a minority linked fate (Gershon et al. 2019; Jones 2019). While studies on Black-Latina/o relations have found mixed results, more positive evaluations have been found across groups when there are perceptions of shared experiences with inequality (e.g., Fraga et al. 2010; Jones-Correa 2011; Sanchez and Masuoka 2010).

Combining and building off of these two approaches, we propose an intersectional analysis of minority linked fate to examine possible race, gendered, or race-gendered differences in perceptions of representation. Given the high salience of both gender and race, the 2016 election provides an ideal opportunity for observing possible intersections regarding linked fate and perceptions of representation by different candidates. Relying on an innovative survey of Black and Latina/o Americans immediately following the 2016 election (Barreto et al. 2018), we find that minority linked fate positively impacts perceptions of representation; however, it functions with distinct raced, gendered, and race-gendered nuances that demonstrate the importance of intersectional considerations.

Intersectional Minority Linked Fate and Perceptions of Representation

Scholars have long explored the role that identity might play in candidate evaluation, with early findings supporting the view that voters tend to favor candidates who look like them, particularly in low information settings when the public might use it as an information shortcut or cue about policy stances (McDermott 1998; Popkin 1991; Tate 2001). Indeed, recent work by English, Pearson, and Strolovitch (2019) finds that both ethnoracial minorities and whites prefer their Members of Congress to share their racial identity. This finding has been particularly strong in the study of ethnoracial identities. Scholars have consistently shown that Black and Latina/o voters will support co-ethnic candidates when they have the opportunity, unless they have a serious reason to do otherwise (Barreto 2010; Bejarano 2013; Hero 1992; Philpot and Walton 2007). Ideology and viability matter, but ethnic cues are strong in part because co-ethnics have been found to reliably provide greater substantive representation to members of the group (Canon 1999; Casellas 2010; Grose 2011; Lublin 1997; Tate 2003; Wallace 2014a; Whitby 1997). Furthermore, the “minority empowerment” theory of politics holds that descriptive representation signals more open political opportunities and inclusion for groups, something that is then translated into democratic engagement and participation (Bobo and Gilliam 1990).

Sharing an identity, however, does not automatically translate into the belief that someone who looks like you will be able to represent you. To this end, group identification and group consciousness are key. Group identification is defined as a psychological attachment to that group that is based on the perception of shared feelings, beliefs, ideas, and interests with other members of the group (Gurin, Miller, and Gurin 1980; Miller et al. 1981). Group identification develops through self-identification (how one defines oneself) and ascription (how one is seen by others), with the later sometimes shaping the former. In the American context, courts (Davis 1991), state laws (McClain et al. 2009), and the census (Nobles 2000) have worked in concert to assign group membership. Furthermore, group identification is policed, both through reification and codification through societal and legal measures, which detail membership criteria (Masuoka 2017; Masuoka and Junn 2013). Group consciousness goes a step further, referring to the set of political beliefs and action orientations arising out of this awareness of similarity (Gurin, Miller, and Gurin 1980).

Linked Fate

A key finding in the study of racial group consciousness is the pivotal role played by linked fate (Dawson 1994; Tate 1994). The belief that what happens to the group will impact the individual is considered to be a primary motivator for ethnoracial minorities to vote along racial lines and support co-ethnic candidates (Barreto 2010; Casellas and Wallace 2014; McConnaughy et al. 2010; Schildkraut 2017; Wallace 2014b). Without that sense of collective identity and common futurity, ethnic cues have little meaning.

The concept of linked fate emerged from studies of African Americans, arguing that the shared historical experiences with slavery and marginalization in the United States have created a persistent sense of collective identity and common struggle strong enough to shape political behavior and to remain influential even with growing socioeconomic diversity within that community (Dawson 1994; Tate 1994). In subsequent years, scholars have studied the applicability of the concept to other groups and identities with mixed results. Although all ethnoracial identities are multidimensional, ethnoracial consciousness does not work the same across all nonwhite populations in the United States (McClain et al. 2009). Studies of other ethnoracial groups have also found perceptions of linked fate, albeit at rates lower and less consistently than for African Americans. Newer “pan-ethnic” group identities, such as Latinas/os and Asian Americans, have more extensively varied comparative histories and interracial differences (see Beltrán 2010; Junn and Masuoka 2008; Sanchez and Vargas 2016). For example, Latina/o racial identification is connected to a host of racial classification systems from one’s home country (García Bedolla 2005); experiences with racial discrimination in the United States (Golash-Boza 2006); and the ability to integrate into the American racial hierarchy as white (Darity 2005). At the same time, contemporary experiences with discrimination have been found to facilitate a collective sense of identity that can and has been mobilized in these groups (Barreto and Masuoka 2004; Lien, Conway, and Wong 2008; Masuoka 2006; Sanchez and Masuoka 2010; Segura and Rodrigues 2006; Vargas, Sanchez, and Valdez 2017).

Minority Linked Fate

A newer development in the study of linked fate has been the possibility of forging of a cross-racial “minority” identity on similar (although not identical) experiences with racism. Whether or not different ethnoracial minorities share a sense of linked fate with each other, and how it might shape political behavior, is an area of contention. Studies on Black-Latina/o relations have found mixed results, with some finding negative and/or competitive perceptions (McClain et al. 2006; Morin, Sanchez, and Barreto 2011; Tajfel and Turner 1979; Wilkinson 2014) while others find more positive evaluations based on shared experiences with inequality (Fraga et al. 2010; Jones-Correa 2011; Jones-Correa, Wallace, and Zepeda-Millán 2016; Sanchez 2008; Sanchez and Masuoka 2010). Cross-racial “minority linked fate” appears to be contingent. For example, Sanchez (2008) finds that Latina/o people who have a greater sense of intragroup commonality and who believe that the Latina/o community is discriminated against in society are more likely to have perceptions of commonality with African Americans. Furthermore, Latina/o youth are more likely than their older counterparts to identify with Black community members. Latina/o youth have been strongly influenced by contentious and racialized immigration debates and are more likely than their elders to have experienced negative encounters with law enforcement (Lopez and Livingston 2009; Lopez and Taylor 2012). In regard to how this might relate to candidate evaluations, in her study of Denver, Kaufmann (2003) found notable reciprocity of electoral support between Black and Latina/o voters (although with slightly higher support of Black voters for a Latina/o candidate than Latina/o support for a Black candidate). Likewise, Bejarano (2013, 133) found that ethnoracial minorities were more likely to support all ethnoracial minority incumbents over white incumbents.

Intersectional Minority Linked Fate

Studies that look across ethnoracial groups or relationships between ethnoracial groups are one way in which the conceptualizations of racial consciousness, and linked fate in particular, have been challenged, developed, and or expanded. Yet, they are still predominantly focused on a single axis of identity, that of race. Claims of political consciousness that arise from a single-shared identity often mask the diversity that exists within all social groups. When one identity becomes more salient, the (un)intended consequence is to see identity as unidimensional, obscuring other identities and experiences, particularly those situated at the intersection of multiple marginalities (Ayoub 2014; Cohen 1999; Greenwood 2008; Grollman 2012; Strolovitch 2007). Prototypicality, when a group member embodies the stereotypical traits of the group as a whole, one’s other defining characteristics may become diminished (Stets and Burke 2000). In turn, those that hold multiple subordinate statuses (such as women of color) are considered to be nonprototypical when compared with the group members with only one subordinate identity (Purdie-Vaughns and Eibach 2008).

Intersectionality scholars have extensively acknowledged the intricacies of identity and oppression. Individuals might simultaneously hold membership to more than one group, such that they are at the intersection of multiple marginalities that are experienced simultaneously, or they might experience oppression along one dimension and privilege along another (Crenshaw 1989, 1991). This interplay of multiple identities can result in unique and particular experiences at the intersections of these identities that challenge assumptions of intragroup commonalities. Furthermore, the importance of particular identities, or even the creation of new identities (such as a “people of color” or “women of color” identity that overlays other ethnoracial or race-gendered identities), may shift given the political context and issue salience. Thus, an intersectional analysis should open up, rather than assume, the relationship between identity categories (Hancock 2007). Integral to this analysis is an interrogation of power that challenges the over reliance on homogenized identities to better recognize nonnormative and marginalized positionalities (Cohen 1997).

Black feminist scholars have long argued the need to look at both gender and race, utilizing an intersectional approach to show important differences in Black experiences with oppression. This includes scholarship demonstrating how the development of racial consciousness among African Americans is shaped by different marginalities, particularly that of gender (Brown 2014; Capers and Smith 2016; Cohen 1999; Simien 2005; Simien and Clawson 2004). This type of intersectional approach, one Leslie McCall (2005) refers to as intracategorical, does not dismiss or even diminish the possibility of an ethnoracial linked fate, but it acknowledges important gendered variations within the ethnoracial group. For example, Simien’s (2005, 539) work finds that a higher percentage of Black men (86%) than Black women (71%) express linked fate with Black men, but that there were no gender differences between Black women and men in expressing linked fate with Black women (with 78% reported for both). Here, gender appears to be more salient for Black women. In their experimental study, Philpot and Walton (2007) found that Black women are the most likely Democratic group to support Black women candidates, followed closely by Black men. Black men matched Black women’s support for the Black female candidate unless her opponent was a Black male, showing gender might matter for Black men as well.

Other intersectional work has taken an intercategorical approach, looking at race-gendered intersections across groups. This includes literature where scholars have found ethnoracial variation in gender-related attitudes (Harnois 2015). For example, Kane (2000) demonstrates that Black people hold more progressive views of gender inequality than do whites but that whites are less likely to adhere to gendered roles than Blacks. In the same study, Kane finds that Latinas tend to espouse more traditional roles than do non-Hispanics; however, with findings influenced by the length of time that a Latina has been in the United States as well as her citizenship status. In contrast, Bejarano, Manzano, and Montoya (2011) find that Latinos and Latinas in all stages of assimilation generally hold liberal opinions on a variety of gender equality issues, but in ways that may incorporate other considerations or intersections than other ethnoracial groups.

Intersectional Minority Linked Fate and Representation

In this article, we apply an intersectional analysis to the concept of minority linked fate and its role in shaping perceptions of representation among African Americans and Latinas/os. If the salience of a particular identity or set of identities is context specific depending on the political stimuli (Brown 2014; García Bedolla 2007), we contend that the 2016 Presidential Election is an ideal moment to explore the intersectional dynamics of minority linked fate. Throughout the campaign, both gender and race were of high political salience and in a polarizing manner. Hillary Clinton, the first (white) female candidate of a major party, spoke frequently about gender and racial inequality, taking an unprecedented intersectional approach to issues in her presidential campaign platform. Donald Trump, on the other hand, unapologetically engaged in racist and misogynist rhetoric with his “Make America Great Again” campaign. Trump opened his campaign by characterizing Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists, a theme he repeated throughout the campaign, alongside calling for a Muslim ban, and characterizing the lives of African Americans in the most dismal overgeneralizations. His misogynistic treatment of women was highlighted in numerous examples, the most notable being the release of the Access Hollywood tape and the infamous “Grab’em by the pussy. You can do anything” line. Arlie Hochschild (2016) argues that Trump explicitly worked to elevate white men as appealing to them as the “left-behinds” and was the “identity politics candidate for White men” (229–30). Thus, the explicit and implicit racist, sexist, and xenophobic rhetoric exposed by Trump and his followers are expected to play a part in how men and women of color understood the political environment in 2016. If sentiments of linked fate among marginalized groups were to be formed, it was within this political climate, but not necessarily in the same manner.

To explore the different intersectional considerations regarding perceptions of representation, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Sharing both the ethnoracial and gender identity of the candidate described will be associated with a stronger belief among respondents that the candidate will represent their interests, compared with those respondents who do not share both of these identities with the candidate described.

This hypothesis might be understood in intersectional terms that are intracategorical (e.g., gender matters within ethnoracial respondent groups) or intercategorically (e.g., gender matters across ethnoracial group and/or race matters across gender groups).

Theorizing our intersectional expectations of minority linked fate are a little more complicated, necessitating a more open empirical approach (as advocated by Hancock 2007). Here we use a broad hypothesis stated in nonintersectional terms:

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Higher levels of minority linked fate among respondents will be associated with a stronger belief that the candidate described will represent their interests, compared with respondents who have low levels of minority linked fate.

We then, however, take an intersectional approach in how we test both hypotheses, and analyze our results, disaggregating race-gendered respondents and candidates in our multivariate analysis as well as running separate models for each race-gendered respondent group. These methodological approaches better allow for a more thorough exploration of possible intersectional dynamics than traditional approaches where some of these nuances might be obscured. Empirically we are looking to see first, whether a sense of minority linked fate functions differently among the various respondents? If so, how might these differences relate to the assessment of the various candidates in regard to shared race, gendered, or race-gendered identities?

Methods, Data, and Measures

We employ data collected by the 2016 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey (CMPS) from December 2, 2016, to February 15, 2017. The sample includes 3,003 Latina/o respondents and 3,102 Black respondents. Within these groups, there are 2,183 black women, 2,037 Latinas, 971 Black men, and 966 Latinos. The CMPS is a unique data set in as much as it contains a large and generalizable sample of Black, Latinas/os, and Asian Americans. Our particular focus in this analysis is on the large sample of Black and Latina/o respondents, who were the only respondents that were asked our questions on shared identity.¹ The magnitude and diversity of CMPS allows for a unique examination of attitudes and intersectional identities across and within groups. Specifically, we are able to explore the association between beliefs about linked fate and political candidates among voters of different ethnoracial and gendered identities. Furthermore, we are able to examine this association for voters who share one or more of the candidates’ identities, as well as those who do not. In particular, this array of diverse questions and large respondent samples allow us to engage in a unique race-gendered analysis that does not solely rely on controlling for gender or race.

To examine whether sharing gender and ethnoracial identities with the candidate is associated with a belief that the candidate will represent respondent interests—we explore differences among the respondent groups in response to a series of questions asking how well respondents felt different candidates (including a Latino, a Latina, a Black man, and a Black woman) would represent their interests. In this survey, each respondent was asked about every candidate examined.² Their responses to these four questions were coded dichotomously—1 = yes definitely or yes somewhat, 0 = maybe or no—(see pages 1 and 2 of the Supplmental Information for a complete list of measures employed in the paper as well as summary statistics).

In Table 1, we report the proportion of each respondent group who said that the candidate described would represent their interests (our dependent variable). Descriptively, respondents most frequently expressed the belief that the candidate sharing their ethnoracial and gender identity would represent their interests, compared with the other candidates. As we have found elsewhere (citation redacted), respondents more frequently indicate that candidates sharing their racial/ethnic but not gender identities would represent their interests, compared with either racial out-group candidate. Gender differences still appear, but in a less straightforward manner when looking at race-gender intersections intercategorically (across ethnoracial groups) as opposed to intracategorically (within ethnoracial groups). With the exception of Black men, respondents more frequently expressed a belief that racial out-group candidates sharing their gender identity would represent their interests, compared with out-group candidates not sharing their gender identity.

Table 1.

Percent of Each Respondent Group Reporting a Belief that the Candidates Will Represent Their Interests.

	Black female candidate	Black male candidate	Latina candidate	Latino male candidate
Respondents
Black women	73%	66%	46%	36%
Black men	66%	69%	47%	46%
Latinas	52%	45%	69%	59%
Latinos (men)	47%	49%	63%	66%

Table 1 indicates that respondents more often indicate that they feel represented by those candidates sharing their ethnoracial and gendered identities at higher levels; however, the descriptive data tell us very little about the reasons for these attitudes. For example, is it merely shared identities, or are beliefs about shared experiences or linked fate associated with these attitudes? Furthermore, under what circumstances will voters positively evaluate candidates who do not share either their gender or ethnoracial identities? To examine these questions and our hypotheses, we rely on multivariate analyses predicting the likelihood of our four respondent groups (Latinos, Latinas, Black men, and Black women) expressing a belief that Latino, Latina, Black male, and Black female candidates would represent their interests.

Recall that we predicted that Latina/o and Black respondents who display higher levels of shared minority linked fate will voice a stronger belief that all candidates (including those that do not share one or both dimensions of identity) will represent their interests. To examine the relationship between minority linked fate and our dependent variable, we rely on the following question “What happens generally to racial and ethnic minorities in this country will have something to do with what happens in your life” (0 = not at all to 3 = a lot). In addition, we control for the respondents’ sense of linked fate with their own ethnoracial group, expecting that this may be associated with attitudes toward in-group candidates in particular. To capture this measure, we employed a question which asks “What happens generally to [respondents’ ethnoracial group] people in this country will have something to do with what happens in your life” (1 = yes, 0 = no).

In addition to the sense of linked fate with other minorities, we anticipate that experiences with discrimination and beliefs that the candidate’s ethnoracial group is subject to discrimination will also be associated with political attitudes. There is reason to expect that attitudes about discrimination will be related to expectations of Black and Latina/o candidates among minorities who do not share their racial identities, but who believe they share a common marginalized status. Some research indicates that beliefs about discrimination may impact other attitudes differently than individual experiences of discrimination. For example, Masuoka (2006) found that for some minority groups, broader beliefs about discrimination being a problem strengthen pan-ethnic identities, while experiences with discrimination have the opposite impact. To capture the role of these attitudes, we examine two measures. The first—Black/Latina/o Discrimination—asks respondents whether they believe the ethnoracial group that the candidate belongs to experiences discrimination. The second—Experienced Discrimination—asks the respondent if they have ever been subject to discrimination because of their identity.³

Finally, we include several political and demographic characteristics that may be associated with variance in support for these candidates. For example, we control for whether the respondent would call themselves a Democrat (1 = Democrat, 0 = other). With little information about the candidates (as in this survey), voters are likely to use candidate identity as a cue to make inferences about their characteristics (McDermott 1998). Given that the overwhelming majority of Black and Latina/o members of Congress are Democrats, respondents may assume the candidates they are presented with are Democrats, which may in turn be related to their beliefs about how well the candidate will represent their interests. In addition, we control for respondent age (years), and education (1 = no high school to 6 = post graduate education), as well as whether the respondent is unemployed (1 = yes, 0 = no). In the models for Latino respondents, we control for nativity with native born representing whether the respondent was born in the United States. The nativity variable aims to capture additional geographic variance in attitudes toward diverse candidates, which in the case of Latinas/os, may be related to whether they have more experience with diverse racial groups living in the United States. Finally, we control for the proportion of the respondents’ district sharing the racial/ethnic identity of the candidate. The data are from the 2015 American Community Survey and provide local context for the diversity of the population.

Results

To test our hypotheses, we rely on logistic regression predicting the likelihood that the respondent would agree that the candidate would “definitely” or “somewhat” represent their interests.⁴ First, we examine the relationship between respondent identity and candidate evaluations (Table 2), relying on binary variables for Latino, Latina, Black men, Black women respondents.⁵ In each model, the excluded category is the respondent group that shares gender and ethnic/racial identities with the candidate. For example, in the first model examining attitudes toward the Latino candidate, Latino respondents are the excluded category.

Table 2.

Likelihood Congressional Candidate Would Represent Your Interests.

	Latino candidate	Latina candidate	Black male candidate	Black female candidate
	Unstandardized coefficient (SE)	Unstandardized coefficient (SE)	Unstandardized coefficient (SE)	Unstandardized coefficient (SE)
Respondent identity
Latino man	—	−0.036	−0.658**	−0.706**
Latino man		(0.141)	(0.148)	(0.138)
Latina	−0.249	—	−0.862**	−0.610**
Latina	(0.135)		(0.133)	(0.123)
Black man	−1.076**	−1.109**	—	−0.161
Black man	(0.145)	(0.143)		(0.121)
Black woman	−1.598**	−1.238**	−0.281*	—
Black woman	(0.130)	(0.125)	(0.114)
Attitudes & experiences
Minority linked fate	0.204**	0.226**	0.228**	0.231**
Minority linked fate	(0.053)	(0.053)	(0.052)	(0.053)
In-group linked fate	0.275**	0.164	0.337**	0.285**
In-group linked fate	(0.103)	(0.106)	(0.101)	(0.104)
Discrimination beliefs	0.295**	0.358**	0.273**	0.299**
Discrimination beliefs	(0.055)	(0.060)	(0.066)	(0.067)
Experienced discrimination	0.024	−0.022	−0.038	0.034
Experienced discrimination	(0.095)	(0.096)	(0.097)	(0.100)
Democrat	0.472**	0.564**	0.592**	0.773**
Democrat	(0.095)	(0.095)	(0.094)	(0.095)
Sociodemographic controls
Age	−0.001	−0.000	−0.003	−0.001
Age	(0.003)	(0.003)	(0.003)	(0.003)
Education	0.110*	0.158**	0.067	0.135**
Education	(0.044)	(0.046)	(0.044)	(0.045)
Unemployed	−0.092	−0.235	−0.290*	−0.359**
Unemployed	(0.114)	(0.121)	(0.119)	(0.123)
District composition	0.001	−0.001	0.001	−0.000
District composition	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.002)
Native born	−0.232*	0.011	0.183	0.239*
Native born	(0.118)	(0.120)	(0.114)	(0.117)
Constant	−0.706**	−1.100**	−0.935**	−1.448**
Constant	(0.268)	(0.279)	(0.314)	(0.306)
N	5,262	5,262	5,357	5,357
Chi²	314.75	221.51	290.86	322.12

Source. Collaborative Multiracial Post-election Survey (CMPS), 2016 (Barreto et al. 2017).

Cell entries are logistic coefficients and standard errors.

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01, two-tailed.

The results in Table 2 offer some support for the first hypothesis, indicating the likelihood of expressing a belief that the candidate would represent their interests is highest among respondents who share ethnoracial and, to some extent, gender identities of the candidates about whom they are being asked. In each model, the negative coefficients indicate that not sharing a race-gendered identity is associated with a decreased likelihood that a candidate will represent the respondent, compared with the excluded category. However, in the models for the Latino, Latina, and Black female candidates, sharing ethnoracial but not gender identity is not significant, indicating no meaningful difference between male and female respondents sharing the same ethnoracial identity of the candidate described. The Black male candidate model is an exception to this pattern, with negative and significant coefficients for the Latino men, Latina and Black women respondents, indicating that not sharing the ethnoracial and gender identity of the candidate described is associated with a decrease in the likelihood that respondents believe they will represent their interests. This finding appears consistent with Simien (2005) discovery that gender is more salient for Black women than for Black men.

To explore the magnitude of this association, we calculated the conditional probabilities (based on the results presented in Table 2)⁶ of each respondent group believing the candidate would represent their interests. The results—reported in Table 8 and Figure 5 in the SI—indicate substantive difference in beliefs about the four candidates among Latino and Black respondent groups, there are few substantive gender differences within ethnoracial groups (as indicated by the overlapping confidence intervals).

We also hypothesized that a sense of minority linked fate would be associated with a belief among respondents about the candidates representing their interests. The data reported in Table 2 show that, controlling for respondent identity, higher levels of minority linked fate are positively and significantly associated with respondents’ beliefs that candidates will represent their interests. Furthermore, higher levels of in-group linked fate are positively and significantly associated with the dependent variable in three of the models. Also significant across all four models was discrimination beliefs and being a Democrat.

While these results are instructive, controlling for the respondents’ identities does not allow us to fully explore the unique and sometimes complicated ways in which beliefs about shared experiences relate to attitudes toward these candidates. Intersectional analysis requires a more nuanced approach. To better explore the intersectional dynamics of minority linked fate in shaping the perceptions of representation by candidates, we run our models separately for each candidate and respondent group (Tables 3 –6). Only by employing separate models for each group, are we able to conduct a more fully intersectional analysis of the unique factors associated with minority voter beliefs about candidates with shared racial, ethnic, and gender identities, as well as those with whom they do not share identities. Table 3 reports the results for the Latino male respondents, Table 4 reports the results for the Latina respondents, Table 5 reports the results for the Black male respondents, and Table 6 reports the results for the Black female respondents.

Table 3.

Likelihood Latino Male Respondents Believe Candidates Represent Their Interests.

	Latino candidate	Latina candidate	Black male candidate	Black female candidate
	Unstandardized coefficient (SE)	Unstandardized coefficient (SE)	Unstandardized coefficient (SE)	Unstandardized coefficient (SE)
Attitudes & experiences
Minority linked fate	0.406**	0.231	0.205	0.278*
Minority linked fate	(0.140)	(0.139)	(0.127)	(0.127)
In-group linked fate	0.157	0.241	0.533*	0.257
In-group linked fate	(0.250)	(0.251)	(0.233)	(0.236)
Discrimination beliefs	0.362*	0.579**	0.404**	0.506**
Discrimination beliefs	(0.144)	(0.146)	(0.129)	(0.128)
Experienced discrimination	0.177	0.172	0.064	−0.069
Experienced discrimination	(0.229)	(0.225)	(0.217)	(0.214)
Democrat	0.680**	0.681**	0.510*	0.864**
Democrat	(0.227)	(0.232)	(0.211)	(0.211)
Sociodemographic controls
Age	0.005	0.002	−0.003	0.005
Age	(0.007)	(0.007)	(0.007)	(0.007)
Education	0.165	0.145	0.061	−0.052
Education	(0.097)	(0.092)	(0.087)	(0.088)
Unemployed	0.534	−0.217	−0.014	−0.296
Unemployed	(0.302)	(0.324)	(0.287)	(0.290)
District composition	0.001	0.000	0.006	0.010
District composition	(0.004)	(0.004)	(0.008)	(0.008)
Native born	−0.092	0.442	0.073	0.268
Native born	(0.236)	(0.234)	(0.222)	(0.219)
Constant	−1.770**	−2.133**	−2.021**	−2.415**
Constant	(0.593)	(0.569)	(0.561)	(0.560)
N	866	866	872	872
Chi²	52.73	58.52	46.87	67.31

Source. Collaborative Multiracial Post-election Survey (CMPS), 2016 (Barreto et al. 2017).

Cell entries are logistic coefficients and standard errors.

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01, two-tailed.

Table 4.

Likelihood Latina Respondents Believe Candidates Represent Their Interests.

	Latino candidate	Latina candidate	Black male candidate	Black female candidate
	Unstandardized coefficient (SE)	Unstandardized coefficient (SE)	Unstandardized coefficient (SE)	Unstandardized coefficient (SE)
Attitudes & experiences
Minority linked fate	0.220*	0.263*	0.263**	0.196*
Minority linked fate	(0.104)	(0.113)	(0.096)	(0.096)
In-group linked fate	0.430*	0.260	0.286	0.291
In-group linked fate	(0.205)	(0.230)	(0.191)	(0.192)
Discrimination beliefs	0.086	0.283*	0.260*	0.171
Discrimination beliefs	(0.111)	(0.125)	(0.108)	(0.114)
Experienced discrimination	−0.104	−0.221	0.023	0.054
Experienced discrimination	(0.189)	(0.213)	(0.175)	(0.177)
Democrat	0.589**	0.668**	0.398*	0.602**
Democrat	(0.181)	(0.195)	(0.168)	(0.170)
Sociodemographic controls
Age	0.000	−0.001	−0.010	−0.013*
Age	(0.006)	(0.007)	(0.006)	(0.006)
Education	0.011	0.268**	0.077	0.204**
Education	(0.079)	(0.090)	(0.077)	(0.079)
Unemployed	−0.155	−0.322	−0.383*	−0.250
Unemployed	(0.224)	(0.230)	(0.195)	(0.204)
District composition	0.001	0.001	0.003	−0.007
District composition	(0.003)	(0.003)	(0.006)	(0.006)
Native born	−0.195	−0.173	0.199	0.140
Native born	(0.163)	(0.183)	(0.161)	(0.163)
Constant	−0.348	−1.211*	−1.524**	−1.225**
Constant	(0.448)	(0.519)	(0.416)	(0.436)
N	1,784	1,784	1,789	1,789
Chi²	45.50	59.77	60.89	46.91

Source. Collaborative Multiracial Post-election Survey (CMPS), 2016 (Barreto et al. 2017).

Cell entries are logistic coefficients and standard errors.

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01, two-tailed.

Table 5.

Likelihood Black Male Respondents Believe Candidates Represent Their Interests.

	Latino candidate	Latina candidate	Black male candidate	Black female candidate
	Unstandardized coefficient (SE)	Unstandardized coefficient (SE)	Unstandardized coefficient (SE)	Unstandardized coefficient (SE)
Attitudes & experiences
Minority linked fate	0.105	0.171	0.100	0.121
Minority linked fate	(0.102)	(0.097)	(0.114)	(0.107)
In-group linked fate	0.340	0.074	0.393	0.341
In-group linked fate	(0.205)	(0.200)	(0.224)	(0.217)
Discrimination beliefs	0.324**	0.254*	0.215	0.204
Discrimination beliefs	(0.113)	(0.127)	(0.171)	(0.169)
Experienced discrimination	−0.027	−0.019	−0.456	0.082
Experienced discrimination	(0.213)	(0.199)	(0.259)	(0.227)
Democrat	0.317	0.354	0.662**	0.674**
Democrat	(0.185)	(0.183)	(0.199)	(0.197)
Sociodemographic controls
Age	−0.001	−0.001	0.007	0.008
Age	(0.006)	(0.005)	(0.007)	(0.006)
Education	0.227*	0.281**	0.151	0.276**
Education	(0.098)	(0.093)	(0.110)	(0.103)
Unemployed	−0.180	0.095	−0.213	−0.154
Unemployed	(0.236)	(0.227)	(0.270)	(0.261)
District composition	0.001	−0.001	−0.002	−0.005
District composition	(0.005)	(0.005)	(0.003)	(0.003)
Native born	—	—	—	—
Constant	−2.165**	−2.135**	−0.769	−1.751**
Constant	(0.507)	(0.567)	(0.668)	(0.657)
N	850	850	870	870
Chi²	31.20	21.16	27.11	33.32

Table 6.

Likelihood Black Female Respondents Believe Candidates Represent Their Interests.

	Latino candidate	Latina candidate	Black male candidate	Black female candidate
	Unstandardized coefficient (SE)	Unstandardized coefficient (SE)	Unstandardized coefficient (SE)	Unstandardized coefficient (SE)
Attitudes & experiences
Minority linked fate	0.106	0.216**	0.271**	0.259**
Minority linked fate	(0.073)	(0.074)	(0.074)	(0.083)
In-group linked fate	0.050	0.087	0.162	0.319*
In-group linked fate	(0.143)	(0.152)	(0.143)	(0.156)
Discrimination beliefs	0.334**	0.360**	0.241**	0.326**
Discrimination beliefs	(0.081)	(0.078)	(0.094)	(0.098)
Experienced Discrimination	−0.018	−0.009	0.033	0.023
Experienced Discrimination	(0.133)	(0.132)	(0.136)	(0.148)
Democrat	0.169	0.417**	0.780**	0.895**
Democrat	(0.140)	(0.134)	(0.137)	(0.146)
Sociodemographic controls
Age	−0.003	0.004	−0.003	−0.002
Age	(0.004)	(0.004)	(0.004)	(0.005)
Education	0.081	0.002	−0.003	0.083
Education	(0.073)	(0.070)	(0.067)	(0.074)
Unemployed	−0.506**	−0.695**	−0.529**	−0.731**
Unemployed	(0.192)	(0.172)	(0.162)	(0.171)
District composition	0.002	−0.003	0.003	0.004
District composition	(0.003)	(0.003)	(0.002)	(0.003)
Native born	—	—	—	—
Constant	−1.685**	−1.661**	−0.890*	−1.280**
Constant	(0.346)	(0.348)	(0.409)	(0.446)
N	1,845	1,845	1,912	1,912
Chi²	42.55	89.71	86.88

Source. Collaborative Multiracial Post-election Survey (CMPS), 2016 (Barreto et al. 2017).

Cell entries are logistic coefficients and standard errors.

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01, two-tailed.

Latinos

We start with an examination of the Latino male respondent’s beliefs about the candidates. Table 3—reporting the results among Latino respondents—offers some support for our second hypothesis, that minority linked fate will be associated with beliefs about representation. Among Latino male respondents, a stronger sense of minority linked fate is positively and significantly associated with an increase in the likelihood of expressing a belief that the Latino male candidate and Black female candidate will represent their interests. To further examine the association between minority linked fate and beliefs about the candidates, we calculate the conditional probabilities (based on the results presented in Table 3) of respondents believing the candidate would represent their interests at different levels of minority linked fate (Figure 1).⁷ First, moving from the lowest to highest levels of minority linked fate is associated with a sizable increase in the probability of Latino male respondents expressing a belief that the candidate described will represent their interests. As the data in the figure show, a change from low to high levels of minority linked fate is associated with changes in the probability of answering in the affirmative from .47 to .75 when Latino male respondents were asked if the Latino male candidates will represent their interests. This is notable, because it is one of the biggest shifts seen in any of the respondents for any of the candidates. Having minority linked fate is substantially changing perceptions regarding the candidate with the shared race-gendered identity. But it also has an impact on their perceptions of representation from the candidate with whom they do not share race or gender with. When asked whether the Black female candidate would represent their interests, Latino male respondents with low levels of minority linked fate had a .28 probability of answering “yes”; among those with high levels of minority linked fate, the probability increased to .47.

Figure 1.

Latino male attitudes toward the candidates by minority linked fate.

In addition to the performance of minority linked fate, it is important to note the significance of other variables. In-group linked fate has a significant, positive association for Latino respondents’ assessment of the Black male candidates’ ability to provide representation, while the coefficient for minority linked fate is not significant. Beliefs that the candidate’s ethnoracial group is subject to discrimination more consistently had a significant impact on a positive assessment across all candidates. Furthermore, identifying as a Democrat was positively associated with beliefs about all four candidates.

Latinas

We see stronger support for Hypothesis 2 among Latina respondents, compared with their Latino male peers. Specifically, the results in Table 4 indicate that Latina respondents with higher levels of minority linked fate have a greater likelihood of expressing a belief that all four candidates would represent their interests. As in the previous analysis, we calculate the conditional probability (based on the results presented in Table 4) of respondents believing the candidate would represent their interests at different levels of minority linked fate (Figure 2). The data in Figure 2 show that among Latinas, respondents have the highest probability of believing the co-ethnic candidate would represent their interests, at both the lowest and highest levels of minority linked fate. However, the magnitude of change for out-group Black candidates is also significant and substantial. For example, moving from the lowest to highest level of minority linked fate is associated with an increase in the probability that Latina respondents indicated that the Black male and female candidates would represent their interests by 19 and 15 percent, respectively.

Figure 2.

Latina attitudes toward the candidates by minority linked fate.

In contrast to the Latino male respondents, minority link fate provides the most consistent association with a positive assessment by Latinas of a candidate’s ability to provide representation. At the same time, in-group linked fate provided a stronger association with Latina respondents assessment of Latino candidates. Beliefs about discrimination were significant for the assessment of the Latina and Black male candidates, but not the Latino or Black female candidates. Furthermore, identifying as a Democrat was positively associated with beliefs about all four candidates. Education is positively associated with Latinas’ likelihood of saying the Latina and Black woman candidates would represent their interests. Finally, the likelihood of Latinas reporting that the Black male and Black female candidates would represent their interests is negatively associated with unemployment and age, respectively.

Black Men

In contrast to the Latino and Latina respondents, as well as the results presented in previous tables, our finding for Black male respondents does not support Hypothesis 2 (Tables 5 and Figure 3). Minority linked fate is not significantly associated with beliefs about any of the candidates among Black male respondents and results in little substantive change in beliefs about the candidates. While minority fate does not appear to impact perceptions of representation for Black men, several of the other variables perform better. Education was the variable most consistently associated with perceptions of representation (for the Latino, Latina, and Black female candidate). Beliefs about Latinas/os being subject to discrimination were also positively associated with perceptions of representation by the Latino and Latina candidate. Being a Democrat was positively associated with beliefs of representation by Black female and male candidates.

Figure 3.

Black male attitudes toward the candidates by minority linked fate.

Black Women

For Black women respondents, minority linked fate had more of an impact on perceptions of representation than for either Black men or Latino men, but less consistently than for Latinas. Minority linked fate is significantly associated with expressing the belief that Latina, Black male and Black female candidates will represent their interests (see Table 6, Figure 4). So, whereas moving from low to high linked fate seemed to inspire the biggest movement in perceptions of representation of the out race-gendered group for the other respondents, this was not the case for Black women. As the conditional probabilities reported in Figure 4 show, Black women respondents have the highest probability of believing candidates sharing their race-gendered identity would represent their interests, at both the lowest and highest levels of minority linked fate. The magnitude of change for the out-group Latina candidate is the most substantial. For example, moving from low to high levels of minority linked fate is associated with an increase in the probability that Black women respondents will believe the Latina candidate represents their interests by 17 percent.

Figure 4.

Black female attitudes toward the candidates by minority linked fate.

Comparisons

Looking across all four respondent groups and for all four candidates, we find important distinctions in how minority linked fate functions in association with beliefs about candidates. First, minority linked fate is more frequently associated with increased perceptions of representation among female than male respondents. This worked most consistently for Latinas, whose perceptions of representation increased for all four candidates and at similar magnitudes. For Black women, minority linked fate was positively associated with beliefs about the candidates for which there was shared race, gender, or race-gender, with the biggest magnitude increase for the Latina candidates. Here, minority linked fate may work with Black women’s strong sense of racial and gender identity to facilitate more of a perceived connection with those with whom they share at least one of those identities, but not with the candidate with whom they share neither.

Among the men, minority linked fate was only significant for the Latino respondents, and only when looking at the Latino and Black female candidates. The biggest increase was with the Latino candidate, perhaps signaling a gendered difference in Latino racial self-identification. The increased support from the Latino respondent for the Black female candidate shows a different gendered impact than seen in Black female respondents. Black men are the only group for whom minority linked fate had no significant effect on perceptions of representation for any of the candidates. It is interesting to note that Figure 3 also supports Simien (2005) finding that gender is less salient for Black men. The only visible gender gap that appears is between that Latino and Latina candidate at the highest level of linked fate, a finding that is not statistically significant.

Where minority linked fate was not significant, other variables were. For example, being a Democrat was positively and significantly associated with perceptions of representation in almost all respondent-candidate combinations except for Black male respondents for the Latino and Latina candidates. Given that the overwhelming majority of Black and Latina/o members of Congress are Democrats, we suspect that respondents may be inferring—based on candidate identity—that these hypothetical candidates are also Democrats.

Also performing more consistently than minority linked fate was the perception of discrimination, which was significant for Latino and Black female respondents for all four candidates, and was significant for Latina respondents for the Latina and Black male candidate and for the Black male respondents for the Latino and Latina candidate. We calculated the conditional probability (based on the results presented in Tables 3 –6) of respondents believing the candidate would represent their interests at different levels of discrimination beliefs.⁸ Across the respondent groups, a change from low to high levels of discrimination is associated with changes between 16 and 40 percent in the probability of respondents expressing a belief that the candidate described would represent their interests.

Conclusions

The 2020 Democratic primary election started with one of the most diverse candidate pools in U.S. history and ended with a white male candidate. While persisting fears about viability and the urgency of defeating Trump were paramount, underlying them are questions and uncertainty regarding the ability to construct winning coalitions for nonnormative candidates. To this end, our article offers some potential insights into when and how marginalized ethnoracial groups might cultivate perceptions of representation with candidates that share, or do not share, various components of their identity. We contend that this is an important component of developing meaningful and impactful political coalitions.

Central to our analysis is the intersectional exploration of minority linked fate and its impact on perceptions of representation. We started with the most straightforward intersectional analysis. When faced with hypothetical candidates, respondents tended to believe that those candidates who share both their gender and ethnoracial identities will represent their interests to a greater extent than other candidates. Race and gender also mattered for perceptions of candidates not sharing both gender and ethnoracial identities. How and when they mattered, however, was much less straightforward. Our intersectional examination of minority linked fate, a measure focused on perceptions of a shared futurity, elicited gendered and race-gendered findings that highlight the importance of intra- and intercategorical considerations. In regard to gendered findings, minority linked fate was more frequently associated with increased perceptions of representation among female respondents than male respondents.

One potential avenue for exploring this gendered effect is research looking at the coalitional potential of intersectional consciousness. Although intersectionality is often misconstrued as breaking groups into increasingly smaller constituencies, it might instead be understood as recognizing new avenues of connections (Bickford 1997; Cole 2008; Collins 1990; Montoya 2019). There is a long tradition of women of color working across race, for their communities and to forge new ones (Milkman and Terriquez 2012; Sudbury 2003; Yee 1994). Here, historical and present-day examinations of minority women’s activism and political coalition building might inform political science expectations about vote choice among these groups. That minority linked fate worked more consistently for the women of color does not mean that they are the only ones that can be mobilized into cross-racial electoral coalitions, but that there might be different mechanisms or motivations for building these connections. In our findings, where minority linked fate was not significant for perceptions of representation, increased perception of discrimination often was.

The insights of this article highlight the importance of moving beyond overly simplistic, single-axis approaches to a purportedly monolithic minority vote. They help us to understand the avenues and obstacles to electing minority candidates, perhaps bringing additional insights to the analysis of devastatingly close defeats, such as those experienced in the gubernatorial elections of Georgia and Florida in 2018, where exit polls show significant gaps across race and gender for minority voters in their support of Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum.⁹ These races are demonstrative of gender gaps within and across ethnoracial populations. This article suggests avenues for better exploring the potential intricacies of these intersections for not only Black and Latino/a communities, but other ethnoracial groups.

Despite reservations about identity politics in the popular discourse, identity is as salient as it has ever been, and it matters for perceptions of representation. How it matters, however, is much more complicated. It becomes even more complicated when we move away from overly simplistic categories to include nonbinary or hybrid identities. Our findings demonstrate that the use of diverse samples and intersectional analyses is required to more accurately capture and explore the relationships between identity and candidate evaluation. An intersectional approach to American politics will help us to examine how differently positioned groups experience and perceive our democracy, and how that might motivate their political behavior. It will also help us to explore the possibilities for building on and creating new connections in a shifting political environment.

Supplemental Material

online_appendix_pdf – Supplemental material for Shared Identities: Intersectionality, Linked Fate, and Perceptions of Political Candidates

Supplemental material, online_appendix_pdf for Shared Identities: Intersectionality, Linked Fate, and Perceptions of Political Candidates by Christina Bejarano, Nadia E. Brown, Sarah Allen Gershon and Celeste Montoya in Political Research Quarterly

Supplemental Material

replication_syntax – Supplemental material for Shared Identities: Intersectionality, Linked Fate, and Perceptions of Political Candidates

Supplemental material, replication_syntax for Shared Identities: Intersectionality, Linked Fate, and Perceptions of Political Candidates by Christina Bejarano, Nadia E. Brown, Sarah Allen Gershon and Celeste Montoya in Political Research Quarterly

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received financial support for the research by their respective universities (for Bejarano, the University of Kansas). The author(s) received no financial support for authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Sarah Allen Gershon

Supplemental Material

Supplemental materials and replication materials for this article are available with the manuscript on the Political Research Quarterly (PRQ) website.

Notes

References

Ayoub

Phillip M.

2014. “With Arms Wide Shut: Threat Perception, Norm Reception, and Mobilized Resistance to LGBT Rights.” Journal of Human Rights 13 (3): 337–62. https://www-tandfonline-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/doi/abs/10.1080/14754835.2014.919213.

Barreto

Matt A.

2010. Ethnic Cues: The Role of Shared Ethnicity in Latino Political Participation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Barreto

Matt A.

Frasure-Yokley

Lorrie

Vargas

Edward D.

Wong

Janelle

2017. Collaborative Multiracial Post-election Survey (CMPS), 2016. https://cmpsurvey.org/

Barreto

Matt A.

Frasure-Yokley

Lorrie

Vargas

Edward D.

Wong

Janelle

. 2018. “Best Practices in Collecting Online Data with Asian, Black, Latino, and White Respondents: Evidence from the 2016 Collaborative Multiracial Post-election Survey.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 6 (1): 171–80. doi:10.1080/21565503.2017.1419433.

Barreto

Matt A.

Masuoka

Natalie

. 2004. “Together They Become One: Examining the Predictors of Panethnic Group Consciousness among Asian Americans and Latinos.” Social Science Quarterly 87 (5): 993–1011.

Bejarano

Christina E

. 2013. The Latina Advantage: Gender, Race, and Political Success. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Bejarano

Christina E.

Manzano

Sylvia

Montoya

Celeste

. 2011. “Tracking the Latino Gender Gap: Gender Attitudes across Sex, Borders, and Generations.” Politics & Gender 7 (4): 521–49.

Beltrán

Cristina

. 2010. The Trouble with Unity: Latino Politics and the Creation of Identity. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bickford

Susan

. 1997. “Anti-identity Politics: Feminism, Democracy, and the Complexities of Citizenship.” Hypatia 12 (4): 111–31.

10.

Bobo

Lawrence

Gilliam

Franklin D

. 1990. “Race, Sociopolitical Participation, and Black Empowerment.” American Political Science Review 84 (2): 377–93.

11.

Brown

Nadia

. 2014. Sisters in the Statehouse: Black Women and Legislative Decision Making. New York: Oxford University Press.

12.

Canon

David T.

1999. Race, Redistricting, and Representation: The Unintended Consequences of Black Majority Districts. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

13.

Capers

Juree K.

Smith

Candis Watts

. 2016. “Linked Fate at the Intersection of Race, Gender and Ethnicity.” In Distinct Identities: Minority Women in U.S. Politics, edited by Brown

Nadia E.

Gershon

Sarah Allen

, 29–48. New York: Routledge.

14.

Casellas

Jason

. 2010. Latino Representation in Sate Houses and Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

15.

Casellas

Jason

Wallace

Sophia

. 2014. “The Role of Race, Ethnicity, and Party on Attitudes toward Descriptive Repre-sentation.” American Politics Research 43 (1): 144–69.

16.

Cohen

Cathy J.

1997. “Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens: The Radical Potential of Queer Politics?” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 3:437–65.

17.

Cohen

Cathy J.

1999. The Boundaries of Blackness: AIDS and the Breakdown of Black Politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

18.

Cole

Elizabeth R.

2008. “Coalitions as a Model for Inter-sectionality: From Practice to Theory.” Sex Roles 59 (5–6): 443–53.

19.

Collins

Patricia Hill

. 1990. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. New York: Routledge.

20.

Crenshaw

Kimberlé Williams

. 1989. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum 140:139–67.

21.

Crenshaw

Kimberlé Williams

. 1991. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review 43 (6): 1241–99.

22.

Darity

William

. 2005. “Interrogating Unstable Boundaries: An Introduction.” Review of Black Political Economy 33 (2): 69–72.

23.

Davis

Floyd J.

1991. Who Is Black? One Nation’s Definition. University Park: Penn State University Press.

24.

Dawson

Michael

. 1994. Behind the Mule: Race and Class in African-American Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

25.

English

Ashley

Pearson

Kathryn

Strolovitch

Dara

. 2019. “Who Represents Me? Race, Gender, Partisan Congruence, and Representational Alternatives in a Polarized America.” Political Research Quarterly 7 (2): 785–804.

26.

Fraga

Luis

Garcia

John A.

Hero

Rodney

Jones-Correa

Michael

Martinez-Ebers

Valerie

Segura

Gary M

. 2010. Latino Lives in America: Making It Home. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

27.

García Bedolla

Lisa

. 2005. Fluid Borders: Latino Power, Identity and Politics in Los Angeles. Berkeley: University of California Press.

28.

García Bedolla

Lisa

. 2007. “Intersections of Inequality: Understanding Marginalization and Privilege in the Post-Civil Rights Era.” Politics & Gender 3 (2): 232–48.

29.

Gay

Claudine

Hochschild

Jennifer

White

Ariel

. 2016. “Americans’ Belief in Linked Fate: Does the Measure Capture the Concept?” Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics 1 (1): 117–44.

30.

Gay

Claudine

Tate

Katherine

. 1998. “Doubly Bound: The Impact of Gender and Race on the Politics of Black Women.” Political Psychology 19 (1): 169–84.

31.

Gershon

Sarah Allen

Montoya

Celeste

Bejarano

Christina

Brown

Nadia

. 2019. “Intersectional Linked Fate and Political Representation.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 7 (3): 642–53.

32.

Golash-Boza

Tanya

. 2006. “Dropping the Hyphen? Becoming Latino(a)-American through Racialized Assimilation.” Social Forces 85 (1): 27–55.

33.

Greenwood

Ronni M.

2008. “Intersectional Political Consciousness: Appreciation for Intragroup Differences and Solidarity in Diverse Groups.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 32:36–47.

34.

Grollman

Eric Anthony

. 2012. “Multiple Forms of Perceived Discrimination and Health among Adolescents and Young Adults.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 53:199–214.

35.

Grose

Christian

. 2011. Congress in Black and White. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

36.

Gurin

Patricia

Miller

Arthur H.

Gurin

Gerald

. 1980. “Stratum Identification and Consciousness.” Social Psychology Quarterly 43:30–47.

37.

Hancock

Ange-Marie

. 2007. “When Multiplication Doesn’t Equal Quick Addition: Examining Intersectionality as a Research Paradigm.” Perspectives on Politics 5 (1): 63–79.

38.

Harnois

Catherine

. 2015. “Race, Ethnicity, Sexuality, and Women’s Political Consciousness of Gender.” Social Psychology Quarterly 78 (4): 365–86.

39.

Hero

Rodney

. 1992. Latinos and the U.S. Political System: Two-Tiered Pluralism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

40.

Hochschild

Arlie

. 2016. Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Rights. New York: The New Press.

41.

Jones

Jennifer

. 2019. The Browning of the New South. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

42.

Jones-Correa

Michael

. 2011. “Commonalities, Competition, and Linked Fate.” In Just Neighbors? Research on African American and Latino Relations in the United States, edited by Telles

Edward

Sawyer

Mark

Rivera-Salgado

Gaspar

, 63–95. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

43.

Jones-Correa

Michael

Wallace

Sophia

Zepeda-Millán

Chris

. 2016. “The Impact of Large-Scale Collective Action on Latino Perceptions of Commonality and Competition with African Americans.” Social Science Quarterly 97 (2): 458–75.

44.

Junn

Jane

Masuoka

Natalie

. 2008. “Asian American Identity: Shared Racial Status and Political Context.” Perspectives on Politics 6 (4): 729–40.

45.

Kane

Emily W.

2000. “Racial and Ethnic Variations in Gender-Related Attitudes.” Annual Review of Sociology 26:419–39.

46.

Kaufmann

Karen M.

2003. “Black and Latino Voters in Denver: Responses to Each Other’s Political Leadership.” Political Science Quarterly 118 (1): 107–25.

47.

Lien

Pei-Te

Conway

Margaret M.

Wong

Janell

. 2008. The Politics of Asian Americans. New York: Routledge.

48.

Lopez

Mark Hugo

Livingston

Gretchen

. 2009. “Hispanics and the Criminal Justice System: Low Confidence, High Exposure.” Pew Research Center, Washington, DC.

49.

Lopez

Mark Hugo

Taylor

Paul

. 2012. “Latino Voters in the 2012 Election.” Pew Research Center, Washington, DC.

50.

Lublin

David Ian

. 1997. The Paradox of Representation: Racial Gerrymandering and Minority Interests in Congress. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

51.

Masuoka

Natalie

. 2006. “Together They Become One: Examining the Predictors of Panethnic Group Consciousness among Asian Americans and Latinos.” Social Science Quarterly 87 (5): 993–1011.

52.

Masuoka

Natalie

. 2017. Multiracial Identity and Racial Politics in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press.

53.

Masuoka

Natalie

Junn

Jane

. 2013. The Politics of Belonging: Race, Public Opinion and Immigration. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

54.

McCall

Leslie

. 2005. “The Complexity of Intersectionality.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 30 (3): 1771–1800.

55.

McClain

Paula D.

Carew

Jessica Johnson

Walton

Eugene

Jr. Watts

Candis S

. 2009. “Group Membership, Group Identity, and Group Consciousness: Measures of Racial Identity in American Politics?” Annual Review of Political Science 12:471–85.

56.

McClain

Paula D.

Carter

Niambi M.

DeFrancesco Soto

Victoria M.

Lyle

Monique L.

Grynaviski

Jeffrey D.

Nunnally

Shayla C.

Scotto

Thomas J.

Kendrick

J. Alan

Lackey

Gerald F.

, and Kendra Davenport Cotton. 2006. “Racial Distancing in a Southern City: Latino Immigrants’ Views of Black Americans.” The Journal of Politics 68 (3): 571–84.

57.

McConnaughy

Corrine

White

Ismail K.

Leal

David L.

Casellas

Jason P

. 2010. “A Latino on the Ballot: Explaining Coethnic Voting among Latinos and the Response of White Americans.” The Journal of Politics 72 (4): 1199–1211.

58.

McDermott

Monika L.

1998. “Race and Gender Cues in Low-Information Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 51 (4): 895–918.

59.

Milkman

Ruth

Terriquez

Veronica

. 2012. “‘We Are the Ones Who Are Out in Front’: Women’s Leadership in the Immigrant Rights Movement.” Feminist Studies 38 (3): 723–52.

60.

Miller

Arthur H.

Gurin

Patricia

Gurin

Gerald

Malanchuk

Oksana

. 1981. “Group Consciousness and Political Participation.” American Journal of Political Science 25:494–511.

61.

Montoya

Celeste

. 2019. “From Identity Politics to Intersectionality? Identity-Based Organizing in the Occupy Movement.” In Gendered Mobilization and Intersectional Challenges, edited by Irvine

Jill

Lang

Sabine

Montoya

Celeste

, 135–54. London: ECPR Press.

62.

Morin

Jason L.

Sanchez

Gabriel R.

Barreto

Matt

. 2011. “Perceptions of Competition.” In Just Neighbors? Research on African American and Latino Relations in the United States, edited by Telles

Edward

Sawyer

Mark

Rivera-Salgado

Gaspar

, 63–95. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

63.

Nobles

Melissa

. 2000. Shades of Citizenship: Race and the Census in Modern Politics. Stanford: Stanford California University Press.

64.

Philpot

Tasha S.

Walton

Hanes

Jr.

2007. “One of Our Own: Black Female Candidates and the Voters Who Support Them.” American Journal of Political Science 51:49–62. https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/4122905.

65.

Popkin

Samuel

. 1991. The Reasoning Voter. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

66.

Purdie-Vaughns

Valerie

Eibach

Richard P

. 2008. “Intersectional Invisibility: The Distinctive Advantages and Disadvantages of Multiple Subordinate-Group Identities.” Sex Roles 59:377–91.

67.

Sanchez

Gabriel R.

2008. “Latino Group Consciousness and Perception of Commonality with African Americans.” Social Science Quarterly 89 (2): 428–44.

68.

Sanchez

Gabriel R.

Masuoka

Natalie

. 2010. “Brown-Utility Heuristic? The Presence and Contributing Factors of Latino Linked Fate.” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 32 (4): 519–31.

69.

Sanchez

Gabriel R.

Vargas

Edward D

. 2016. “Taking a Closer Look at Group Identity.” Political Research Quarterly 69 (1): 160–74.

70.

Schildkraut

Deborah J.

2017. “White Attitudes about Descriptive Representation in the US: The Roles of Identity, Discrimination, and Linked Fate.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 5 (1): 84–106.

71.

Segura

Gary

Rodrigues

Helena Alves

. 2006. “Comparative Ethnic Politics in the United States: Beyond Black and White.” Annual Review of Political Science 9:375–95.

72.

Simien

Evelyn M.

2005. “Race, Gender, and Linked Fate.” Journal of Black Studies 35 (5): 529–50.

73.

Simien

Evelyn M.

Clawson

Rosalee A

. 2004. “The Intersection of Race and Gender: An Examination of Black Feminist Consciousness, Race Consciousness, and Policy Attitudes.” Social Science Quarterly 85 (3): 793–810.

74.

Stets

Jan E.

Burke

Peter J

. 2000. “Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory.” Social Psychology Quarterly 63:224–37.

75.

Strolovitch

Dara

. 2007. Affirmative Advocacy: Race, Class, and Gender in Interest Group Politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

76.

Sudbury

Julia C.

2003. “Toward a Holistic Anti-violence Agenda: Women of Color as Radical Bridge-Builders.” Social Justice 3 (93): 134–40.

77.

Tajfel

Henri

Turner

John C

. 1979. “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict.” In The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, edited by Austin

William G.

Worchel

Stephen

, 33–47. Monterey: Brooks-Cole.

78.

Tate

Katherine

. 1994. From Protest to Politics: The New Black Voters in American Elections. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

79.

Tate

Katherine

. 2001. “The Political Representation of Blacks in Congress: Does Race Matter.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 26 (4): 623–38.

80.

Tate

Katherine

. 2003. Black Faces in the Mirror. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

81.

Vargas

Edward

Sanchez

Gabriel R.

Valdez

Juan A

. 2017. “Immigration Policies and Group Identity: How Immigrant Laws Affect Linked Fate among U.S. Latino Populations.” Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics 2 (1): 35–62.

82.

Wallace

Sophia

. 2014a. “Examining Descriptive and Substantive Representation in Congress.” Political Research Quarterly 67 (4): 917–29.

83.

Wallace

Sophia

. 2014b. “Examining Latino Support for Descriptive Representation: The Role of Identity and Discrimination.” Social Science Quarterly 95 (2): 311–27.

84.

Whitby

Kenneth

. 1997. The Color of Representation: Congressional Behavior and Black Interests. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

85.

Wilkinson

Betina

. 2014. Partners or Rivals? Power and Latino, Black, and White Relations in the Twenty-First Century. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.

86.

Yee

Shirley J.

1994. “Gender Ideology and Black Women as Community-Builders in Ontario, 1850-70.” Canadian Historical Review 75 (1): 53–73.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.21 MB

0.02 MB

0.21 MB

0.02 MB