The threat of increasing diversity: Why many White Americans support Trump in the 2016 presidential election
Abstract
What accounts for the widespread support for Donald Trump in the 2016 U.S. presidential race? This experiment demonstrates that the changing racial demographics of America contribute to Trump’s success as a presidential candidate among White Americans whose race/ethnicity is central to their identity. Reminding White Americans high in ethnic identification that non-White racial groups will outnumber Whites in the United States by 2042 caused them to become more concerned about the declining status and influence of White Americans as a group (i.e., experience group status threat), and caused them to report increased support for Trump and anti-immigrant policies, as well as greater opposition to political correctness. Increased group status threat mediated the effects of the racial shift condition on candidate support, anti-immigrant policy support, and opposition to political correctness. Among Whites low in ethnic identification, in contrast, the racial shift condition had no effect on group status threat or support for anti-immigrant policies, but did cause decreased positivity toward Trump and decreased opposition to political correctness. Group status threat did not mediate these effects. Reminders of the changing racial demographics had comparable effects for Democrats and Republicans. Results illustrate the importance of changing racial demographics and White ethnic identification in voter preferences and how social psychological theory can illuminate voter preferences.
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?
Reminding white Americans who scored high on a measure of racial identification that whites would become a minority of the U.S. population in 2042 led them to be more concerned about the declining power of whites in the U.S. and to report increased support for candidate Donald Trump and for anti-immigrant policies.
“Similarly, reminding white Americans who scored high on a measure of racial identification that whites would become a minority of the U.S. population in 2042, led them to be more concerned about the declining power of whites in the U.S. and to report increased support for candidate Donald Trump and for anti-immigrant policies [131].”
From Reducing Racial Inequities in Health: Using What We Already Know to Take Action (2019) · cites this paper as [131]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 18 · Cited by 480
- Authors
- Major, B., Blodorn, A., & Major Blascovich, G.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
- Stanford University, USA
- Corresponding author
- Major, Brenda
- Venue
- Group Processes & Intergroup Relations
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-10-20
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 931-940
- ISSN
- 1368-4302 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7188
- OpenAlex
- W2538146842
- Cited by
- 480
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 34 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 70 · 2021: 67 · 2020: 69 · 2019: 73 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 9
- FWCI
- 106.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Group Processes & Intergroup Relations (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1053732)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
- Keywords
- Donald Trump, 2016 US presidential election, racial demographics, anti-immigrant sentiment, political correctness, candidate support, racial diversity, White Americans, social identity
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