Published Research and Forthcoming Articles

The prevailing theory on racial priming argues that counterstereotypic images of African Americans neutralize racial resentment. This study challenges previous findings, arguing that counterstereotypic images may not be as innocuous as they seem. Using an experiment conducted on a diverse sample of 357 white Americans, I investigate the confluence of racial and partisan cues, which very few studies have done. I empirically demonstrate that white Democratic candidates are penalized for associating with blacks, even if blacks are portrayed in a positive manner. However, since most studies of racial priming examine the impact of racial cues absent partisan information, to date we have been unaware of the differential effects of racial cues for white Democratic candidates as compared to their Republican counterparts. Racial resentment was primed such that white Democratic candidates associated with blacks were perceived as less fair, less likely to reduce crime, and less likely to receive vote support.

A growing body of research has documented the development of pervasive anti-Muslim sentiment among White Americans. We build on this research to demonstrate that anti-Muslim attitudes and negative stereotypes of Muslim people have become an enduring and consistent component of White Americans' presidential vote choice beyond any one specific candidate or election. We argue that the racialization of Muslim Americas has increased their salience and significance in both the minds of White Americans and in national political discourse, making attitudes toward Muslims a consistent predictor of Whites’ presidential candidate evaluations in every election since at least 2004. We support this account with empirical evidence from the 2004–2020 American National Election Studies, using measures of group affect and negative stereotypes of Muslim people.

This article reviews the literature on the persistence of racial cues and appeals in American elections. I focus on three central themes: racial priming, the influence of the Obama presidential campaigns on racial cues, and racial appeals in the context of a diversifying United States. I identify linkages across these domains while also suggesting avenues for future research. I argue that in the context of a diversifying United States, scholars should develop more measures that capture attitudes that are specific to groups other than African Americans. The nation's growing racial and ethnic diversity is also an opportunity to develop and test more theories that explain the political behavior of racial and ethnic minorities beyond the traditional black–white divide. Finally, since much of the research on racial cues focuses on whites’ racial animus, I suggest that scholars spend more time exploring how racial cues influence the behavior of whites with positive racial attitudes.

We fielded an experiment on a sample of approximately 400 Black state legislators to test whether they would be more responsive to an email that mentioned the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) relative to an email that mentioned Black Lives Matter (BLM). The experiment tested Cohen's theory of secondary marginalization (1999), whereby relatively advantaged members of a marginalized group regulate the behavior, attitudes, and access to resources of less advantaged members of the group. We expected that Black legislators would be less responsive to an email that referenced BLM, an organization that is associated with more marginalized members of the Black community. Contrary to our hypothesis, Black legislators were as responsive to emails referencing inspiration from BLM as they were to emails referencing inspiration from the NAACP. Thus, we do not find any evidence of intragroup discrimination by Black state legislators. To our knowledge, this is the first field experiment to test Cohen's theory of secondary marginalization.

I fielded a survey experiment on a nationally representative sample of 591 white Americans to test whether exposure to information about the disparate impact of COVID-19 on Black people influenced white Americans’ opinion about COVID-19 policies. I found that racially prejudiced white Americans who were exposed to the treatment diminished the importance of wearing a face mask. They also became more supportive of outdoor activities without social distancing guidelines, more likely to perceive shelter-in-place orders as a threat to their individual rights and freedoms, and less likely to perceive African Americans as following social distancing guidelines. Conversely, white Americans who did not endorse an anti-Black stereotype were less likely to perceive shelter-in-place orders as a threat to their individual rights and more likely to perceive African Americans as following social distancing guidelines. These findings highlight that well-intentioned public health campaigns may inadvertently exacerbate existing race-based health disparities.