Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 115, Issue 19, 2018, Pages E4330-E4339

  Mutz, Diana C ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Economic voting; Elections; Mass opinion; Political psychology; Status threat

Indexed keywords

AMERICAN; ANXIETY; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; COUNTRY ECONOMIC STATUS; CULTURAL FACTOR; ELECTION; EUROPEAN AMERICAN; HUMAN; IMMIGRATION; POLITICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC FIGURE; RACISM; SOCIAL DOMINANCE; SOCIAL SUPPORT; INDUSTRIALIZATION; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; UNITED STATES;

HUMANS; INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT; INTERNATIONALITY; POLITICS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 85046657140     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1718155115     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Allison PD (2005) Causal inference with panel data. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Sociology Association (Philadelphia). Available at https://statisticalhorizons.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Causal-Inference.pdf. Accessed April 3, 2018.
2. Porter E (December 13, 2016) Where were Trump’s votes? Where the jobs weren’t. NY Times. Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/business/economy/jobseconomy-voters.html. Accessed April 3, 2018.
3. Sides J (June 11, 2017) Race, religion, and immigration in 2016: How the debate over American identity shaped the election and what it means for a Trump presidency. Insights from the 2016 VOTER Survey. Available at https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publications/2016-elections/race-religion-immigration-2016. Accessed April 3, 2018.
4. Bellemare MF, Masaki T, Pepinsky TB (2017) Lagged explanatory variables and the estimation of causal effects. J Polit 79:949–963.
5. Schaffner BF, MacWilliams M, Tatishe N (2017) Understanding white polarization in the 2016 vote for president: The sobering role of racism and sexism. Available at people.umass.edu/schaffne/schaffner_et_al_PSQ_accepted.pdf. Accessed April 3, 2018.
6. Lenz GS (2009) Learning and opinion change, not priming: Reconsidering the priming hypothesis. Am J Pol Sci 53:821–837.
7. Thompson D (December 5, 2016) The dangerous myth that Hillary Clinton ignored the working class. The Atlantic. Available at https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/hillary-clinton-working-class/509477/. Accessed April 3, 2018.
8. Sears DO, Funk C (1989) Self-interest in Americans’ political opinions. Beyond Self-Interest, ed Mansbridge JJ (Univ Chicago Press, Chicago), pp 147–170.
9. Sniderman PM, Brody RA (1977) Coping: The ethic of self-reliance. Am J Pol Sci 21:501–521.
10. Kiewiet R (1984) Macroeconomics and Micropolitics: The Electoral Effects of Economic Issues (Univ Chicago Press, Chicago).
11. Sears DO, Lau RR, Tyler TR, Allen HM (1980) Self-interest vs. symbolic politics in policy attitudes and presidential voting. Am Polit Sci Rev 74:670–684.
12. Sears DO, Citrin J (1985) Tax Revolt: Something for Nothing in California (Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, MA).
13. Green DP, Gerken AE (1989) Self-interest and public opinion toward smoking restrictions and cigarette taxes. Public Opin Q 53:1–16.
14. Kinder DR, Adams GS, Gronke PW (1989) Economics and politics in the 1984 American presidential election. Am J Pol Sci 33:491.
15. Muro M, Kulkarni S (March 15, 2016) Voter anger explained—in one chart. Brookings Institution. Available at https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2016/03/15/voteranger-explained-in-one-chart/. Accessed April 3, 2018.
16. Achen CH, Bartels LM (2016) Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government (Princeton Univ Press, Princeton, NJ).
17. Wlezien C (2015) The myopic voter? The economy and US presidential elections. Elect Stud 39:195–204.
18. Jost JT, Glaser J, Kruglanski AW, Sulloway FJ (2003) Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychol Bull 129:339–375.
19. Feldman S, Stenner K (1997) Perceived threat and authoritarianism. Polit Psychol 18: 741–770.
20. Stenner K (2005) The Authoritarian Dynamic (Cambridge Univ Press, New York).
21. Hibbing JR (2016) Analysis: How people’s sensitivity to threats illuminates the rise of Donald Trump. The Washington Post. Available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/23/how-peoples-sensitivity-to-threats-illuminates-therise-of-donald-trump/?utm_term=.5cf1c1c65057. Accessed April 3, 2018.
22. Wazwaz N (July 6, 2015) It’s official: The U.S. is becoming a minority-majority nation: Census data shows there are more minority children under age 5 than whites. US News and World Report. Available at https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/07/06/its-official-the-us-is-becoming-a-minority-majority-nation. Accessed April 3, 2018.
23. Wilkins CL, Kaiser CR (2014) Racial progress as threat to the status hierarchy: Implications for perceptions of anti-white bias. Psychol Sci 25:439–446.
24. Fuller GE (September 15, 2016) The era of American global dominance is over. Huffington Post. Available at https://www.huffingtonpost.com/graham-e-fuller/americaglobal-dominance-over_b_12011012.html. Accessed April 3, 2018.
25. Kupchan CA (March 20, 2012) The decline of the West: Why America must prepare for the end of dominance. The Atlantic. Available at https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/the-decline-of-the-west-why-america-must-prepare-for-theend-of-dominance/254779/. Accessed April 3, 2018.
26. Kiersz A (July 4, 2015) 16 charts that illustrate America’s global dominance. Business Insider. Available at www.businessinsider.com/charts-that-illustrates-americas-globaldominance-2015-7. Accessed April 3, 2018.
27. Tyson A (July 2, 2014) Most Americans think the U.S. is great, but fewer say it’s the greatest. Pew Research Center. Available at www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/02/most-americans-think-the-u-s-is-great-but-fewer-say-its-the-greatest/. Accessed April 3, 2018.
28. Pew Research Center (July 14, 2014) China’s image. Chapter 2 in global opposition to US surveillance and drones, but limited harm to America’s image: Many in Asia worry about conflict with China. Available at www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/14/chapter-2chinas-image/. Accessed April 3, 2018.
29. Mutz DC, Kim E (2017) How in-group favoritism affects trade preferences. Int Organ 71:827–850.
30. Norton MI, Sommers SR (2011) Whites see racism as a zero-sum game that they are now losing. Perspect Psychol Sci 6:215–218.
31. Theiss-Morse E (2009) Who Counts as an American? The Boundaries of National Identity (Cambridge Univ Press, New York).
32. Jones B (April 25, 2017) Support for free trade agreements rebounds modestly, but wide partisan differences remain. Pew Research Center. Available at www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/25/support-for-free-trade-agreements-rebounds-modestly-but-widepartisan-differences-remain/. Accessed April 3, 2018.
33. Manevitch D (February 10, 2017) Americans have grown more negative toward China over the past decade. Pew Research Center. Available at www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2017/02/10/americans-have-grown-more-negative-toward-china-over-past-decade/. Accessed April 3, 2018.
34. Pew Research Center (December 15, 2016) Americans view immigrants more positively today than 20 years ago. Available at www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/15/international-migration-key-findings-from-the-u-s-europe-and-the-world/ft_16-12-15_intlmigrantscountry_usview/. Accessed April 3, 2018.
35. Albertson B, Gadarian SK (2015) Anxious Politics: Democratic Citizenship in a Threatening World (Cambridge Univ Press, New York).
36. Aldrich JH, Sullivan JL, Borgida E (1989) Foreign affairs and issue voting: Do presidential candidates “waltz before a blind audience?”. Am Polit Sci Rev 83:123–141.
37. Guisinger A (2017) American Opinion on Trade: Preferences Without Politics (Oxford Univ Press, New York).
38. Plaut VC, Garnett FG, Buffardi LE, Sanchez-Burks J (2011) “What about me?” Perceptions of exclusion and whites’ reactions to multiculturalism. J Pers Soc Psychol 101: 337–353.
39. Outten HR, Schmitt MT, Miller DA, Garcia AL (2012) Feeling threatened about the future: Whites’ emotional reactions to anticipated ethnic demographic changes. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 38:14–25.
40. Danbold F, Huo YJ (2015) No longer “All-American”? Whites’ defensive reactions to their numerical decline. Soc Psychol Personal Sci 6:210–218.
41. Craig MA, Richeson JA (2014) On the precipice of a “majority-minority” America: Perceived status threat from the racial demographic shift affects white Americans’ political ideology. Psychol Sci 25:1189–1197.
42. Willer R, Feinberg M, Wetts R (2016) Threats to Racial Status Promote Tea Party Support Among White Americans (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2770186) (Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY).
43. Craig MA, Richeson JA (2014) More diverse yet less tolerant? How the increasingly diverse racial landscape affects white Americans’ racial attitudes. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 40:750–761.
44. Major B, Blodorn A, Blascovich GM (October 20, 2016) The threat of increasing diversity: Why many White Americans support Trump in the 2016 presidential election. Group Process Intergroup Relat, 10.1177/1368430216677304.
45. Sidanius J, Pratto F (1999) Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK).
46. Sibley CG, Wilson MS, Duckitt J (2007) Effects of dangerous and competitive worldviews on right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation over a five-month period. Polit Psychol 28:357–371.
47. Liu JH, Huang LL, McFedries C (2008) Cross-sectional and longitudinal differences in social dominance orientation and right wing authoritarianism as a function of political power and societal change. Asian J Soc Psychol 11:116–126.
48. Morrison KR, Ybarra O (2008) The effects of realistic threat and group identification on social dominance orientation. J Exp Soc Psychol 44:156–163.
49. Shook NJ, Hopkins PD, Koech JM (2016) The effect of intergroup contact on secondary group attitudes and social dominance orientation. Group Process Intergroup Relat 19: 328–342.
50. Granberg D, Brent E (1980) Perceptions of issue positions of presidential candidates: Candidates are often perceived by their supporters as holding positions on the issues that are closer to the supporters’ views than they really are. Am Sci 68:617–625.
51. Sabet S (2013) What’s in a Name? Isolating the Effect of Prejudice on Individual Trade Preferences (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2301118) (Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY).
52. Mansfield E, Mutz DC (2009) Support for free trade: Self-interest, sociotropic politics, and out-group anxiety. Int Organ 63:425–457.
53. Enns LK, Kellstedt PM, McAvoy GE (2012) The consequences of partisanship in economic perceptions. Public Opin Q 76:287–310.
54. Tesler M (2016) Post-Racial or Most-Racial? Race and Politics in the Obama Era (Univ Chicago Press, Chicago).
55. Parker CS, Barreto M (2013) Change They Can’t Believe In: The Tea Party and Reactionary Politics in America (Princeton Univ Press, Princeton).
56. Irwin DA (2016) The truth about trade: What critics get wrong about the global economy. Foreign Aff 95:84–95.
57. Guisinger A (2009) Determining trade policy: Do voters hold politicians accountable? Int Organ 63:533–557.