Race,politics,and perceptions of anti-Black and anti-White discrimination over time

Abstract

Race differences in perceptions of discrimination are well documented, but questions remain about contextual- and individual-difference moderators of when White and Black Americans see racial bias. We examined how temporal framing (focusing on past decades or not), race, political party, and domain of discrimination influence discrimination perceptions. Temporal framing did not moderate perceptions for White or Black participants (Study 1). Perceived anti-White and anti-Black discrimination converged over time (from the 1950s to the present), but especially so among White participants (Studies 1 and 2). Domain of discrimination moderated perceptions, with White respondents perceiving the steepest rise in anti-White discrimination and the steepest decline in anti-Black discrimination in the education and employment domains (Study 2). Across both studies, only White Republicans reported that White Americans face more discrimination than Black Americans. This research extends the literature on racial and political divides in discrimination perceptions, and highlights variability in perceptions across discrimination domains.

Keywords

discrimination perceptions of discrimination race and racism

The perception of racial discrimination is subjective, and many contextual and individual difference factors contribute to whether and when discrimination is recognized. For example, in the US, Black Americans are more likely than White Americans to perceive racial discrimination (for a review, see Carter & Murphy, 2015) and to perceive racism as a significant problem in the US (Horowitz et al., 2019). Perceivers also tend to have a “prototype” of discrimination, such that actions are more likely to be labeled discriminatory when high-status group members (e.g., White actors) behave negatively toward low-status group members (e.g., Black actors) compared to the reverse (Flournoy et al., 2002; Inman & Baron, 1996; Rodin et al., 1990).

In a highly cited study assessing Black and White Americans’ perceptions of anti-Black and anti-White discrimination across the decades (from the 1950s to the 2000s), Norton and Sommers (2011) also found strong evidence of the racial divide in discrimination perceptions. But their more striking finding was that White respondents perceived more anti-White than anti-Black discrimination beginning in the 2000s. In the present paper, we build on Norton and Sommers’ findings by examining perceptions of anti-Black and anti-White discrimination over time. We do this by testing contextual and individual difference moderators of discrimination perceptions.

White Americans’ Perceptions of Anti-White and Anti-Black Discrimination

White Americans’ tendency to see themselves as targets of discrimination may be tied to their tendency to deny racial privilege. Pointing out White privilege threatens meritocratic beliefs and group-based morality, and denying that one has racial privilege is one of the strategies White people use to dispel those threats (Knowles et al., 2014). Denying privilege can help White actors sustain perceptions of themselves as deserving to be in positions of power (Knowles & Lowery, 2012; Lowery et al., 2007; Phillips & Lowery, 2018). In one study, when faced with threats to meritocracy, White participants responded with claims of personal hardship they had faced, allowing them to maintain that they achieved success despite experiencing potential setbacks (Phillips & Lowery, 2015). The reluctance to admit racial privilege likely serves as a way to deny racial inequities and to perceive anti-White discrimination as equally or more common than anti-Black discrimination.

White Americans also tend to be less supportive of policies that benefit racial minorities and other marginalized groups than minority group members themselves, and this lack of support is related to perceiving these policies as quota-driven “reverse discrimination” (Fenelon & Brod, 2000; Harrison et al., 2006). Construing affirmative action as quotas protects the self-esteem of White men and White women (when women do not believe they are beneficiaries of these policies; Unzueta et al., 2008, 2010). This construal affords White Americans the opportunity to point to policies as reasons why they were not selected for a position or promotion (attributional discounting), or as obstacles they successfully overcame when they were chosen despite a quota system (attributional augmentation; Kelley, 1987).

These feelings about “reverse discrimination” may contribute to a sense that racial minorities are making progress to the detriment of White Americans. Indeed, providing evidence of progress by racial minorities directly heightens White respondents’ perceptions of anti-White discrimination, particularly among those who endorse status-legitimizing beliefs (SLB)—beliefs that the current status hierarchy in the United States is legitimate (Wilkins & Kaiser, 2014). The idea that White Americans may see racial progress as threatening is not new (e.g., Kluegel & Smith, 1982), but changing demographics that heighten racial threat (Craig & Richeson, 2014, 2017) and inaccurate beliefs about the extent of racial progress (Kraus et al., 2019) may explain why White perceivers see themselves as experiencing equal or more discrimination than Black Americans today.

Differences Between Black and White Americans in Perceptions of Discrimination

In Norton and Sommers’ (2011) study, White Americans’ perceptions of anti-Black and anti-White discrimination converged over time, then diverged to the point that they saw anti-White discrimination as more common than anti-Black discrimination today. But the convergence was much weaker among Black respondents, who perceived levels of anti-Black and anti-White discrimination to remain high and low, respectively, from the 1950s to the present.

Other research has consistently shown that Black perceivers are more likely than White perceivers to label specific actions as racism and to see more racism generally (Carter & Murphy, 2015; Inman & Baron, 1996). White respondents are less likely than Black respondents to view ambiguous, subtle, and structural forms of racism as discriminatory (Dovidio et al., 2002; Salvatore & Shelton, 2007; Sommers & Norton, 2006); they tend to have higher thresholds for perceiving discrimination (Barrett & Swim, 1998). White respondents are also more likely to perceive progress toward racial equality, perhaps because they use different reference points: Whereas White Americans compare with the past (and see progress today), racial minority groups compare today to an ideal standard (and see insufficient progress; Eibach & Ehrlinger, 2006; see also Kraus et al., 2019). The discrepancy between White and Black perceptions of discrimination may be based on group-protective motivations (e.g., denial of discrimination and privilege to protect White identity), as well as knowledge differences. Whether through personal experience (Crocker & Major, 1989; Pinel, 1999) or historical knowledge (Nelson et al., 2013), Black Americans’ greater familiarity with racism prompts heightened perception of discrimination relative to White Americans.

The Present Research

We revisit Norton and Sommers’s (2011) findings, seeking moderators of racial differences in perceptions of anti-Black and anti-White discrimination over time. First, we consider the comparative time frame used by Norton and Sommers (2011), which may have contributed to the pattern of White Americans perceiving more anti-White than anti-Black discrimination today. Basic framing processes (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981) triggered by initial mention of the 1950s may have moved White participants to perceive change over time (Eibach & Ehrlinger, 2006). A reflection on group history may also make “the unique heritage of one’s group” salient (Mols & Jetten, 2014, p. 75), prompting perceptions that distinguish the ingroup from the outgroup (Condor, 1996).

When Craig and Richeson (2017) asked similar questions about perceived discrimination from a nonhistorical perspective (focusing only on today and the future), White perceivers did not report experiencing more discrimination than did Black Americans: Across four studies, White participants perceived more anti-Black than anti-White discrimination today and in the future (without any mention of the past). In a March 2016 poll by The Washington Post and ABC News, respondents were asked “which is the bigger problem in this country—Blacks and Hispanics losing out because of preferences for Whites, or Whites losing out because of preferences for Blacks and Hispanics?” With this nonhistorical but explicitly zero-sum framing, more people said Blacks and Hispanics were losing out than Whites (40% vs. 28%).

One purpose of the current research is to directly investigate whether asking White respondents to report perceptions of anti-Black and anti-White discrimination from a historical perspective, compared to a nonhistorical perspective, affects their perceptions of anti-White and anti-Black discrimination in the United States today. We operationalize the historical perspective as the paradigm used by Norton and Sommers (2011): Participants are asked to report the extent to which they perceive that Blacks and Whites experience(d) discrimination over the decades from the 1950s to the 2000s with the added time points of the 2010s, “today”, and “in the future.” A nonhistorical perspective focuses only on discrimination today and in the future. We expected the nonhistorical perspective would reduce the likelihood of White participants seeing more anti-White than anti-Black discrimination today. Study 1 also includes Black participants, and we expected to replicate findings that, relative to their White counterparts, Black participants will perceive more anti-Black than anti-White racism across all time periods, and will see less steep declines in anti-Black discrimination and less steep increases in anti-White discrimination over time (Norton & Sommers, 2011).

A second goal is to examine political party identification as a moderator of White participants’ perceptions of anti-Black and anti-White discrimination. In the 2016 The Washington Post poll noted earlier, Republican voters who supported Trump revealed a striking reversal in perceptions of discrimination: 54% said Whites were losing out because of preferences for ethnic minority groups, compared to only 12% who said Blacks and Hispanics were losing out because of preferences for Whites. In a 2018 The Economist–YouGov poll, 64% of Republicans compared to 14% of Democrats agreed that “police in most cities treat Blacks as fairly as they treat Whites,” and 70% of Republicans compared to 28% of Democrats agreed that “efforts to increase national diversity almost always come at the expense of Whites.” We expected to find a similar party divide in perceptions, with White Republicans more likely than Democrats and independents to believe that Whites face more discrimination than Blacks today.

A third goal of this research is to examine whether the domain of discrimination being considered (e.g., criminal justice vs. education and employment) affects perceptions of the extent of anti-White and anti-Black discrimination. Just as different types of behavior (e.g., ambiguous vs. overt) result in different perceptions of discrimination (e.g., Sommers & Norton, 2006), we propose that the social context in which discrimination is considered (e.g., criminal justice vs. employment-related decisions) will affect how people perceive discrimination. White Americans may be particularly likely to perceive anti-White discrimination in employment and education rather than in criminal justice or interpersonal domains (Craig & Richeson, 2017). We consider this issue more fully in the introduction to Study 2.

Study 1

We asked White and Black participants to offer their perceptions of anti-Black and anti-White discrimination from either a historical (decade by decade) or nonhistorical (today and in the future) perspective. We hypothesized that Black participants would perceive higher levels of anti-Black discrimination and lower levels of anti-White discrimination than White participants, and that White participants would be most likely to perceive that levels of anti-Black and anti-White discrimination are converging with time. We also predicted that White participants in the historical condition, compared to those in the nonhistorical condition, would perceive more anti-White than anti-Black discrimination today. Finally, we examine the moderating role of political party, with the expectation that the tendency to see more anti-White than anti-Black discrimination today would be highest among White Republicans compared to Democrats or independents.

Method

Participants

Black and White American participants were recruited via Mechanical Turk (now CloudResearch) Prime Panels, which allows for selective recruitment based on demographics and uses multiple online survey platforms (e.g., Crowdflower, Survey Monkey). The demographic representativeness of Prime Panels samples is close to that achieved by the American National Election Study (Chandler et al., 2019), but we cannot make strong claims of national representativeness. Three hundred and sixty-three people were recruited through this method (183 White Americans, 180 Black Americans; 178 men, 184 women, one trans woman) in May 2018. The mean age was 44.75 years, with a standard deviation of 16.46 years. White participants were older and had higher incomes than Black participants.¹

Design and procedure

The study used a 2 (participant race: White/Black) x 2 (perspective: historical/nonhistorical) x 2 (target race: White/Black) x time/decade mixed design. Given our sample size of 363, we were able to detect an effect of d = 0.23 (a small effect) 80% of the time at α = .05 with this design. Participant race and perspective were between-subjects factors, and target race and decade were within-subjects factors (nine time points rated for participants in the historical condition, two time points for those in the nonhistorical condition). The historical condition was modeled after procedures used by Norton and Sommers (2011). Participants in this condition were asked to indicate “how much you think Whites [Blacks] were/are the victims of discrimination in the United States in each of the following decades.” Seven decades were presented to participants, the 1950s through the 2010s, always in chronological order. Participants were asked to indicate how much they believed “Whites [Blacks] are the victims of discrimination in the United States today,” and in the future (“in the next few decades”). A 10-point scale (1 = not at all, 10 = very much) was used to measure perceived discrimination at each time point. Participants in the nonhistorical condition only answered the “today” and “future” perceived discrimination questions. In both conditions, participants rated discrimination experiences at all time points for one target group (Blacks or Whites) before proceeding to the next screen where they provided the same ratings for the other target group (Whites or Blacks). We counterbalanced the order in which participants judged perceived anti-Black and anti-White discrimination. All participants were also asked to indicate (via open response) “specific kinds, forms, or examples of discrimination Whites [Blacks] faced because of their race” for each decade.² Demographic information including gender, race, age, and political party affiliation was collected at the end of the experiment.

Results

Perceived discrimination across the decades by participant race

We first focus on participants in the historical condition, which uses Norton and Sommers’s (2011) design, albeit with a nonrepresentative sample. Perceived discrimination rates faced by Blacks and Whites across nine time points (1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s, “today,” and “in the future”³) were submitted to a Participant Race (Black, White) x Target Race (Black, White) x Order (Black discrimination rated first, White discrimination rated first) x Decade (nine levels) mixed-design, repeated measures ANOVA. Participant race and order were between-subjects factors; target race and decade were within-subjects factors. Given a sample size of 179 in the nonhistorical condition, we were able to detect an effect of d = 0.21 80% of the time at α = .05 with this design.

ANOVA results are summarized in Table 1; and means by participant race, target race, and decade are presented in Figure 1, separately for each order. The four-way interaction was significant, along with several main effects and two- and three-way interactions.

Table 1.

Summary of four-way ANOVA results, with perceived discrimination faced by Blacks and Whites over 9 decades/time frames (1950s to the future): Study 1.

Effect	df	F	p
Participant race (PR)	1, 175	2.51	.115
Order	1, 175	4.82	.029
Target race (TR)	1, 175	419.76	< .001
Decade	8, 1400	10.32	< .001
PR x Order	1, 175	2.16	.143
PR x TR	1, 175	47.60	< .001
PR x Decade	8, 1400	0.77	.628
Order x TR	1, 175	1.03	.311
Order x Decade	8, 1400	4.10	< .001
TR x Decade	8, 1400	141.79	< .0001
PR x Order x TR	1, 175	1.01	.317
PR x Order x Decade	8, 1400	2.70	.006
PR x TR x Decade	8, 1400	49.16	< .001
Order x TR x Decade	8, 1400	3.29	.001
PR x Order x TR x Decade	8, 1400	5.06	< .001

Figure 1.

Means of perceived discrimination in the historical condition (Study 1) by participant race, target race, and decade separated by participants who first rated Black discrimination then White discrimination (Panel A), and participants who first rated White discrimination then Black discrimination (Panel B).

Several findings are shown in Figure 1: Perceived discrimination faced by Black Americans generally fell across the decades, whereas perceived discrimination faced by Whites generally increased, but this pattern was mainly true among Whites. Consistent with Norton and Sommers (2011), there was evidence that Whites showed convergence in their perceptions of anti-Black and anti-White discrimination, but they did not perceive that Whites face significantly more discrimination than Blacks today, or that they will face more discrimination in the future (the single reversal in the White–Black [W–B] condition for “future” estimates was nonsignificant; p = .214). Black participants perceived that Blacks face more discrimination than Whites across every decade and in both orders, ps < .001. Among White participants, Black Americans were perceived to face significantly more discrimination than Whites for the first six decades (from 1950 to 2000) regardless of order (ps < .05). But in 2010, today, and in the future, this difference was nonsignificant (ps > .21), with the exception of the “today” judgments by White participants in the Black–White (B–W) order (p = .013).

Furthermore, Black participants perceived significantly more anti-Black discrimination than did Whites at all time points (ps < .02), with the exception of the 1950s when this difference was marginally significant (p = .07). White participants perceived more anti-White discrimination than Black participants from the 1980s forward (all ps < .02). Overall, the Participant Race x Target Race x Decade interaction produced a large effect, F(8, 1400) = 49.16, p < .001, d = 1.06.

Formal decomposition of the four-way interaction indicated that the Participant Race x Order x Decade interaction was significant for judgments of anti-White discrimination, F(8, 1400) = 7.96, p < .001, but not for judgments of anti-Black discrimination, F(8, 1400) = 0.34, p = .949; but the Participant Race x Decade interaction, F(8, 1400) = 26.51, p < .001, remained. Among White participants, the Order x Target Race x Decade interaction was significant, F(8, 680) = 5.44, p < .001, but among Black participants, it was not, F(8, 720) = 0.98, p = .452 (of course, the main effects of target race, decade, and the interaction between target race and decade were significant for Black participants, ps < .001).

The order of administration seemed to have had one specific effect: White participants who rated anti-White discrimination first, perceived a steeper increase in anti-White discrimination across time. There was no effect of order for perceptions of anti-Black discrimination across time among White participants, and order did not appear to have an effect on Black participants’ perceptions of discrimination across time, regardless of target race.

Multilevel model analysis

To examine the difference between the slopes of perceived anti-Black versus anti-White discrimination across decades, we conducted a multilevel model (MLM) analysis (time point nested within individuals) with decade, target race, participant race, and order predicting discrimination. [AQ] We conducted this analysis in R using the lme4 and lmerTest packages. The benefit of conducting the MLM is that, instead of examining differences within each decade, we can consider the steepness of the downward slope in perceived anti-Black discrimination over time as compared to the steepness of the upward slope in perceived anti-White discrimination over time.

In addition to reproducing the ANOVA results (including the four-way interaction, b = 0.45, p < .001, and the order effects described before), we found that, collapsed across order, both Black and White participants perceived a significant increase in anti-White discrimination (b = 0.39 for White participants, b = 0.07 for Black participants; ps < .001) and a significant decrease in anti-Black discrimination (b = −0.54 for White participants, b = −0.18 for Black participants; ps < .001) across time. But these slopes were steeper for White than for Black participants: White participants perceived a steeper increase in anti-White discrimination across time (b = 0.33, p < .001) and a steeper decrease in anti-Black discrimination across time (b = −0.36, p < .001).

Effects of historical perspective on perceived discrimination today and in the future

We submitted perceived anti-White and anti-Black discrimination today and in the future as repeated measures in a Perspective (historical, nonhistorical) x Participant Race (White, Black) x Order (W–B, B–W) x Target Race (Black, White) x Time (today, future) ANOVA, with target race and time as repeated factors. There was a main effect of perspective, F(1, 355) = 12.82, p < .001, but no interactions involving this factor, ps > .096. Perceptions of discrimination were higher overall in the nonhistorical condition (M = 5.78, SD = 1.52) than in the historical condition (M = 5.21, SD = 1.77), but there was no evidence that the historical time perspective moderated Black or White participants’ perceptions of anti-White and anti-Black discrimination.

Instead, the Participant Race x Target Race x Time interaction was significant, F(1, 355) = 5.49, p = .019, and is depicted in Figure 2. The Participant Race x Target Race interaction was significant in the case of perceived discrimination today (top panel), F(1, 355) = 140.69, p < .001, as well as in the future (lower panel), F(1, 355) = 162.79, p < .001, but the pattern differed slightly across time points: Black and White participants both perceived more anti-Black than anti-White discrimination today (ps < .001), but the difference was larger among Black participants. In predicting the future, however, White participants believed White and Black Americans would face equal levels of discrimination (p = .508), whereas Black participants continued to expect higher levels of anti-Black than anti-White discrimination, ps < .001. For both today and the future, Blacks and Whites differed on their perceptions of both anti-White and anti-Black discrimination, ps < .001, but the race effect was larger in the case of anti-Black discrimination perceptions. Order produced a main effect, F(1, 355) = 13.92, p < .001, with discrimination perceptions higher overall in the White–Black than in the Black–White order, but it did not interact with any other factor (ps > .09).

Figure 2.

Perceived anti-Black and anti-White discrimination today (Panel A) and in the future (Panel B) by participant race, collapsed across order and perspective: Study 1.

Moderation by political party

In our sample of White participants, 67 (36.61%) identified as Republicans, 59 (32.24%) as Democrats, and 50 (27.32%) as independents.⁴ We conducted a Political Party (Republican, Democrat, independent) x Perspective (historical, nonhistorical) x Time (today, future) x Target Race (White, Black) mixed-design, repeated measures ANOVA, with time and target race as within-subjects factors.⁵

There was a significant Target Race x Political Party interaction, F(2, 170) = 13.14, p < .001 (see Figure 3), such that Republicans perceived higher levels of anti-White discrimination than Democrats and independents, and less anti-Black discrimination than Democrats and independents, ps < .01. Republicans perceived higher levels of anti-White than anti-Black discrimination at both time points, though this difference was only significant for expected discrimination in the future (p < .01). Democrats perceived higher levels of anti-Black than anti-White discrimination at both time points (ps < .001). Independents perceived higher levels of anti-Black than anti-White discrimination today (p = .019), but did not expect a difference between discrimination against the two groups in the future (p = .948). The four-way interaction was nonsignificant, as were all three-way interactions (ps > .224). In short, White Republicans were the only group to perceive more anti-White than anti-Black discrimination, particularly in the future.

Figure 3.

Perceived anti-Black and anti-White discrimination today (top panel) and in the future (bottom panel) by political party, White participants only: Study 1.

Discussion

Study 1 was modeled on Norton and Sommers’s (2011) but was designed to examine framing (historical versus nonhistorical) and political party as moderators of perceived anti-Black and anti-White discrimination over time. Consistent with previous research, White and Black participants in Study 1 perceived discrimination differently: Black participants clearly perceived more anti-Black than anti-White discrimination across decades, whereas White participants more strongly perceived declining anti-Black and rising anti-White discrimination over time. White participants did not show the cross-over effect (more perceived anti-White than anti-Black discrimination) noted in Norton and Sommers (2011), but this difference is perhaps due to our reliance on a convenience rather than nationally representative sample.

We also hypothesized that the historical framing in Norton and Sommers’s (2011) paradigm—judging discrimination across decades—may have contributed to White Americans’ perceptions of increasing anti-White and declining anti-Black discrimination. However, this hypothesis was not supported. Our temporal framing manipulation produced only a main effect, such that more discrimination (both anti-White and anti-Black) was reported in the nonhistorical than in the historical condition. In an unanticipated finding, the order in which participants reported perceived discrimination (whether anti-Black or anti-White discrimination judged first) suggested a different sort of framing effect: White participants who considered anti-White discrimination prior to anti-Black discrimination showed a steeper increase in perceived anti-White discrimination over time. However, as we will soon report, this pattern did not replicate in Study 2; we will discuss this more fully in the General Discussion.

We did identify one important moderator of White participants’ discrimination perceptions: Political party identification. Republicans clearly perceived more anti-White and less anti-Black discrimination than did Democrats and independents. Indeed, White Republicans were the only group to show the cross-over effect identified by Norton and Sommers (2011), perceiving significantly more anti-White than anti-Black discrimination in the future. White Republicans may feel most threatened by racial progress and be most ready to expect that White Americans will face more, and Black Americans will face less, discrimination in the future.

In Study 2, we focus only on White Americans’ perceptions of anti-Black and anti-White discrimination, and continue to examine the moderating effects of political party identification. Additionally, Study 2 addresses the possibility that the domain of discrimination in which White participants focus may affect their perceptions. Open-ended data from Study 1 (reported in the supplemental material available on our Open Science Framework page⁶) suggested that White perceivers saw employment and education as domains in which there is more anti-White and less anti-Black discrimination. Black perceivers also saw their group as discriminated against in the domain of employment, but saw policing as a more prominent domain of discrimination their group has experienced in recent years. In Study 2, we manipulate the domain of discrimination to be considered, and examine White participants’ perceptions of anti-Black and anti-White discrimination over time in those specific domains.

Study 2

The primary purpose of Study 2 was to examine whether the pattern of perceived declining anti-Black and increasing anti-White discrimination by White respondents is strengthened or weakened depending on the domain of discrimination being considered. In open-ended responses from the first study, when White participants offered examples of anti-White discrimination today, they tended to mention education (school admission and scholarship) and hiring practices that disfavor White Americans. This suggests that a focus on the educational/job domain may be particularly likely to prompt the perception of increasing anti-White and decreasing anti-Black discrimination among White perceivers, whereas a focus on other domains (e.g., police and the criminal justice system; everyday interpersonal interactions) may be less likely to do so.

Study 2 also continued to examine the effect of political party identification on perceptions of discrimination. In Study 1, White Republicans perceived less anti-Black and more anti-White discrimination than other groups. We expect to replicate this effect, but we also examine whether the effect of political party is strengthened or weakened depending on domain. Those domains in which White Americans perceive more anti-White discrimination (e.g., education and employment) may prompt an even greater perceptual difference between political parties than domains in which anti-Black discrimination is more generally acknowledged (e.g., criminal justice; interpersonal interactions).

Method

Participants

Six hundred and four participants were recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk Prime in January 2019. Because we were interested in Whites’ perceptions of discrimination by domain, we removed all non-White participants from our analyses. This left a final sample of 455 (258 men, 196 women, one trans woman). The mean age was 35.32 years, with a standard deviation of 10.57.

Design and procedure

The design was a 2 (target race: White/Black) x 9 (time/decade: 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s, “today,” and “in the future”) x 4 (domain: education and employment/criminal justice/interpersonal interactions/discrimination in general [control]) mixed design (all participants rated discrimination in all decades). Target race and decade were within-subjects factors, and domain was a between-subjects factor to which participants were randomly assigned. Given our sample size of 455, we were able to detect an effect of d = 0.16 80% of the time at α = .05 with this design.

Participants in the education and employment condition were asked to indicate, “How much you think Blacks [Whites] were/are the victims of discrimination related to education and employment (e.g., college admissions decisions, scholarship distributions, hiring decisions, raises, promotions, etc.) in the United States in each of the following decades,” using the same 1–10 rating scale as described in Study 1. In the criminal justice condition, participants were asked to indicate discrimination related to criminal justice (e.g., incarceration rates, traffic stops, police brutality, severity/length of sentences, etc.), and in the interpersonal interactions condition, to consider discrimination related to interpersonal interactions (e.g., being called racial slurs, being negatively stereotyped, being socially excluded or treated unkindly because of race, etc.). The control condition was worded exactly as the historical condition in Study 1. We counterbalanced the order in which participants judged perceived anti-Black and anti-White discrimination. Party identification and other demographics were assessed as in Study 1.⁷

Results

Perceived discrimination by domain

Perceived discrimination rates faced by Blacks and Whites across nine time points (1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s, today, and in the future) were submitted to a Domain (education and employment, criminal justice, interpersonal, general) x Target Race (Black, White) x Order (Black discrimination rated first, White discrimination rated first) x Decade (nine levels) mixed-design, repeated measures ANOVA.

Results are summarized in Table 2. The most theoretically interesting effect was the predicted Domain x Target Race x Decade interaction (d = 0.33), which is represented in Figure 4. Perceived anti-Black discrimination fell across the decades, whereas perceived anti-White discrimination increased, across all domains. At all time points (with one exception, see OSF page), within each domain, Blacks were perceived to be discriminated against more than Whites (ps < .05), but the size of that difference varied by decade and domain. As a first step in understanding these differences, we conducted nine one-way ANOVAs (one for each decade) with a discrimination index (Black discrimination minus White discrimination) as the dependent variable. There were two time points at which the difference in perceived anti-Black and anti-White discrimination significantly varied by domain: the 1950s and the future. In the 1950s, the difference in perceived anti-Black and anti-White discrimination was greater among those rating interpersonal discrimination compared to those rating criminal justice-related discrimination, t(451) = 2.81, p = .031. Related to the future, the difference in perceived anti-Black and anti-White discrimination was greater among those rating criminal justice-related discrimination compared to those rating education and employment-related discrimination, t(451) = −3.12, p = .001 (see Figure 4 and OSF page). A Holm p-value adjustment was used to provide a more conservative estimate, given the large number of tests performed.

Table 2.

Summary of four-way ANOVA results, with perceived discrimination faced by Blacks and Whites over 9 decades/time frames (1950s to the future) by domain: Study 2.

Effect	df	F	p
Domain	3, 447	1.74	.158
Order	1, 447	7.05	.008
Target race (TR)	1, 447	1030.46	< .001
Decade	8, 3576	125.05	< .001
Domain x Order	3, 447	1.98	.116
Domain x TR	3, 447	0.45	.714
Domain x Decade	24, 3576	1.23	.206
Order x TR	1, 447	0.98	.323
Order x Decade	8, 3576	12.47	< .001
TR x Decade	8, 3576	496.76	< .001
Domain x Order x TR	3, 447	0.12	.949
Domain x Order x Decade	24, 3576	0.86	.666
Domain x TR x Decade	24, 3576	3.98	< .001
Order x TR x Decade	8, 3576	2.20	.024
Domain x Order x TR x Decade	24, 3576	0.70	.857

Figure 4.

Means of perceived discrimination by condition, target race, and decade: Study 2.

To examine the difference between the slopes of perceived anti-Black and anti-White discrimination across decades by domain (rather than differences within each time point), we conducted MLM analyses (time point nested within individuals) within each target race, with decade and domain predicting discrimination. The decrease in perceived anti-Black discrimination over time was significant for each condition (control: b = −0.58; criminal justice: b = −0.39; education and employment: b = −0.56; interpersonal: b = −0.53; all ps < .001), but the steepness of this decrease differed by domain. The slope of the decrease was less steep in the two domains where we expected it to be less steep—criminal justice (b = 0.19, p < .001) and interpersonal interactions (b = 0.05, p = .03)—relative to the control condition. We also expected the negative slope to be steepest in the education and employment domain, but this slope did not differ from that in the control (b = 0.01, p = .55) or interpersonal conditions (b = 0.04, p = .10). Other comparisons indicated that the smallest decrease in perceived anti-Black discrimination over time occurred within the criminal justice domain: The slope in this condition was significantly less steep than the education and employment (b = −0.17, p < .001) and interpersonal domain slopes (b = −0.14, p < .001), as well as that in the control condition.

The increase in perceived anti-White discrimination over time was significant for each condition (control: b = 0.23; criminal justice: b = 0.18; education and employment: b = 0.28; interpersonal: b = 0.30; all ps < .001), but again these slopes differed by domain. As predicted, the positive slope for perceived anti-White discrimination over time was not as steep for the criminal justice domain compared to the control condition (b = −0.05, p = .02), the education and employment condition, (b = 0.11, p < .001), and the interpersonal condition (b = 0.13, p < .001). Also as predicted, there was a steeper increase in perceived anti-White discrimination in the education and employment domain (b = 0.06, p = .01) compared to the control condition, though the education and employment and interpersonal slopes did not differ from each other (b = 0.02, p = .32). White participants generally saw anti-Black discrimination decreasing and anti-White discrimination increasing over time, but this pattern was less strong when the focus was on the criminal justice domain.

Order effects?

As Table 2 indicates, the Target Race x Decade x Order interaction (disregarding domain) was also significant. The same interaction emerged in Study 1, though in that study it was further moderated by participant race. These effects are still comparable, as the three-way interaction in Study 1 was significant only among White participants, who make up the entire sample in Study 2. However, the pattern of the order effects was different in this study (see Figure 5): Order affected perceptions of anti-Black discrimination over time, F(8, 3624) = 11.73, p < .001, but not anti-White discrimination, F(8, 3624) = 1.46, p = .168. The converse was true in Study 1. Also, in Study 2, the decline in perceived anti-Black discrimination over time was steeper when anti-Black discrimination was rated first than when anti-White discrimination was rated first. In Study 1, perceived anti-White discrimination increased more over time when anti-White discrimination was rated first.

Figure 5.

Means of perceived discrimination by order, target race, and decade (collapsed across domains): Study 2.

Political party differences

To examine whether political party affiliation moderated perceptions of anti-Black and anti-White discrimination by decade and domain, we conducted a Domain x Target Race x Decade x Political Party (Republicans, Democrats, independents) mixed-design, repeated measures ANOVA.⁸ In this sample of White respondents, 108 (23.74%) identified as Republicans, 199 (43.74%) as Democrats, and 139 (30.55%) as independents. The four-way interaction was significant, F(48, 4648) = 1.59, p = .006.

To probe this interaction, we conducted multiple analyses within each domain to examine differences between political parties. These detailed analyses are included on our OSF page. A brief summary is that, within each domain of discrimination, the Party x Target Race x Decade interaction was significant, ps < .001. It was also the case that, within party, the Domain x Target Race x Decade interaction was significant, ps < .02. For every judgment and for every decade, the effect of political party was statistically significant or marginally significant; the only exception was that members of all three parties agreed that anti-White discrimination in employment and education in the 1950s and 1960s was low. In all other cases, Republicans saw the least anti-Black discrimination and the most anti-White discrimination, Democrats saw the most anti-Black discrimination and the least anti-White discrimination, and independents’ perceptions were in between. Replicating Study 1, we also found that only Republicans in the control condition showed a cross-over effect, perceiving significantly more anti-White than anti-Black discrimination in the future, p < .01. Republicans also perceived more anti-White than anti-Black discrimination in the education and employment domain in the 2010s and in the future, and in the interpersonal domain in the 2010s, ps < .051.

In Table 3, we summarize MLM analyses conducted within condition/domain, to examine the difference between the slopes of perceived anti-Black and anti-White discrimination across decades by political party. In all domains, the increase in perceived anti-White discrimination and the decrease in perceived anti-Black discrimination was significant for members of all three political parties, but differed on strength. Democrats were consistently less likely than Republicans to see levels of anti-Black and anti-White discrimination converging over time, regardless of domain; Democrats also saw less convergence than independents, except in their equivalent perception of low increases in anti-White discrimination in the criminal justice domain. Independents also were different from Republicans in that they saw less increase in anti-White discrimination over time, with the exception of the interpersonal domain. But independents were similar to Republicans in perceiving a steep decline in anti-Black discrimination over time, except in the criminal justice domain.

Table 3.

Summary of MLM analysis of slopes in perceived anti-Black and anti-White discrimination over time, by domain and political party: Study 2.

Discrimination domain	Discrimination target	Political party
Discrimination domain	Discrimination target	Republicans	Independents	Democrats
Control	Anti-Black	−0.71^a	−0.70^a	−0.43^b
Control	Anti-White	0.44^a	0.25^b	0.12^c
Education and employment	Anti-Black	−0.69^a	−0.64^a	−0.45^b
Education and employment	Anti-White	0.50^a	0.31^b	0.16^c
Criminal justice	Anti-Black	−0.52^a	−0.42^b	−0.28^c
Criminal justice	Anti-White	0.35^a	0.15^b	0.09^b
Interpersonal interactions	Anti-Black	−0.61^a	−0.64^a	−0.40^b
Interpersonal interactions	Anti-White	0.47^a	0.50^a	0.08^b

Note. MLM = multilevel model. Slopes are unstandardized regression coefficients. All slopes are significantly different from zero, ps < .0001. Within row, coefficients with different superscripts differ significantly from each other, all ps < .04.

Discussion

The primary goal of Study 2 was to examine whether the domain of discrimination under consideration moderated White Americans’ perceptions of anti-White and anti-Black discrimination over time. White participants’ perceptions of anti-Black and anti-White discrimination converged over time in all domains, but the specific domain being considered did matter. As predicted, thinking about employment and education produced the steepest pattern of perceived increasing anti-White and decreasing anti-Black discrimination, and thinking about criminal justice produced the weakest pattern (see Figure 4).

Similar to Study 1, anti-Black discrimination was perceived to be more prevalent than anti-White discrimination at almost every time point and in all domains. However, also similar to Study 1, evidence of a cross-over effect (perceiving more anti-White than anti-Black discrimination) was found only among White Republicans when they considered the 2010s and/or the future, in all domains except criminal justice. Democrats perceived Blacks as discriminated against more than Whites in every domain and across all decades, and independents perceived higher anti-Black than anti-White discrimination, but not always; independents expected Blacks and Whites to experience discrimination similarly in the future in all domains except in criminal justice.

An order effect also emerged in Study 2: Collapsing across domains of discrimination, perceptions of anti-Black discrimination decreased most strongly over time when participants judged anti-Black discrimination prior to anti-White discrimination, but judgments of anti-White discrimination did not vary based on order. This is a different pattern than that found in Study 1, leaving us unable to draw any clear conclusions about the effects of an initial focus on anti-White versus anti-Black discrimination.

General Discussion

Across two studies, we examined perceptions of discrimination against White and Black Americans, and how factors such as temporal framing, perceiver race, the domain in which discrimination is considered, and perceiver political party moderated these perceptions. This research was inspired by and modeled after Norton and Sommers’s (2011), who found a racial divide in perceptions of discrimination over time, and a tendency for White Americans to see more anti-White than anti-Black discrimination today.

Consistent with much past research, in Study 1, we found that White and Black respondents differed on their perceptions of discrimination, with Black perceivers reporting higher levels of anti-Black discrimination, lower levels of anti-White discrimination, and less convergence in discrimination rates over time. Also consistent with previous research (Norton & Sommers, 2011), we found in both studies that White respondents perceived anti-Black discrimination as decreasing over time, and anti-White discrimination as increasing over time. This was true across multiple domains, even those in which White participants in Study 1 did not spontaneously report experiencing discrimination (e.g., the criminal justice domain). However, White respondents generally did not perceive anti-White discrimination as occurring more than anti-Black discrimination, even in a domain in which White Americans seem to perceive themselves as most likely to face discrimination (education and employment).

We also did not find that temporal framing moderated perceptions of discrimination today or in the future (Study 1). Participants in the historical condition, who focused on trends in discrimination since the 1950s, reported higher levels of discrimination overall today and in the future than those who only focused on current discrimination, but this was true for both perceived anti-White and anti-Black discrimination, and for both Black and White perceivers. A historical perspective did not increase perceived convergence in anti-Black and anti-White discrimination today. Another potential source of framing effects was the order in which participants judged the prevalence of anti-Black versus anti-White discrimination. In both studies, an order effect emerged, but the pattern of results was inconsistent across studies. Order affected perceived anti-White discrimination among White perceivers in Study 1, but perceived anti-Black discrimination in Study 2; rating anti-White discrimination first increased perceived anti-White discrimination over time in Study 1, but rating anti-Black discrimination first decreased perceived anti-Black discrimination over time in Study 2. It is possible that for White respondents, anchoring on the ingroup sometimes heightens the sense of growing bias against the ingroup, and anchoring on the outgroup sometimes heightens the sense of declining bias against the outgroup. However, the inconsistency across studies does not allow for firm conclusions about these anchoring or framing effects; we encourage additional research on this issue.

In Study 2, we found that the domain of discrimination under consideration moderated White respondents’ perceptions of anti-Black and anti-White discrimination over time. Perception of convergence in anti-Black and anti-White discrimination was strongest when Whites considered education and employment-based discrimination, and weakest when Whites considered the criminal justice domain. This is likely due to rhetoric and the perceived association between affirmative action policies (relevant to education and employment) and reverse discrimination among White perceivers (Feagin & Porter, 1995; Fenelon & Brod, 2000). In contrast, repeated exposure to racial bias in the criminal justice domain (see Eberhardt, 2020) may moderate, at least slightly, White perceivers’ tendency to see progressive reduction in anti-Black racism. In this sense, White perceivers’ conception of discrimination is nuanced; White respondents (and other perceivers) likely take context into account when contemplating discrimination faced by various groups.

However, the clearest moderator of discrimination perceptions we identified was political party. Across both studies, White Republicans saw steeper decreases in anti-Black discrimination over time, and steeper increases in anti-White discrimination over time than White Democrats and (to a lesser extent) White independents. Indeed, White Republicans were the only group to perceive a cross-over or “reverse” discrimination—more anti-White than anti-Black discrimination today and in the future, in most domains.

A large literature on political ideology points to two interrelated aspects of the liberalism–conservatism dimension: Advocating versus resisting social change, and rejecting versus accepting social inequality (e.g., Jost et al., 2009; Jost, Ledgerwood, & Hardin, 2008). Conservatives tend to have stronger system-justifying beliefs (Jost, Nosek, & Gosling, 2008), and liberals tend to be more sensitive to and concerned about systems of inequality (Napier & Jost, 2008). In our own research, we focused on party identification rather than liberalism–conservatism, but of course, in the US, the two overlap considerably. Perceiving racial discrimination against minority groups is directly linked to both components of liberalism–conservatism: Acknowledging anti-Black racism implies both advocacy for social change and rejection of social hierarchy and inequality (see also Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In our samples, White Democrats were more likely than White Republicans to see continuing anti-Black discrimination and little anti-White discrimination. White Republicans, on the other hand, seem more likely to see racism as “a zero-sum game that they are now losing” (Norton & Sommers, 2011).

A similar political divide in perceptions of race-related issues has been documented in recent national opinion polls, and in the broader research literature—liberals are more likely than conservatives to perceive systemic privilege and inequality (e.g., Cooley, Brown-Iannuzzi, Lei, & Cipolli, 2019; Jost et al., 2004; Sidanius et al., 1996), including seeing more racism in police shootings of Black men (Cooley, Brown-Iannuzzi, & Cottrell, 2019). Such discrepancies in perception, including the political discrepancies in perceptions of racism in our data, both reflect and reinforce political polarization.

Since the present data were collected, significant, tragic events that may affect perceptions of discrimination have occurred—most notably, the murders of Black Americans Breonna Taylor and George Floyd by White police officers in 2020. Floyd’s murder in particular triggered world-wide protests and prompted increased support among White Americans (including Republicans) for the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement (see Chudy & Jefferson, 2021). Perhaps this means that White Americans’ recognition of anti-Black discrimination would be stronger today, and racial and political divides in perception would be weaker, not only in the criminal justice domain but in other domains as well. However, national polling data from CIVIQS (2021) document steep declines in BLM support since July 2020 among Whites in general and Republicans in particular, while Democratic support has remained high. Chudy and Jefferson (2021) write,” after “less” “Since last summer, Republicans and white people have actually become less supportive of Black Lives Matter than they were before the death of George Floyd— a trend that seems unlikely to reverse anytime soon.” Unfortunately, this points to the likelihood of increased political and racial polarization in perceptions of racial discrimination.

Limitations and Future Directions

Our samples were not randomly selected and are likely not representative of Black and White populations in the US. Although Prime Panels (used in Study 1) achieves demographic representativeness close to that of the American National Election Study (based on nationally representative, probability-based samples; Chandler et al., 2019), we cannot generalize to the broader Black and White American populations. In Study 2, we used the MTurk platform, from which samples tend to be younger, more educated, and more liberal than the general U.S. population (Berinsky et al., 2012; Paolacci et al., 2010; Shapiro et al., 2013). Therefore, taking any of our findings as “point estimates” of true levels of perceived discrimination is inappropriate. Instead, the main value of our work lies in the evidence of moderator effects across both studies.

In Study 1, White participants were also older than Black participants by roughly 10 years. This difference in age may have exacerbated differences between White and Black participants’ perceptions of anti-Black and anti-White discrimination, although controlling for age did not change our results. Study 2 was also limited by focusing only on White perceivers, when Black Americans’ perceptions of anti-White and anti-Black discrimination across domains are also worth examining.

Our research also focused only on perceived anti-Black and anti-White discrimination among Black and White participants, but in an increasingly diverse cultural climate, it will be important for researchers to include additional groups as perceivers and targets. Future research should examine whether and when White, Black, Latinx, Native American, Middle Eastern, and Asian Americans perceive group-based discrimination similarly or distinctly (see Craig & Richeson, 2014, 2017). This is especially important as prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory behavior toward racial and ethnic groups shift over time: As we write, discrimination, including violence, against APIDA (Asian Pacific Islander Desi American) populations is on the rise (see Arcidiacono et al., 2020; Ruiz et al., 2020).

Recent research has treated the tendency to see anti-Black and anti-White discrimination as a zero-sum-game individual difference that predicts perceiving higher levels of anti-White discrimination, supporting policies that benefit Whites, and not supporting policies that benefit racial minorities (Wellman et al., 2016; Wilkins et al., 2015). Given that perceptions of discrimination differ by domain, future research should explore domain-specific zero-sum beliefs as well as the precursors of those beliefs (including perceptions of racial progress). This work would add to our understanding of whether and why people perceive discrimination as a zero-sum relationship.

Our research was inspired by Norton and Sommers (2011), but in addition to the different sampling approaches that limit comparisons, the time frames during which our respective data were collected also differed. Norton and Sommers collected their data during the Obama administration, whereas our data were collected during the Trump administration. This difference may be significant because of the contrast in identities between the two presidents. Barack Obama was the first Black president of the United States. Previous research has shown that progress among racial minorities is seen to come at the expense of, as well as threaten, White Americans (e.g., Kluegel & Smith, 1982; Wilkins et al., 2017; Wilkins & Kaiser, 2014). With a Black president, racial progress was evident to many Americans. For Whites, this progress was likely seen to come at their expense.

On the other hand, Donald Trump ran a campaign that negatively targeted a number of disadvantaged groups. After he was elected, the acceptability of prejudice toward the groups Trump targeted (e.g., Mexicans, Muslims, Asian Americans) increased (Crandall et al., 2018). Although Black Americans were not one of the directly targeted groups during the Trump campaign, it is possible that there was some “spillover” to Black people, leading White respondents to perceive higher rates of anti-Black discrimination today than when Obama was in office. Relevant to this point, in our data, the means of perceived Black and White discrimination converged from the 1950s through the 2010s among White participants, but diverged a bit at the “today” time point. This may reflect an Obama–Trump contrast effect. This is admittedly speculative, but researchers could systematically compile research on perceptions of anti-White and anti-Black discrimination conducted during the Obama versus Trump administrations, and conduct new research in which the different presidential eras are experimentally evoked and manipulated. This would allow for a deeper analysis of whether perceived anti-White discrimination has decreased and anti-Black discrimination increased as a function of the contrast between the two presidencies.

More generally, the time at which discrimination perceptions are assessed may be an important factor to consider in all research. For example, Norton and Sommers’s (2011) data were collected early in the recovery period following the Great Recession of 2008, whereas our data were collected during a period of stronger economic growth and lower unemployment. Economic threat, including competition for resources such as jobs, may contribute to the tendency—perhaps particularly among White respondents—to view intergroup relations through a zero-sum frame (Esses et al., 1998; Stephan & Stephan, 2000).

Conclusions

The current studies point to large racial group differences in perception of discrimination, and to the tendency for White Americans in particular to perceive decreasing anti-Black and increasing anti-White discrimination over time. In our samples, anti-Black discrimination was nonetheless seen as more prevalent historically and today than anti-White discrimination across various domains, though at different magnitudes (e.g., highest in the criminal justice domain, lowest in the education/employment domain). The exception to this pattern was White Republicans, who perceived more anti-White than anti-Black discrimination in recent decades across all domains except for criminal justice. Future research should continue to examine the factors that ameliorate and exacerbate racial and political divides in understanding and concern about discrimination.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Navanté Peacock

Notes

References

Arcidiacono

Kinsler

Ransom

(2020). Asian American discrimination in Harvard admissions (NBER Working Paper No. w27068). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w27068

Barrett

L. F.

Swim

J. K.

(1998). Appraisals of prejudice and discrimination. In Swim

J. K.

Stangor

(Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 11–36). Academic Press.

Berinsky

A. J.

Huber

G. A.

Lenz

G. S.

(2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351–368. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr057

Carter

E. R.

Murphy

M. C.

(2015). Group-based differences in perceptions of racism: What counts, to whom, and why? Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9, 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12181

Chandler

Rosenzweig

Moss

A. J.

Robinson

Litman

(2019). Online panels in social science research: Expanding sampling methods beyond Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 51, 2022–2038. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01273-7

Chudy

Jefferson

(2021, May 22). Support for Black Lives Matter surged last year. Did it last? The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/22/opinion/blm-movement-protests-support.html

CIVIQS. (2021). Black Lives Matter. Registered voters. April 1, 2018–July 8, 2021. https://civiqs.com/results/black_lives_matter?annotations=true&uncertainty=true&zoomIn=true

Condor

(1996). Social identity and time. In Robinson

W. P.

(Ed.), Social groups and identities: Developing the legacy of Henri Tajfel (pp. 285–315). Butterworth-Heinemann.

Cooley

Brown-Iannuzzi

Cottrell

(2019). Liberals perceive more racism than conservatives when police shoot Black men—But, reading about White privilege increases perceived racism, and shifts attributions of guilt, regardless of political ideology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 85, Article 103885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103885

10.

Cooley

Brown-Iannuzzi

Lei

R. F.

Cipolli

III . (2019). Complex intersections of race and class: Among social liberals, learning about White privilege reduces sympathy, increases blame, and decreases external attributions for White people struggling with poverty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148, 2218–2228. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000605

11.

Craig

M. A.

Richeson

J. A.

(2014). On the precipice of a “majority-minority” America: Perceived status threat from the racial demographic shift affects White Americans’ political ideology. Psychological Science, 25, 1189–1197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614527113

12.

Craig

M. A.

Richeson

J. A.

(2017). Information about the US racial demographic shift triggers concerns about anti-White discrimination among the prospective White “minority.” PLoS ONE, 12, Article e0185389 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185389

13.

Crandall

C. S.

Miller

J. M.

White

M. H.

II . (2018). Changing norms following the 2016 U.S. presidential election: The Trump effect on prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9, 186–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617750735

14.

Crocker

Major

(1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608–630. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.608

15.

Dovidio

J. F.

Gaertner

S. E.

Kawakami

Hodson

(2002). Why can’t we just get along? Interpersonal biases and interracial distrust. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8, 88–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.8.2.88

16.

Eberhardt

J. L.

(2020). Biased: Uncovering the hidden prejudice that shapes what we see, think, and do. Penguin Publishing Group.

17.

Eibach

R. P.

Ehrlinger

(2006). “Keep your eyes on the prize”: Reference points and racial differences in assessing progress toward equality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205279585

18.

Esses

V. M.

Jackson

L. M.

Armstrong

T. L.

(1998). Intergroup competition and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration: An instrumental model of group conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 699–724. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.911998091

19.

Feagin

Porter

(1995). Affirmative action and African Americans: Rhetoric and practice. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 21, 81–103. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23263011

20.

Fenelon

J. V.

Brod

R. L.

(2000). Ideologies of reverse discrimination: Race, gender, class, age analysis. Race, Gender, & Class, 7, 149–178. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/41674941

21.

Flournoy

J. M.

Jr. Prentice-Dunn

Klinger

M. R.

(2002). The role of prototypical situations in the perceptions of prejudice of African Americans. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 406–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00222.x

22.

Harrison

D. A.

Kravitz

D. A.

Mayer

D. M.

Leslie

L. M.

Lev-Arey

(2006). Understanding attitudes toward affirmative action programs in employment: Summary and meta-analysis of 35 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1013–1036. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1013

23.

Horowitz

J. M.

Brown

Cox

(2019, April 9). Race in America 2019. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/04/09/race-in-america-2019/

24.

Inman

M. L.

Baron

R. S.

(1996). Influence of prototypes on perceptions of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 727–739. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.727

25.

Jost

J. T.

Banaji

M. R.

Nosek

B. A.

(2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–919. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x

26.

Jost

J. T.

Federico

C. M.

Napier

J. L.

(2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307–337. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163600

27.

Jost

J. T.

Ledgerwood

Hardin

C. D.

(2008). Shared reality, system justification, and the relational basis of ideological beliefs. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00056.x

28.

Jost

J. T.

Nosek

B. A.

Gosling

S. D.

(2008). Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00070.x

29.

Kelley

H. H.

(1987). Causal schemata and the attribution process. In Jones

E. E.

Kanouse

D. E.

Kelley

H. H.

Nisbett

R. E.

Valins

Weiner

(Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 151–174). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. https://www2.lib.ku.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/books/causal-schemata-attribution-process/docview/617348200/se-2?accountid=14556

30.

Kluegel

J. R.

Smith

E. R.

(1982). Whites’ beliefs about Blacks’ opportunity. American Sociological Review, 47, 518–532. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095196

31.

Knowles

E. D.

Lowery

B. S.

(2012). Meritocracy, self-concerns, and Whites’ denial of racial inequity. Self and Identity, 11, 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2010.542015

32.

Knowles

E. D.

Lowery

B. S.

Chow

R. M.

Unzueta

M. M.

(2014). Deny, distance, or dismantle? How White Americans manage a privileged identity. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 594–609. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614554658

33.

Kraus

M. W.

Onyeador

I. N.

Daumeyer

N. M.

Rucker

J. M.

Richeson

J. A.

(2019). The misperception of racial economic inequality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14, 899–921. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619863049

34.

Lowery

B. S.

Knowles

E. D.

Unzueta

M. M.

(2007). Framing inequity safely: Whites’ motivated perceptions of racial privilege. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1237–1250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207303016

35.

Mols

Jetten

(2014). No guts, no glory: How framing the collective past paves the way for anti-immigrant sentiments. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 43, 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.08.014

36.

Napier

J. L.

Jost

J. T.

(2008). Why are conservatives happier than liberals? Psychological Science, 19, 565–572. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02124.x

37.

Nelson

J. C.

Adams

Salter

P. S.

(2013). The Marley hypothesis: Denial of racism reflects ignorance of history. Psychological Science, 24, 213–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612451466

38.

Norton

M. I.

Sommers

S. R.

(2011). Whites see racism as a zero-sum game that they are now losing. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 215–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611406922

39.

Paolacci

Chandler

Ipeirotis

(2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411–419.

40.

Phillips

L. T.

Lowery

B. S.

(2015). The hard-knock life? Whites claim hardships in response to racial inequity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.06.008

41.

Phillips

L. T.

Lowery

B. S.

(2018). Herd invisibility: The psychology of racial privilege. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27, 156–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417753600

42.

Pinel

E. C.

(1999). Stigma consciousness: The psychological legacy of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 114–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.114

43.

Rodin

M. J.

Price

J. M.

Bryson

J. B.

Sanchez

F. J.

(1990). Asymmetry in prejudice attribution. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 481–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(90)90052-N

44.

Ruiz

N. G.

Horowitz

J. M.

Tamir

(2020). Many Black and Asian Americans say they have experienced discrimination amid the COVID-19 outbreak. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/07/01/many-black-and-asian-americans-say-they-have-experienced-discrimination-amid-the-covid-19-outbreak/

45.

Salvatore

Shelton

J. N.

(2007). Cognitive costs of exposure to racial prejudice. Psychological Science, 18, 810–815. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01984.x

46.

Shapiro

D. N.

Chandler

Mueller

P. A.

(2013). Using Mechanical Turk to study clinical populations. Clinical Psychological Science, 1, 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702612469015

47.

Sidanius

Pratto

(1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175043

48.

Sidanius

Pratto

Bobo

(1996). Racism, conservatism, affirmative action, and intellectual sophistication: A matter of principled conservatism or group dominance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 476–490. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.476

49.

Sommers

S. R.

Norton

M. I.

(2006). Lay theories about White racists: What constitutes racism (and what doesn’t). Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9, 117–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430206059881

50.

Stephan

W. G.

Stephan

C. W.

(2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In Oskamp

(Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23–45). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

51.

The Economist & YouGov. (2018). The Economist/YouGov poll. https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/maf7idof71/econTabReport.pdf

52.

The Washington Post–ABC News national poll. (2016). The Washington Post; ABC News. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/23/why-trump-is-winning-his-supporters-think-america-is-screwing-over-whites/

53.

Tversky

Kahneman

(1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683

54.

Unzueta

M. M.

Gutiérrez

A. S.

Ghavami

(2010). How believing in affirmative action quotas affects White women’s self-image. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 120–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.08.017

55.

Unzueta

M. M.

Lowery

B. S.

Knowles

E. D.

(2008). How believing in affirmative action quotas protects White men’s self-esteem. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.05.001

56.

Wellman

J. D.

Liu

Wilkins

C. L.

(2016). Priming status-legitimizing beliefs: Examining the impact on perceived anti-White bias, zero-sum beliefs, and support for affirmative action among White people. British Journal of Social Psychology, 55, 426–437. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12133

57.

Wilkins

C. L.

Hirsch

A. A.

Kaiser

C. R.

Inkles

M. P.

(2017). The threat of racial progress and the self-protective nature of perceiving anti-White bias. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20, 801–812. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430216631030

58.

Wilkins

C. L.

Kaiser

C. R.

(2014). Racial progress as threat to the status hierarchy: Implications for perceptions of anti-White bias. Psychological Science, 25, 439–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613508412

59.

Wilkins

C. L.

Wellman

J. D.

Babbitt

L. G.

Toosi

N. R.

Schad

K. D.

(2015). You can win but I can’t lose: Bias against high-status groups increases their zero-sum beliefs about discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 57, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.10.008