The Opinion-Mobilizing Effect of Social Protest against Police Violence: Evidence from the 2020 George Floyd Protests
Abstract
Does social protest following the police killing of unarmed Black civilians have a widespread “opinion-mobilizing” effect against the police? Or, does the racialized nature of these events polarize mass opinion based on standing racial and political orientations? To answer these questions, we use a large dataset comprised of weekly cross sections of the American public and employ a regression discontinuity in time (RDiT) approach leveraging the random timing of the police killing of George Floyd and ensuing nationwide protests. We find that the Floyd protests swiftly decreased favorability toward the police and increased perceived anti-Black discrimination among low-prejudice and politically liberal Americans. However, attitudes among high-prejudice and politically conservative Americans either remained unchanged or evinced only small and ephemeral shifts. Our evidence suggests that the Floyd protests served to further racialize and politicize attitudes within the domain of race and law enforcement in the U.S.
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?
After the BLM protests, high prejudice and politically conservative Americans exhibited no or very little change in perceived anti-Black discrimination or evaluations of the police.
“For example, Reny and Newman (2021) find that after the BLM protests, high prejudice and politically conservative Americans exhibited no or very little change in perceived anti-Black discrimination or evaluations of the police.”
From How to study democratic backsliding (2024) · cites this paper as Reny and Newman, 2021
Cites
The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion
Zaller, J. R. (1992) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511818691 · Cited by 7,785 · see citing works
Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2005) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00426.x · Cited by 588 · see citing works
Wing, C., & Cook, T. D. (2013) · Journal of Policy Analysis and Management · doi:10.1002/pam.21721 · Cited by 87 · 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
Turner, P., & Zepeda, E. M. (2023) · Higher Education Studies · doi:10.5539/hes.v13n2p87 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- RENY, T. T., & NEWMAN, B. J.
- Affiliations
- Claremont Graduate University (US)
- University of California, Riverside (US)
- Corresponding author
- RENY, TYLER T.
- NEWMAN, BENJAMIN J.
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2021-06-08
- Volume
- 115
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1499-1507
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W3168610976
- Cited by
- 342
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 60 · 2025: 72 · 2024: 75 · 2023: 70 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 172.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Political Science Review (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Race, History, and American Society
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Keywords
- George Floyd protests, police brutality, attitudes toward police, anti-Black discrimination, racial prejudice, political polarization, Black Lives Matter
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