Which Identity Frames Boost Support for and Mobilization in the #BlackLivesMatter Movement? An Experimental Test
Abstract
The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement has organized hundreds of disruptive protests in American cities since 2013 (Garza 2014; Harris 2015; Taylor 2016). The movement has garnered considerable attention from the U.S. media and is well recognized by the U.S. public (Horowitz and Livingston 2016; Neal 2017). Social movement scholars suggest that such robust mobilizations are typically predicated on clear social movement frames (Benford and Snow 2000; Snow et al. 1986). Tillery (2019b) has identified several distinct message frames within the social media communications of BLM activists. In this paper, we use a survey experiment to test the effect of three of these frames—Black Nationalist, Feminist, and LGBTQ+ Rights—on the mobilization of African Americans. We find that exposure to these frames generates differential effects on respondents’ willingness to support, trust, canvass, and write representatives about the Black Lives Matter movement. These findings raise new questions about the deployment of intersectional messaging strategies within movements for racial justice.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Frames for BLM that tie in Black feminist and LGBTQ+ populations depress mobilization, particularly among Black men.
“For example, Bonilla and Tillery (2020) show that frames for BLM that tie in Black feminist and LGBTQ+ populations depress mobilization, particularly among Black men.”
From How to study democratic backsliding (2024) · cites this paper as Bonilla and Tillery, 2020
Cites
Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color
Crenshaw, K. (1991) · Stanford Law Review · doi:10.2307/1229039 · Cited by 29,585 · see citing works
Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment.
Brewer, R. M., & Collins, P. H. (1992) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2074808 · Cited by 19,445 · see citing works
Crenshaw, K. (2018) · Feminist Legal Theory · doi:10.4324/9780429500480-5 · Cited by 9,510 · see citing works
Nash, J. C. (2008) · Feminist Review · doi:10.1057/fr.2008.4 · Cited by 1,995 · see citing works
BONILLA, Y., & ROSA, J. (2015) · American Ethnologist · doi:10.1111/amet.12112 · Cited by 1,116 · cited 9× · see citing works
“As another measure of support, we created an index including three additional variables: trust in people involved in BLM, trust in BLM leaders, and belief that BLM speaks for the individual.5 On the whole, the sample roughly matches that of African American residents of the United States of America.6 (Table A.1 in the…”
BackgroundInfluential"It Was like a Fever ..." Narrative and Identity in Social Protest
Polletta, F. (1998) · Social Problems · doi:10.2307/3097241 · Cited by 528 · see citing works
#Ferguson is everywhere: initiators in emerging counterpublic networks
Jackson, S. J., & Foucault Welles, B. (2016) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2015.1106571 · Cited by 276 · see citing works
Intersectional and Transnational Coalitions during Times of Crisis: The European LGBTI Movement
Ayoub, P. M. (2019) · Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society · doi:10.1093/sp/jxy007 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
How to study democratic backsliding
Druckman, J. N. (2024) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12942 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Lafreniere, B., Audet, É. C., Kachanoff, F., Christophe, N. K., Holding, A. C., Janusauskas, L., & Koestner, R. (2023) · Journal of Community Psychology · doi:10.1002/jcop.23043 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
- Authors
- BONILLA, T., & TILLERY, A. B.
- Affiliations
- Northwestern University (US)
- Corresponding author
- BONILLA, TABITHA
- TILLERY, ALVIN B.
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2020-07-30
- Volume
- 114
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 947-962
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W3046480067
- Cited by
- 113
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 14
- FWCI
- 19.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Political Science Review (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Race, History, and American Society
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Movements and Cultural Identity
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Keywords
- Black Lives Matter, identity frames, social mobilization, Black political participation, Black nationalism, feminist activism, LGBT rights, intersectionality, racial justice movements, social media activism, canvassing
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review