Highlighting health consequences of racial disparities sparks support for action.

Racial disparities arise across many vital areas of American life, including employment, health, and interpersonal treatment. For example, one in three Black children lives in poverty (versus one in nine white children), and, on average, Black Americans live four fewer years compared with white Americans. Which disparity is more likely to spark reduction efforts? We find that highlighting disparities in health-related (versus economic) outcomes spurs greater social media engagement and support for disparity-mitigating policy.

Stereotypes About Political Attitudes and Coalitions Among U.S. Racial Groups: Implications for Strategic Political Decision-Making.

What are people's expectations of interracial political coalitions? This research reveals expectations of flexible interracial coalitions stemming from how policies and racial groups are viewed in terms of perceived status and foreignness. For policies seen as changing societal status (e.g.

Framing economic inequality and policy as group disadvantages (versus group advantages) spurs support for action.

Given the near-historic levels of economic inequality in the United States, it is vital to understand when and why people are motivated to reduce it. We examine whether the manner in which economic inequality and policy are framed-in terms of either upper-socio-economic-class advantages or lower-socio-economic-class disadvantages-influences individuals' reactions to inequality. Across five studies, framing redistributive policy (Study 1) as disadvantage-reducing (versus advantage-reducing) and economic inequality (Studies 2-5) as lower-class disadvantages (versus upper-class advantages or a control frame) enhances support for action to reduce inequality.

Acting for whom, against what? Group membership and multiple paths to engagement in social change.

In a connected and politically engaged world, it is essential to understand how, why, and when people from diverse backgrounds may support social action. Integrating findings from the collective action, solidarity, and allyship literatures, we present working models of how the lenses through which individuals possessing different group memberships may psychologically identify (as part of the targeted group, an inclusive stigmatized identity, or the societally dominant group) and perceive injustice (as exclusively affecting the targeted group, inclusively affecting the target group and one's ingroup, or perceiving ingroup privileges) may shape social change efforts. We highlight disparate effects of positive (and negative) contact between groups on the mobilization of socially dominant and stigmatized groups that may provide challenges to diverse coalitions seeking social change.

Intergroup Inequality Heightens Reports of Discrimination Along Alternative Identity Dimensions.

How do members of societally valued (dominant) groups respond when considering inequality? Prior research suggests that salient inequality may be viewed as a threat to dominant-group members' self and collective moral character. However, people possess multiple social identities and may be advantaged in one domain (e.g.

Information about the US racial demographic shift triggers concerns about anti-White discrimination among the prospective White "minority".

The United States is undergoing a demographic shift in which White Americans are predicted to comprise less than 50% of the US population by mid-century. The present research examines how exposure to information about this racial shift affects perceptions of the extent to which different racial groups face discrimination. In four experiments, making the growing national racial diversity salient led White Americans to predict that Whites will face increasing discrimination in the future, compared with control information.

Solidarity through shared disadvantage: Highlighting shared experiences of discrimination improves relations between stigmatized groups.

Intergroup relations research has largely focused on relations between members of dominant groups and members of disadvantaged groups. The small body of work examining intraminority intergroup relations, or relations between members of different disadvantaged groups, reveals that salient experiences of ingroup discrimination promote positive relations between groups that share a dimension of identity (e.g.

On the precipice of a "majority-minority" America: perceived status threat from the racial demographic shift affects White Americans' political ideology.

The U.S. Census Bureau projects that racial minority groups will make up a majority of the U.

More Diverse Yet Less Tolerant? How the Increasingly Diverse Racial Landscape Affects White Americans' Racial Attitudes.

Recent Census Bureau projections indicate that racial/ethnic minorities will comprise over 50% of the U.S. population by 2042, effectively creating a so-called "majority-minority" nation.

Do unto others as others have done unto you?: Perceiving sexism influences women's evaluations of stigmatized racial groups.

The present research examines how making discrimination salient influences stigmatized group members' evaluations of other stigmatized groups. Specifically, three studies examine how salient sexism affects women's attitudes toward racial minorities. White women primed with sexism expressed more pro-White (relative to Black and Latino) self-report (Studies 1 and 3) and automatic (Study 2) intergroup bias, compared with White women who were not primed with sexism.

Coalition or derogation? How perceived discrimination influences intraminority intergroup relations.

Five studies explored how perceived societal discrimination against one's own racial group influences racial minority group members' attitudes toward other racial minorities. Examining Black-Latino relations, Studies 1a and 1b showed that perceived discrimination toward oneself and one's own racial group may be positively associated with expressed closeness and common fate with another racial minority group, especially if individuals attribute past experiences of discrimination to their racial identity rather than to other social identities (Study 1b). In Studies 2-5, Asian American (Studies 2, 3, and 4) and Latino (Study 5) participants were primed with discrimination against their respective racial groups (or not) and completed measures of attitudes toward Black Americans.