Our goals were to uncover main themes in the published literature, consolidate research findings & other available evidence (surveys, polls), pit predictors of BLM against one another, & explore differences across societal groups.
In a systematic review, we identified 4 major themes in the literature:
1. Impacts of racial violence 2. Characteristics of BLM & public image 3. Influence of news media on public support 4. Supporters' political & psychological profiles
Demographics were often inconsistent predictors of BLM support across studies while race/ethnicity, partisanship, and ideology were more reliable determinants of BLM endorsement.
This means whites, Republicans, & Conservatives typically opposed BLM.
When it comes to psychology, low social dominance orientation, prejudice, and authoritarianism are all consistently associated with BLM support, as is positive intergroup contact, empathy for protestors, and acknowledging blacks are discriminated against.
We then conducted a systematic multiple meta-analyses with 13 public opinion datasets (N=31,779) employing @RoperCenter to confirm the patterns found in the literature review & explore a wider range of predictors of BLM support.
Results corroborate the lit review: BLM support is negatively associated with age, being white, Republican, and conservative, and positively related with being female, African American, & believing Blacks experience police violence & discrimination.
We assessed which predictors are comparatively stronger (& robust to controls). In a multivariate setting, ideology (1st) and party identification (2nd) have the largest, most robust effect sizes, followed by race (Blacks versus others) and gender.
Overall, 27 predictors were significantly related to BLM support controlling for other variables at least once, suggesting BLM in America is a complex, multifaceted issue influenced by various competing and intersectional factors.
Concluding, there is a near-perfect correspondence between opposition to BLM and positive attitudes towards American institutions that are deeply rooted in systemic racism (e.g., the police, Republican Party, Conservatism).
Academically, we argue for greater appreciation of ideology in contemporary politics & contend that ideology matters as it underlies the legitimation of inequality & desire for societal change. Its inclusion in models of collective action is paramount.
On a personal note, we initiated this project in the aftermath of George Floyd's murder, to whom we dedicate this work. While this is an infinitely small contribution, we hope it advances the pursuit of racial equality & helps dismantle white supremacy.
Have you ever wished to have access to 51,404 observations from 69 countries (28 nationally representative samples) from Global North/South to analyze & study the social & moral psychology of #COVID19?
Thank you, @NathanKalmoe, for once more engaging with our work. I feel privileged to have the opportunity to discuss how both of our works differ/intersect. As you invited and welcomed my retorque, here are some additional thoughts.
In this iteration, you focused on samples, distributions, sophistication measures and interpretation. While the latter is always somewhat subjective, I see the remaining points as issues which are worth debating, and whose intricacies may be elucidating to the differences found:
Colleagues and I tackle admittedly contentious debates in ideology scholarship: ideological innocence, nexus between ideology’s most commonly theorized sub-structures (social & economic), and ideological asymmetries of PolPsy (via NeoLib).
Using a set of high quality nationally representative surveys from professional survey companies (SSI/Research Now/YouGov), in the US and UK, & in which a greater number and range of ideological instruments and psychological constructs were administered, we demonstrated that >>>
1.) contrary to the ideological innocence (K&K) hypothesis, dating back to Converse (1964), *at least as of 2016*, we observed a surprisingly high degree of ideological coherence, when using both operational and symbolic ideological instruments.
Methodologically, this work adds to the existing literature in a few meaningful ways. We used facets of established constructs to gain a more precise understanding of the psychological underpinnings of Trump supporters (2/12)
We analyzed psychological differences between politically relevant groups in the 2016 Election: Democrats, Republicans, and Trumpists in both primaries and general election. (3/12)