Supporters and opponents of Donald Trump respond differently to racial cues: An experimental analysis
Open accessAbstract
A number of recent studies suggest that individuals who exhibit high levels of racial animosity strongly support Donald Trump, while racial liberals strongly oppose him. This paper provides a new experimental analysis of the extent to which supporters and opponents of Trump respond differently to race-related stimuli. Specifically, we examine whether attitudes toward Trump moderate the political impact of racial cues in the environment. We find that white Trump supporters randomly exposed to a black (versus a white) man in the context of soliciting their support for a housing-assistance policy were more opposed to the policy, angrier about the policy, and more likely to blame beneficiaries for their situation. The opposite pattern prevailed among whites with unfavorable opinions of Trump. Our results help provide new insight into how Trump supporters and opponents differ in their responses to the salience of race in American politics.
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?
An experimental study found that simply exposing white Trump supporters to a picture of a black (vs. a white man) in the context of seeking their support for a housing assistance policy led them to be less supportive of housing assistance programs, angrier that some people receive assistance from government, and more likely to blame people who receive assistance for their circumstances.
“An experimental study also found that simply exposing white Trump supporters to a picture of a black (vs. a white man) in the context of seeking their support for a housing assistance policy, led them to be less supportive of housing assistance programs, angrier that some people receive assistance from government, and more likely to blame people who receive assistance for their circumstances [132]”
From Reducing Racial Inequities in Health: Using What We Already Know to Take Action (2019) · cites this paper as [132]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Reducing Racial Inequities in Health: Using What We Already Know to Take Action
Williams, D. R., & Cooper, L. A. (2019) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph16040606 · Cited by 415 · see citing works
- Authors
- Luttig, M. D., Federico, C. M., & Lavine, H.
- Affiliations
- Colgate University (US)
- University of Minnesota (US)
- Corresponding author
- Luttig, Matthew D.
- Venue
- Research & Politics
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2017-10
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 4
- ISSN
- 2053-1680 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2765476027
- Cited by
- 55
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 26.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2025-09-30)
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Research & Politics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
- Keywords
- Donald Trump, racial cues, racial animosity, political attitudes, anger
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
