PreprintCited by 206Populism, Right-Wing MovementsCrime Patterns and InterventionsTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence

The Effect of President Trump's Election on Hate Crimes

Open access
Edwards, Griffin Sims, Rushin, Stephen·2018·SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract

This Essay empirically evaluates the relationship between Donald Trump’s rise to power and the recent increase in reported hate crimes. A number of critics predicted that President Trump’s divisive rhetoric during the presidential campaign and his subsequent election would embolden hate crime perpetrators, thereby contributing to more hate crimes. Media commentators have dubbed this the Trump Effect. We find compelling evidence to support the Trump Effect hypothesis. Using time series analysis, we show that Donald Trump’s election in November of 2016 was associated with a statistically significant surge in reported hate crimes across the United States, even when controlling for alternative explanations. Further, by using panel regression techniques, we show that counties that voted for President Trump by the widest margins in the presidential election also experienced the largest increases in reported hate crimes. Using the data from this study, we offer a novel theory that builds on the existing literature on the causes of hate crimes. We hypothesize that it was not just Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric throughout the political campaign that caused hate crimes to increase. Rather, we argue that it was Trump’s subsequent election as President of the United States that validated this rhetoric in the eyes of perpetrators and fueled the hate crime surge.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2139/ssrn.3102652

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Edwards, G. S., & Rushin, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
  • Loyola University Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Rushin, Stephen
Venue
SSRN Electronic Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018
ISSN
1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2784454585
Cited by
206
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Keywords
hate crimes, Donald Trump, 2016 US presidential election, Trump effect, political rhetoric, political polarization

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