Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey Research Articles

System justification drives Latino support for nativist policies

Since Donald Trump’s presidency (2016–2020), political observers have rushed to explain why some Latinos support nativist policies that harm members of their own ethnic group. One hypothesis predicts that Latinos who value their American identity endorse policies that denigrate non-Americans, such as unauthorized immigrants. We propose system justification as an additional motive. Study 1 draws on a representative Latino oversample ( N = 3,950) in the 2020 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey (CMPS). We show that higher system justification levels are substantively associated with support for harsher policies toward unauthorized immigrants, independently of American identity, partisanship, and other key covariates. Study 2 refines these results through a preregistered experiment with Latino adults ( N = 1,230). We evaluated system justification and American identity as mediators of support for anti-Latino policies in the domains of unauthorized immigration and affirmative action. Assignment to read about the vibrancy of the American dream (versus control) increased system justification motives, which then strongly boosted support for nativist policies. American identity played no meaningful role. Moreover, the mediated results for nativist policies were large and robust, but small and brittle for affirmative action. We discuss our results’ implications for the political psychology of Latinos—America’s largest ethnic group.

The Effect of Human Capital, Economic Anxiety, And Political Ideologies on Immigrant Health Perceptions: a Between-Subjects Experimental Approach

This research examines the factors that influence health-related stereotypes against immigrants, with a focus on how human capital, conservative ideology, and economic anxiety impact these perceptions across different immigrant groups in the United States. The study uses Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression analysis of data from the 2020 Collaborative Multi-racial Post-Election Survey to assess attitudes towards all immigrants, as well as specifically Mexican and Chinese immigrants. Objective: Health stereotypes often depict immigrants as carriers of diseases and burdens on society, which affect public opinion and policy. This study aims to analyze the roles of human capital, political ideology, and economic conditions in shaping these stereotypes. Method: Using OLS regression, the analysis explores the association between stereotyping and various predictors, including conservative ideology (measured objectively and subjectively), human capital, and economic anxiety. Disaggregating the data by immigrant group allows for nuanced insights into the interplay of these factors. Results: The results reveal moderate levels of stereotyping across all groups, with variations by immigrant origin. Objective measures of conservative ideology show a strong correlation with increased stereotyping, particularly against Mexican immigrants. Higher human capital is associated with reduced stereotyping, while economic anxiety consistently exacerbates negative stereotypes across all groups. Furthermore, Republican affiliation and racial identity are correlated with heightened stereotyping, especially against Chinese immigrants. Discussion: The findings highlight the complexity of the factors contributing to health-related stereotypes and emphasize the importance of addressing educational and economic elements to mitigate these biases. Tailored interventions that take into account the distinct dynamics of each immigrant group are crucial for reducing stereotypes and improving integration and health outcomes.

Exploring the link between public health compliance and voting patterns in the 2020 U.S. presidential election

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted society and politics, particularly in the context of the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Public officials' unpreparedness resulted in skepticism regarding government responses. Additionally, health inequities and political polarization profoundly influenced voter attitudes and behaviors.MethodsThis study employs statistical techniques to examine voting patterns, leveraging data from the 2021 African American COVID-19 Vaccine Polls (AACVP) alongside the 2020 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey (CMPS). Specifically, it utilizes logistic regression and t-tests to dissect and understand the dichotomous electoral decisions made by voters between Donald Trump and Joe Biden in the U.S. presidential election. The research analyzes the nuances of the electorate's behavior by considering many factors that may influence the binary vote decision.ResultsT-tests revealed significant mean differences in voting patterns based on public health compliance, with less compliant individuals more likely to vote for Trump and more compliant individuals favoring Biden. Logistic regression analysis showed a substantial statistical correlation between public health compliance and voting preferences, independent of confounding variables.DiscussionThe study confirmed that public health compliance during the pandemic impacted voting behavior, with a divide based on attitudes toward health measures. This reflected broader societal divisions, suggesting that public health behaviors are linked with political identities. Additionally, media sources and racial identity significantly influenced voting decisions.

Social Mobility through Immigrant Resentment: Explaining Latinx Support for Restrictive Immigration Policies and Anti-immigrant Candidates

Abstract Various polls suggest that Donald Trump has enjoyed the support of a sizable minority of the Latinx electorate despite his racially offensive rhetoric and support for some of the most restrictive immigration policies in recent memory. Building on Social Identity Theory and Self-Categorization Theory, we contend that some Latinxs harbor negative stereotypes about immigrants, blame them for the status devaluation of the Latinx community, and cognitively distinguish themselves from Latinx immigrants. Rather than viewing anti-immigrant policies, rhetoric, and politicians as a direct status threat, those exhibiting this “Latinx Immigrant Resentment (LIR)” may regard them as a means to enhance the status and interests of “prototypical” Latinxs by signaling their distinction from “atypical” Latinxs. To evaluate this theory, we use the 2020 American National Election Study (ANES) and 2016 Collaborative MultiRacial Post-Election Survey (CMPS) as a proof-of-concept to first confirm that negative immigrant stereotypes and cognitive intragroup distinctions are associated with increased support for Donald Trump and restrictive immigration policies. We then introduce a more refined measure of LIR by fielding online surveys of US Latinxs administered through Lucid in 2020–2021 (N = 1,164) and 2021/22 (N = 1,017). We demonstrate the validity of this measure and its predictive power for attitudes toward Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, and restrictive immigration policies after accounting for a range of rival explanations.

How Can the Police Avoid Earning Our Distrust?

The American public’s distrust in the police is at a historic high. Distrust impairs the ability of the police to meet their objectives. It is therefore important to better understand how the police can avoid earning distrust. Using data from the 2020 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey (CMPS), we explore the associations of police distrust among African Americans. Americans as a group are overpoliced, but we focus on African Americans because of their especially high levels of interaction with the police bureaucracy and the damage police racial inequity has to their citizenship. If the police can avoid earning distrust with African Americans, police could avoid earning distrust with Americans broadly. We find that recent, frequent, discriminatory, and low-quality stops are associated with increased police distrust. This suggests that police can minimize earning distrust by avoiding unnecessary stops and, when stops cannot be avoided, by focusing on quality, nondiscriminatory interactions.

The Influence of Country of Origin in the Process of Party Identification Acquisition

AbstractThousands of Latin Americans migrate to the United States every year. This article seeks to understand how immigrants’ premigration political experiences influence the acquisition of party identification upon arrival in the United States. This research proposes that premigration political experiences influence the acquisition of party identification among Latino immigrants in the United States. Utilizing data from the 2016 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey (CMPS) and Proyecto Élites Parlamentarias Latinoamericanas (Latin American Parliamentary Elites Project), this paper analyzes how the ideology of the government in power in the immigrants’ country of origin influences party identification among Latino immigrants in the United States. Employing multinomial regression analysis, I demonstrate that the ideology of governments in power in Latin American countries when Latinos migrate influences the party identification of those immigrants in the United States. The results of this study contribute to the conversations on premigration experiences and challenge the applicability of classical theories of party identification for immigrants.

Drivers of disaster planning among African-American households

PurposeThe paper seeks to explore the drivers of disaster planning in African-American households. While the paper is exploratory, the authors attempt to dialogue with substantial theoretical and applied research around vulnerability and disaster. Race, ethnicity and vulnerability are issues deeply entangled with American disaster preparedness and response. In this study, the authors hope to illuminate the threads which bind them together and contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between race, ethnicity, class and preparedness.Design/methodology/approachData for this project come from a disaster planning question placed on the 2020 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey (CMPS). The authors analyze a split sample of around 5,000 African-American households descriptively and with multinomial logistic regression.FindingsDisaster planning among African-American households is a product of past experiences, concern about other hazards, social trust and gender identity. These results are similar to other findings within the study of household preparedness and help to advance the understanding of predictors within the African-American community. Key drivers such as income, education level, gender identity, social trust and perceptions of other risks are consistent with previous studies.Originality/valueThis project is the first to examine issues of disaster planning utilizing a national sample of African-American households via the one-of-a-kind 2020 CMPS.

Black Immigrants, Exposure to Police Violence, and Support for Black Lives Matter: Insights from the 2016 US Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey

Black Immigrants, Exposure to Police Violence, and Support for Black Lives Matter: Insights from the 2016 US Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey

Support for ranked choice voting across party and race: results from a national survey experiment

ABSTRACT This paper presents results from a series of survey experiments testing the effects of various arguments on relative evaluations of ranked-choice (RCV) and choose-one ballots. We examine data from the 2020 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey (CMPS), allowing for comparisons across racial groups. Reformers have emphasized the voter’s ability to have their vote transferred to a lower-ranked candidate as a positive aspect of the system. However, we find that an explanation of RCV’s vote-transfer properties does not increase public support. Furthermore, when given a choice between the single and ranked voting methods, a majority within each racial group prefers the single vote. However, Latino, Asian American, and MENA respondents express a stronger preference for RCV than white respondents. Democrats also evaluate RCV more favorably than Republicans. Furthermore, communicating that RCV helps elect more women and people of color increases support among Democrats but not Republicans across most racial groups. This is consistent with other findings around growing partisan differences in views toward diversity and descriptive representation. Finally, a message emphasizing voter confusion has little impact on public support for RCV. Arguments about the impact of electoral systems are found to influence public preferences more than descriptions of those systems’ key properties.

Black Women: Keepers of Democracy, the Democratic Process, and the Democratic Party

Abstract In the United States, Black women have been touted as the saving grace of the Democratic Party. Using data from the 2016 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey, a cooperative, user-driven data set that provides a large and diverse sample of racial and ethnic groups in the United States, we develop a deeper understanding of the role of partisanship and civic duty in Black women’s support for Hillary Clinton and their political participation. We take an intersectional approach and examine Black women’s politics alongside that of their white female and Black male counterparts. We find that Black women are motivated by civic duty to participate in elections, whereas civic duty does not motivate Black men and white women.

Differentiated legality: understanding the sources of immigrants’ deportation fear

ABSTRACT All non-citizens face risk of deportation, but a variety of factors unequally stratify this risk. To capture the range of formally unequal statuses produced by migration control systems, we introduce the concept of “differentiated legality.” This paper applies this framework to analyze perceived deportation risk reported by 1,976 immigrants from a range of origin countries in the 2016–2017 Collaborative Multi-racial Post-election Survey. Findings show that unauthorized immigrants and immigrants with temporary authorized status worry more than naturalized citizens about being deported. Respondents who know someone who has been deported and who were interviewed in a language other than English express greater fear of deportation, even in models with controls. In addition, system embeddedness – i.e. perceived legibility to the state – may increase deportation fears, even among those with comparatively secure legal statuses. This paper is a significant contribution to understandings of citizenship, legality, and how immigrants experience deportability.

Black Lives Matter and the Racialized Support for the January 6th Insurrection

Does support for the January 6th insurrection come mostly from concerned citizens worried over illegal voting, or from racists spurred to action by the highly visible Black Lives Matter protests and Donald Trump’s 2020 defeat? We field a survey experiment aimed at disentangling links between old and new racial grievances, anti-immigrant beliefs, Black activism, and support for the January 6th insurrection. We find that the people most likely to be supportive of the insurrection are whites who hold negative attitudes toward immigrants and subscribe to white replacement theory. Beliefs about the George Floyd protests also explain January 6th support, above and beyond demographics and other racial and political views. These results are validated by the 2020 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey. We also conduct a survey vignette experiment and find that anti-BLM rhetoric spread by Trump and right-wing news sources likely soured opinions on the movement and set the stage for widespread insurrection support.

The Wall between Latinas and Latinos? Gender and Immigration Enforcement Attitudes among U.S. Latina/o Voters

AbstractDonald Trump’s surprising level of support among U.S. Latina/o voters in 2016 and his improved performance in the 2020 election posed a puzzle for Latina/o politics scholars given his stridently anti-immigrant agenda. Although scholars have acknowledged the political gender gap between Latinas and Latino men, few studies have outlined the theoretical basis or explored the empirical existence of gender differences in Latina/o immigration enforcement attitudes. Building on the Latina politics literature documenting Latinas’ greater engagement in solidarity work with immigrants and their greater desire for cultural transmission and the maintenance of pan-ethnic identity, I test two hypotheses. The first (the Latina/o gender hypothesis) postulates that Latinas will exhibit more liberal attitudes on matters of immigration enforcement relative to Latino men. The second (the immigrant identity hypothesis) postulates that Latinas are more likely to rely on their sense of commonality with immigrants in the formation of their immigration enforcement attitudes. Bivariate and multivariate analyses of the 2020 Collaborative Multiracial Postelection Survey support both hypotheses, which suggests not only that immigration attitudes among Latinas and Latino men are meaningfully distinct, but also that there are important structural differences underlying Latina/o beliefs in this policy area.

The Political Consequences of Racialized Ethnic Identities

Racial classifications are a social construct with no basis in biology; yet, race is an omnipresent and powerful factor in U.S. politics, shaping electoral boundaries, disbursement of resources, and political alliances (Omi and Winant 1994, Haney López 1994). Race, then, is a malleable construct wielded by varying interests, with racial definitions changing in response to social and political battles. Some new immigrant groups initially classified as not white have been reclassified as white over time, thereby benefitting from associated legal, economic, and sociopolitical privileges. More recently, however, some Latinos have sought recognition as a distinct non-white racial group, in acknowledgment of the racialization of their identities over time. We seek to better understand who is most likely to support a racialized Latino identity, and the political consequences of this choice. Using data from the 2020 Collaborative Multiracial Post-election Survey, we test whether individuals who believe that a Latino identity is a racial identity are also more likely to be interested in and engaged in politics. We also examine the extent to which support for a racialized Latino identity is associated with progressive attitudes on racial issues.

The relationship between political efficacy and self-rated health: An analysis of Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban subgroups compared to non-Latinx whites in the United States

Latinx represent a growing population in the United States (US) that continue to experience a disproportionate burden of disease. However, health disparities vary across Latinx subgroups, including Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban communities, particularly when assessing self-rated health. Given the nature of political exclusion in the US, these differences may be associated with underexplored political factors, or political determinants of health, within the social environment that distinctly shape health among racial and ethnic minorities. To explore potential pathways that connect the political environment to individual-level health outcomes among Latinx subgroups, political efficacy (or one's perceptions about one's power to influence political affairs) was assessed as a correlate of self-rated health. We used secondary data from the 2016 Collaborative Multiracial Post-election Survey to conduct ordered logistic regression analysis to determine whether two domains of political efficacy, internal and external political efficacy, were correlates of self-rated health among Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban subgroups as compared to non-Latinx whites in the US. We also tested for differential associations across Latinx subgroups as compared to non-Latinx whites. The sample consisted of 3156 respondents (1486 Mexicans, 484 Puerto Ricans, 159 Cubans and 1027 non-Latinx whites). Among Puerto Ricans, results revealed that lower levels of internal political efficacy were associated with higher levels of self-rated health. Conversely, among other subgroups, positive associations between internal political efficacy and self-rated health were observed. This study provides empirical evidence of a relationship between internal political perceptions and health perceptions that has not previously been established within the Latinx health disparities literature. Future investigations should continue to examine pathways that connect political determinants to individual-level health outcomes, particularly among communities that disproportionately experience political exclusion.

The Ties that Bind: Public Opinion and Linked Fate among Women of Color

ABSTRACT Although women of color share the same gender identity, their differing racial identities lead to questions about whether they might mobilize collectively over a shared political agenda. Using the 2020 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey, we examine how linked fate among women of color shapes the political attitudes and policy preferences of Black women, Latinas, and Asian American/Pacific Islander women. Our expectation is that linked fate toward women of color will shape perception and preferences in three particular issue areas: policies that are intended to reduce racial inequity (e.g., police reform), perceptions of gender discrimination, and social welfare policies aimed at aiding lower income individuals. Our results strongly confirm these expectations indicating immense potential for cross-racial coalitions among women of color across issue areas.

The Asian American Vote in 2020: Indicators of Turnout and Vote Choice.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11109-022-09844-9.

Clarifying the “People Like Me”: Racial Efficacy and Political Behavior

Political efficacy, or a sense of confidence that “people like me” can understand politics and receive responsiveness from government, is central to the study of political behavior. However, the reference group that respondents view as “people like me” is not always immediately clear. This limits our ability to infer how efficacy informs political participation. We propose a specific concept and operationalization of racial group efficacy, and we distinguish this concept from racial identity, group consciousness, and conventional efficacy measures. Analyses of data from the 2016 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey reveal that for white, Black, Asian, and Latina/o Americans, racial efficacy is a more consistent and robust predictor of political participation than standard internal and external efficacy measures. Further, we show that racial efficacy exhibits associations with conventional and unconventional forms of participation that distinguish whites from people of color. We conclude by discussing how people’s racial efficacy informs their engagement in politics, from voting to protests.

The markings of linked fate among Asian Americans and Latinxs.

Linked fate, or the degree to which individuals feel that their lives are tied to other group members' lives, can mobilize collective action and strengthen commonalities. Yet, linked fate remains underresearched, particularly among Asian Americans and Latinxs. Using the 2016 Collaborative Multiracial Postelection Survey, the present study draws on García Coll et al.'s (1996) integrative model to examine associations between three domains of linked fate (immigrant, minority, coethnic) and demographic and structural factors (age, gender, nativity, education, income, language, skin color, neighborhood diversity, social stratification). Education, discrimination, and feeling excluded are positively related to immigrant, minority, and coethnic-linked fate; age is negatively related. Income and nativity were not significant predictors. Implications for fostering linked fate and coalition building within and across Asians and Latinxs are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Married with children: do intermarriage and children impact political orientations?

ABSTRACT We test the possibility that social contact through interracial marriage impacts racial attitudes. We assume that interracial couples experience intergroup contact that is meaningfully different from same-race couples. Little research examines the impact of mate selection and reproduction on political and racial attitudes. In this paper, we advance the research on the potential impact of mate selection and reproduction on couples’ racial attitudes. Using racialized socialization theory, we test whether interracial couples hold similar views to other multiracial couples compared to same-race couples. A secondary hypothesis concerns whether interracial couples with children hold distinct racial and political attitudes. We use the 2016 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey (CMPS). We find that non-Hispanic whites, Blacks, and Asians in interracial relationships are more likely to indicate that these groups experience discrimination compared to their co-ethnic counterparts who are in relationships with co-ethnics. We also find some support for our expectation that having children in an interracial marriage has an impact on the racial attitudes of non-Hispanic whites. Our results contribute to the growing research on the political attitudes of interracial couples as well as the impact of their having children upon their political preferences.