CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 267Social and Intergroup PsychologyPopulism, Right-Wing MovementsElectoral Systems and Political Participation

The Trump Effect: An Experimental Investigation of the Emboldening Effect of Racially Inflammatory Elite Communication

Open access
Newman, Benjamin, Merolla, Jennifer L., Shah, Sono, Lemi, Danielle Casarez, Collingwood, Loren, Ramakrishnan, S. Karthick·2021·British Journal of Political Science
DOI 10.1017/s0007123419000590
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This article explores the effect of explicitly racial and inflammatory speech by political elites on mass citizens in a societal context where equality norms are widespread and generally heeded yet a subset of citizens nonetheless possesses deeply ingrained racial prejudices. The authors argue that such speech should have an ‘emboldening effect’ among the prejudiced, particularly where it is not clearly and strongly condemned by other elite political actors. To test this argument, the study focuses on the case of the Trump campaign for president in the United States, and utilizes a survey experiment embedded within an online panel study. The results demonstrate that in the absence of prejudiced elite speech, prejudiced citizens constrain the expression of their prejudice. However, in the presence of prejudiced elite speech – particularly when it is tacitly condoned by other elites – the study finds that the prejudiced are emboldened to both express and act upon their prejudices.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0007123419000590

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Extensive evidence shows negative mental health effects of race-related stress in POC.

    “Despite extensive evidence showing the negative mental health effects of race-related stress in POC [6-11,14-17] and the promise of mindfulness meditation to help these individuals cope [20-24,26,30-32,79], this evidence-based treatment continues to be understudied among this high-risk population in both traditional [30,35,36] and digital formats [46-48].”

    From App-Based Mindfulness Meditation for People of Color Who Experience Race-Related Stress: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial (2022) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Norms of Equality and Tolerance section discusses racial attitudes and political behavior, while the Quasi-Behavioral Measure section concerns expressions of prejudice toward Latinos; neither addresses mental health outcomes. Searches for race-related stress, psychological distress, and mental health found no passage in our copy linking such stress to negative mental health effects in people of color. Page numbers were not available in the indexed passages. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Berinsky AJ (2002) Political context and the survey response. The Journal of Politics 64(2), 567-684.
  2. Crandall CS, Miller JM and White MH (2018) Changing norms following the 2016 presidential election: the Trump effect on prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science 9(2), 186-192.
  3. Huddy L and Feldman S (2009) On assessing the political effects of racial Prejudice. Annual Review of Political Science 12(1), 423-447.
  4. Kteily N and Bruneau E (2017) Backlash: the politics and real-world consequences of minority group dehumanization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 43(1), 87-104.
  5. Schaffner BF (2018) Follow the racist: The consequences of Trump's expressions of prejudice for mass rhetoric. Semantic Scholar. Available from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Follow-the-Racist-The-Consequences-of-Trump-'-s-of- Schaffner/3ff29822155973661029da17a4c0610088e15340
  6. Sears DO (1988) Symbolic racism. In Katz PA and Taylor DA (eds), Perspectives in Social Psychology. Boston, MA: Springer, pp. 53-84.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Newman, B., Merolla, J. L., Shah, S., Lemi, D. C., Collingwood, L., & Ramakrishnan, S. K.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Riverside (US)
  • Southern Methodist University (US)
Corresponding author
Merolla, Jennifer L.
ORCID
Venue
British Journal of Political Science
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2020-02-17
Volume
51
Issue
3
Pages
1138-1159
ISSN
  • 0007-1234 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-2112
DOI
10.1017/s0007123419000590
OpenAlex
W3007458762
Cited by
267
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 1
FWCI
48.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • British Journal of Political Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Southern California
  • Northwestern University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
Keywords
racial prejudice, political elites, Donald Trump, Trump campaign, equality norms, social norms, political communication

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