Racial minorities are expected to be a majority of the U.S. population by 2044. We examined predictors of Americans’ perceptions towards this racial demographic shift (RDS), how accurately they estimate others’ perceptions, and whether an intervention corrects people’s misperceptions. In Study 1, in a nationally representative sample (N = 1,600), most Republicans, Independents, and Democrats viewed the RDS as neutral or good. Being White, conservative, a 2020 Donald Trump voter, endorsing minimization of racism, and endorsing competitive and dangerous worldviews predicted more negative perceptions. Meanwhile, having racially diverse social networks and positive feelings for racial minorities predicted more positive perceptions. In Study 2, a preregistered Prolific experiment (N = 819), Republicans underestimated other Republicans’ and Democrats’ perceptions of this shift. An information-based intervention corrected this, with this effect persisting 1 week later, albeit weaker. Our research suggests that emphasizing more positive ingroup perceptions of the RDS may help correct misperceptions and increase support for racial diversity.
AndreP.BonevaT.ChopraF.FalkA. (2024). Globally representative evidence on the actual and perceived support for climate action. Nature Climate Change, 14(3), 253–259. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-01925-3
3.
AschS. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718
4.
AshE.GallettaS.PinnaM.WarshawC. S. (2024). From viewers to voters: Tracing Fox News’ impact on American democracy. Journal of Public Economics, 240(2024), Article 105256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2024.105256
5.
AxelrodR. (1986). An evolutionary approach to norms. American Political Science Review, 80(4), 1095–1111. https://doi.org/10.2307/1960858
6.
BaiH.FedericoC. M. (2021). White and minority demographic shifts, intergroup threat, and right-wing extremism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 94(2021), Article 104114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104114
7.
BarnfieldM.SzewachP.StockliS.StoeckelF.ThompsonJ.PhillipsJ.LyonsB.MerolaV.ReiflerJ. (2026). Information on public opinion has lasting effects on second-order climate beliefs, but minimal and ephemeral effects on first-order beliefs. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 110(2026), Article 102901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2026.102901
8.
BrownX.RuckerJ. M.RichesonJ. A. (2022). Political ideology moderates White Americans’ reactions to racial demographic change. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25(3), 642–660. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211052516
BursztynL.GonzálezA. L.Yanagizawa-DrottD. (2020). Misperceived social norms: Women working outside the home in Saudi Arabia. American Economic Review, 110(10), 2997–3029. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20180975
11.
CookC. L.LiY. J.NewellS. M.CottrellC. A.NeelR. (2018). The world is a scary place: Individual differences in belief in a dangerous world predict specific intergroup prejudices. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(4), 584–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430216670024
12.
CraigM. A.RichesonJ. 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(6), 1189–1197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614527113
13.
CraigM. A.RichesonJ. A. (2017). Information about the U.S. racial demographic shift triggers concerns about anti-White discrimination among the prospective White “minority.”PLoS One, 12(9), Article e0185389. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185389
14.
CraigM. A.RuckerJ. M.RichesonJ. A. (2018). Racial and political dynamics of an approaching “majority-minority” United States. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 677(1), 204–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716218766269
15.
DanboldF.HuoY. J. (2015). No longer “all-American”? Whites’ defensive reactions to their numerical decline. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(2), 210–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614546355
16.
De SouzaL.SchmaderT. (2022). The misjudgment of men: Does pluralistic ignorance inhibit allyship?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(2), 265–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000362
DevosT.MohamedH. (2014). Shades of American identity: Implicit relations between ethnic and national identities. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(12), 739–754. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12149
19.
DiasN. C.AarslewL. F.FrederiksenK. V. S.LelkesY.PradellaL.WestwoodS. J. (2024). Correcting misperceptions of partisan opponents is not effective at treating democratic ills. PNAS Nexus, 3(8), Article pgae304. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae304
20.
DixonG.ClarkeC.JacquetJ.EvensenD. T. N.HartP. S. (2024). The complexity of pluralistic ignorance in Republican climate change policy support in the United States. Communications Earth & Environment, 5(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01240-x
21.
DixonG.GarrettK.SusmannM.BushmanB. J. (2020). Public opinion perceptions, private support, and public actions of US adults regarding gun safety policy. JAMA Network Open, 3(12), e2029571. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.29571
22.
DruckmanJ. N.KangS.ChuJ.StagnaroM. N.VoelkelJ. G.MernykJ.PinkC.RedekoppC.RandD.WillerR. (2023). Correcting misperceptions of out-partisans decreases American legislators’ support for undemocratic practices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 120(23) Article e2301836120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2301836120
23.
DruckmanJ. N.KlarS.KrupnikovY.LevenduskyM.RyanJ. B. (2020). How affective polarization shapes Americans’ political beliefs: A study of response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2020.28
24.
EarleM.HodsonG. (2020). Questioning White losses and anti-White discrimination in the United States. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(2), 160–168. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0777-1
25.
EarleM.HodsonG. (2022). Dealing with declining dominance: White identification and anti-immigrant hostility in the US. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25(3), 727–745. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211032274
26.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
27.
FieldsJ. M.SchumanH. (1976). Public beliefs about the beliefs of the public. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40(4), 427–448. https://doi.org/10.1086/268330
28.
FreyW. H. (2018). Diversity explosion: How new racial demographics are remaking America. Brookings Institution Press.
29.
GeigerN.SwimJ. K. (2016). Climate of silence: Pluralistic ignorance as a barrier to climate change discussion. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 47(2016), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.05.002
30.
GoldbergM. H.van der LindenS.LeiserowitzA.MaibachE. (2020). Perceived social consensus can reduce ideological biases on climate change. Environment and Behavior, 52(5), 495–517. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916519853302
31.
HallM. E. K.SolomonB. C.VoelkelJ. G.WillerR. (2025). Durably reducing partisan animosity through multiple scalable treatments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 122(19), Article e2424414122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2424414122
32.
HodsonG.EarleM.CraigM. A. (2022). Privilege lost: How dominant groups react to shifts in cultural primacy and power. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25(3), 625–641. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211070524
33.
JachimowiczJ. M.HauserO. P.O’BrienJ. D.ShermanE.GalinskyA. D. (2018). The critical role of second-order normative beliefs in predicting energy conservation. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(10), 757–764. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0434-0
34.
KatzD.AllportF. H.JennessM. B. (1931). Students’ attitudes: A report of the Syracuse University reaction study. Craftsman Press.
KroschA. R.ParkS. J.WalkerJ.LisnerA. R. (2022). The threat of a majority-minority US alters White Americans’ perception of race. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 99(2022), Article 104266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104266
37.
LawK. F.GittleE.YoungL.SyropoulosS. (2025). Mapping and increasing Americans’ actual and perceived support for initiatives protecting future generations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672251384359
38.
McBreenJ.Di TostoG.DignumF.HofstedeG. J. (2011, 9–14). Linking norms and culture [Conference session]. 2011 Second International Conference on Culture and Computing, October 2011, Kyoto, Japan. https://doi.org/10.1109/Culture-Computing.2011.11
39.
MillerD. T. (2023). A century of pluralistic ignorance: What we have learned about its origins, forms, and consequences. Frontiers in Social Psychology, 1(2023), 1260896. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsps.2023.1260896
PerryR.SibleyC. G.DuckittJ. (2013). Dangerous and competitive worldviews: A meta-analysis of their associations with social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(1), 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.10.004
42.
PrikeT.BlackleyP.Swire-ThompsonB.EckerU. K. (2023). Examining the replicability of backfire effects after standalone corrections. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 8(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-023-00492-z
43.
RuischB. C.FergusonM. J. (2022). Changes in Americans’ prejudices during the presidency of Donald Trump. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(5), 656–665. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01287-2
44.
SantoroE.BroockmanD. E. (2022). The promise and pitfalls of cross-partisan conversations for reducing affective polarization: Evidence from randomized experiments. Science Advances, 8(25), Article eabn5515. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abn5515
45.
ShamirJ.ShamirM. (1997). Pluralistic ignorance across issues and over time: Information cues and biases. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 61(2), 227–260. https://doi.org/10.1086/297794
46.
SparkmanG.GeigerN.WeberE. U. (2022). Americans experience a false social reality by underestimating popular climate policy support by nearly half. Nature Communications, 13(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32412-y
47.
SparkmanG.WaltonG. M. (2017). Dynamic norms promote sustainable behavior, even if it is counternormative. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1663–1674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617719950
48.
StefaniakA.WohlM. J. A. (2022). In time, we will simply disappear: Racial demographic shift undermines privileged group members’ support for marginalized social groups via collective angst. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25(3), NP1–NP23. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211023551
49.
Swire-ThompsonB.DobbsM.ThomasA.DeGutisJ. (2023). Memory failure predicts belief regression after the correction of misinformation. Cognition, 230(2023), Article 105276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105276
50.
SyropoulosS.SparkmanG. (2025). Most American religious leaders silently believe in climate change and informing their congregation can help open dialogue. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 122(13) Article e2419705122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2419705122
51.
TaylorD. G. (1982). Pluralistic ignorance and the spiral of silence: A formal analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 46(3), 311–335. https://doi.org/10.1086/268729
Van AsscheJ.SwartH.SchmidK.DhontK.Al RamiahA.ChristO.KauffM.RothmannS.SavelkoulM.TauschN.WölferR.ZahreddineS.SaleemM.HewstoneM. (2023). Intergroup contact is reliably associated with reduced prejudice, even in the face of group threat and discrimination. American Psychologist, 78(6), 761–774. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001144
54.
VoelkelJ. G.ChuJ.StagnaroM. N.MernykJ. S.RedekoppC.PinkS. L.DruckmanJ. N.RandD. G.WillerR. (2023). Interventions reducing affective polarization do not necessarily improve anti-democratic attitudes. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(2023), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01466-9
WojcieszakM.WarnerB. R. (2020). Can interparty contact reduce affective polarization? A systematic test of different forms of intergroup contact. Political Communication, 37(6), 789–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1760406
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.
