Changing Norms Following the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election

Abstract

The 2016 presidential election was characterized by the remarkable expression of prejudice toward a range of groups. In two closely related studies ( N = 388; 196 supporting Trump, 192 Clinton), we measured (1) perceptions of social norms toward prejudice or (2) people’s own levels of prejudice toward 19 social groups, shortly before and after the election. Some groups were targeted by the Trump campaign (e.g., Muslims, immigrants) and some were not (e.g., atheists, alcoholics). Participants saw an increase in the acceptability of prejudice toward groups Trump targeted but little shift in untargeted groups. By contrast, participants reported a personal drop in Trump-targeted prejudice, probably due changing comparison standards, with no change in prejudice toward untargeted groups. The 2016 election seems to have ushered in a normative climate that favored expression of several prejudices; this shift may have played a role in the substantial increase in bias-related incidents that follow closely upon the election.

A model for predicting prejudice and stigma expression by understanding target perceptions: The effects of visibility, politicization, responsibility, and entitativity

“…We also have good reason to believe, however, that these old-fashioned forms can still be found today, and not only within extremist groups but within members of majority populations where prejudice is morally unacceptable and even unlawful. The 2016 US presidential election campaign, for example, showed that the overt expression of hostile sexism can be readily found in mainstream communications (Crandall, Miller, & White, 2018). It seems that so-called "old-fashioned" prejudice is a renewed condition of (parts of) the modern world and it is an analytical error to continue to label a phenomenon in a way that places that contemporary phenomenon in the past.…”

Social psychological research on prejudice as collective action supporting emergent ingroup members

“…When researchers perceive threats to emerging ingroup identities, they develop research to detect, understand, and manage those threats (Durrheim et al, 2016). Indeed, perceived threat is likely to be higher for conflicts between emergent ingroups and emergent outgroups amid social change (Crandall et al, 2018). As emergent ingroups become more established in society and protected by institutions, researchers lose interest in conducting research supporting these groups and such work slowly comes to an end (Mitchell & Tetlock, 2017).…”

“…Some groups might be recategorized as ingroup members, but struggle to gain adequate support to fully overcome outgroup resistance and become established ingroup members (e.g., women or African Americans; Suba si c et al, 2008). Other groups might be recategorized as ingroup members initially, but this new ingroup might crumble because of outgroup resistance and restabilization of established categorization norms (e.g., Muslim or transgender targets; Crandall et al, 2018). Still others might never be recategorized as ingroup members and continue to face overt prejudice and discrimination (e.g., homeless people or sex workers), irrespective of the progress made by other stigmatized groups (North & Fiske, 2014).…”

Bringing together humanistic and intergroup perspectives to build a model of internalisation of normative social harmdoing

“…Whether such new norms are difficult to internalise will depend upon whether they tie well with, versus diverge from, the pre‐existing elements that are already in place within the self, or whether this is due to an inherent tendency to connect and relate positively with others, as proposed by SDT, remains an empirical question. Increasingly openly expressed and widespread norms in favour of prejudice (e.g., Crandall, Miller, & White, ) may allow us to test the two hypotheses: According to SIA, the internalisation of discrimination against new targets should become progressively easier, the more discriminatory norms had previously been internalised. In contrast, and according to SDT, internalising additional discriminatory norms should remain difficult under all of these conditions.…”

“…Whether such new norms are difficult to internalise will depend upon whether they tie well with, versus diverge from, the pre-existing elements that are already in place within the self, or whether this is due to an inherent tendency to connect and relate positively with others, as proposed by SDT, remains an empirical question. Increasingly openly expressed and widespread norms in favour of prejudice (e.g., Crandall, Miller, & White, 2018) may allow us to test the two hypotheses:…”