Trahison de la solidarité fondée sur la stigmatisation : implications pour la résistance à la montée de l'ethno-nationalisme aux États-Unis

Introduction

Solidarity between groups who face societal marginalization – stigma-based solidarity – has been essential to successful challenges of societal inequities. During the United States Civil Rights Movement, for instance, gains in racial justice largely led by Black Americans were supported by Jewish Americans (Behnken, 2016; Dinnerstein, 2002). Similarly, labor activism led by Latino members of the United Farm Workers was uplifted by Asian, Black, and low-income White supporters (Araiza, 2014). The 2024 U.S. presidential election brought renewed attention to the value of such cross-group alliances to fight against the rising anti-democratic, ethno-nationalist sentiment in the nation (Hossain, 2024; Mitchell, 2024). In a political climate that poses explicit threats to multiple marginalized communities, cross-group solidarity may be vital to these groups’ wellbeing (Taylor, 2024).

The consequences of perceived disunity between different marginalized groups may be especially stark in the wake of democratic backsliding. In the months prior to the 2024 U.S. presidential election between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, for instance, concerns about various marginalized groups who have historically been part of successful Democratic voting coalitions (i.e., Black men, Arab Americans) withholding support from Harris were raised by some prominent Harris voters, often with quite pointed language (Rangel, 2024). The intention to vote against Harris by members of these marginalized groups seemed to be perceived as defections from stigma-based solidarity. We believe these reactions may illustrate a broader phenomenon: members of different stigmatized groups may expect solidarity from one another. Further, violations of those expectations may be perceived and experienced as betrayal. The present research investigates this possibility.

Part of a Special IssuePsychology of PushbackThis article belongs to a curated special issue. Discover more research on this topic from the full collection.Explore the special issue →

Stigma-Based Solidarity

A growing body of literature is exploring the psychological foundations that promote intergroup coalition among members of different stigmatized societal groups– i.e., stigma-based solidarity– as well as the factors that lead to the derogation of other stigmatized groups (Craig & Richeson, 2016). According to Craig and Richeson’s working model, exposure to the discrimination that one’s own group has experienced can lead to either outgroup derogation or coalitional behavior toward other marginalized social groups. Intriguingly, salient ingroup marginalization is first thought to trigger social identity threat that promotes the derogation of other stigmatized groups as a route to repair group esteem (Branscombe et al., 1999; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). For instance, making pervasive societal sexism salient for White women led them to express more anti-Black and anti-Latine racial bias (Craig et al., 2012). Consistent with the putative role of social identity threat in this process, affirming a different aspect of White women’s collective identity eliminated the effect of salient sexism on their expression of racial bias.

Craig and Richeson (2016) also asserts, however, that the very experiences of marginalization that begin this cascade toward outgroup derogation can also disrupt it. Specifically, shared experiences of group-based discrimination can lead to more positive, coalitional attitudes among members of different marginalized groups (Allport, 1954; Cortland et al., 2017; Pérez et al., 2024a; Sellers et al., 1997; Vollhardt, 2015). Research exploring relations among members of different racial minority groups in the U.S., for instance, largely finds that perceiving that one’s racial group faces discrimination is associated with increased perceived commonality with, and expressed positivity toward, other racial minority groups (Craig & Richeson, 2012; Sanchez, 2008). The Common Ingroup Identity Model (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2012) offers an explanation for this phenomenon. Salient discrimination is thought to activate a superordinate identity, perhaps as “racial minorities,” resulting in former outgroup members being treated as part of the ingroup. Consistent with this idea, Schmitt and colleagues (2003) found that perceived discrimination based on students’ national identity increased their identification with a collective “international student” identity, providing a pathway for more positive attitudes toward other international students despite having distinct national identities.

Even without common ingroup identification, however, shared discrimination can lead members of different stigmatized groups to perceive their groups as having a linked fate (Gonlin & Cobb, 2023) or common goals (McClain & Carew, 2018; Meier et al., 2004) that motivate solidarity (Tedin & Murray, 1994). Together, this research underscores the possibility that shared stigmatization can promote solidarity among groups, especially in service of combatting inequality (Chan & Jasso, 2023; Glasford & Calcagno, 2012; Pérez et al., 2024b).

Despite the possibility of cross-group solidarity, forming and sustaining alliances, in general, and among different marginalized groups is challenging. As noted previously, for groups that face stigmatization in society, the very basis for shared experience triggers social identity threat (Branscombe et al., 1999) that promotes outgroup derogation. Consequently, when discrimination is perceived or construed as a distinctive, unique threat to one’s ingroup, rather than as a shared experience, it typically leads to cross-group derogation instead of solidarity (Cortland et al., 2017; Craig & Richeson, 2016). Even when marginalized groups recognize their similar experiences and a common ingroup identity is activated, these buffers against outgroup derogation often break down due to multiple factors. Most notably, perceived competition from other marginalized groups– be it in terms of power, economic resources, or other valued status markers– disrupts cross-group solidarity (Blumer, 1958; Gay, 2006; Goh & Douglas, 2025; Rothgerber & Worchel, 1997; Sherif et al., 1961). In addition, common ingroup identities can pose a distinctiveness threat (Branscombe et al., 1999) to individuals’ marginalized subgroup identities, or lead to perceptions that their group’s interests are not sufficiently recognized in– or even harmed by– the coalition (Gaztambide-Fernández, 2021; Noor et al., 2008; Rogers, 2009; Wenzel et al., 2007). In other words, coalitions forged through stigma-based solidarity may be fragile.

Despite these threats, coalitions formed through stigma-based solidarity may operate much like other collective identity groups. Much as ingroup members typically demonstrate and expect ingroup favoritism from one another (Balliet et al., 2014; Everett et al., 2015; Foddy et al., 2009), members of marginalized groups may similarly expect other marginalized groups to hold favorable attitudes toward, and demonstrate cross-group solidarity with, them. Consistent with this premise, Drake and colleagues (2024) asked samples of Asian, Black, and Latine participants to imagine being the target of racial discrimination, then to indicate the likelihood that individuals from their own and other racial groups would support them. Not surprisingly, participants from all groups expected ingroup members to be the most likely to offer support; but, they also expected other racial minorities to offer support more than racial majority group members. This work suggests that individuals from marginalized racial groups expect other marginalized groups to be more understanding and supportive than non-marginalized groups– i.e., they expect stigma-based solidarity. So, what happens if expectations for stigma-based solidarity are violated?

Stigma-Based Solidarity Betrayal

Betrayal arises when someone expects another person or group to protect their wellbeing, or at least not harm them, and that expectation is violated (Burgoon, 2015; Freyd, 1996). Theoretical models of betrayal, largely emerging from the psychology of close relationships, underscore the centrality of violated expectations of relational obligations (Burgoon, 2015; Freyd, 1996). People feel betrayed, that is, when they expect support and do not receive it. Feelings of betrayal are especially salient when people are connected through shared histories of interdependence for mutual safety or advancement. The violation of implicit or explicit norms in such relationships– especially engagement in uncooperative behavior– reduces trust in the betraying party, and often motivates a desire to separate from or punish the betrayer (Gobin & Freyd, 2014; Koehler & Gershoff, 2003).

While these models of betrayal have been developed primarily in interpersonal contexts, recent work has extended them to institutional and collective domains. Individuals can feel betrayed by groups or institutions in much the same way they feel betrayed by individuals (Smith & Freyd, 2014). Just like close others, people also expect salient ingroups to behave in cooperative and trustworthy ways with them (e.g., Foddy et al., 2009) and generally cooperate more with ingroup, compared to outgroup, members, even when those ingroup categorizations are minimal, superordinate, or temporary (see Everett et al., 2015). Another prescriptive norm that is especially relevant to group life is loyalty; that is, shared group identity– based on nationality, ethnicity, religion or something else– creates a normative expectation of loyalty (Abrams, 2011; Zdaniuk & Levin, 2001). Ingroup members who violate the norm are judged more negatively than are outgroup members who engage in similar behavior (Marques & Yzerbyt, 1988; Rothgerber, 2014; Tang et al., 2023; Zdaniuk & Levin, 2001; see also Rotella et al., 2013). One extreme form of disloyalty, of course, is exiting the ingroup and joining the outgroup. Research suggests that such ingroup defectors are evaluated especially negatively (Travaglino et al., 2014). Expectations for ingroup loyalty may be especially strong in the context of competitive intergroup relations wherein the success of the ingroup may depend on ingroup solidarity (Levine & Moreland, 2002). The absence of loyalty under such conditions may be experienced as betrayal.

Building on this work, it is plausible that behavior by marginalized group members, when perceived as violating expectations of loyalty to (or solidarity with) another marginalized group, may elicit similar feelings of betrayal. Consistent with this possibility, a recent study found that people of color reported greater feelings of hurt and betrayal when a discriminatory act was perpetrated by another person of color than by a White individual (Mujica & Bridges, 2023). This heightened sense of betrayal was explained by an expectancy violation; racial minorities are more likely to expect discrimination from dominant racial groups than from other racial minorities. Further, racial discrimination from another minoritized racial group violates expectations for cross-racial solidarity. Whereas discrimination from all perpetrators is harmful to well-being, this research suggests that it is only experienced as a betrayal when the perpetrator is another racial minority. The present research builds on this work in the context of political solidarity by considering whether voting behavior that does not align with the political goals of a marginalized ingroup elicits greater feelings of betrayal when enacted by a marginalized, compared with an advantaged, outgroup.

Present Research

Two studies conducted in the context of the 2024 U.S. presidential election examine the experience of stigma-based solidarity betrayal. We chose this context because it allowed us to examine this phenomenon with actual groups, given that the potential implications of the election for the rights, freedoms, and overall well-being of different groups that face marginalization in society (i.e., women, racial, ethnic, and religious minorities, sexual minorities) were well publicized. Further, the zero-sum nature of the election created the type of competitive intergroup context that is known to exacerbate expectations for ingroup loyalty (Abrams, 2011; Travaglino et al., 2014) and, perhaps also, for stigma-based solidarity. White (Studies 1 and 2) and Black (Study 2) women supporters of Kamala Harris were asked to consider the anti-Harris/pro-Trump voting behavior of another marginalized societal group (Arab Americans, Latino men) and/or similar voting behavior of an advantaged societal group (White men). Our primary goal was to test whether a lack of support from another marginalized group engenders greater feelings of betrayal than the same behavior from an advantaged group, presumably due to the violation of expectations for solidarity. In addition to betrayal, we also investigated other potential consequences of perceived disloyalty, including intergroup trust and future intergroup solidarity intentions.

Study 1

Study 1 examined White women– marginalized based on gender–who reported intending to vote for Kamala Harris. After making the stakes of the election for women’s rights in the U.S. (and gender identity) salient, we investigated their reactions to anti-Harris/pro-Trump voting behavior by either a stigmatized (Arab Americans) or an advantaged (White men) outgroup. Specifically, just prior to the election, participants were asked to imagine it is the day after the election and to report how betrayed they would feel upon learning that the majority of Arab Americans or White men did not support Harris. Arab Americans were selected as the focal marginalized outgroup and White men were selected as the focal advantaged outgroup based on pre-election polling indicating the groups’ likely voting behavior (Glueck, 2024). In addition to the focal outgroup, we also manipulated the election outcome that participants imagined– a Harris or Trump victory– given that the consequences of perceived disloyalty contribute to its psychological impact (Gaboriaud et al., 2022).

This design allowed us to test whether members of one marginalized group (White women) feel more betrayed by the lack of political support from another marginalized group (Arab Americans) than from an advantaged group (White men), and whether the consequence of the behavior (i.e., Trump vs. Harris victory) impacts the experienced betrayal. Given the putative role of expectancy violation in the manifestation of betrayal, we also measured participants’ surprise regarding each group’s voting behavior. If White women Harris voters expect greater solidarity from other marginalized groups compared with advantaged groups, then they should find Arab Americans’ voting behavior (i.e. the failure to support Harris in the election) more surprising and deem it as more of a betrayal than essentially the same behavior by White men (an advantaged group).

Drawing on research finding that betrayal reduces individuals’ willingness to trust and cooperate with the transgressing party (Gobin & Freyd, 2014; Koehler & Gershoff, 2003), we also examined participants’ trust of and future willingness to work in solidarity with the focal outgroups. Because we did not know whether solidarity intentions would differ at the individual and collective levels of self-construal (Ellemers & Haslam, 2012; Turner & Reynolds, 2012), we measured both. Specifically, we assessed participants’ own willingness to work with the outgroup (individual intentions) and their belief that their ingroup (women) should work with the outgroup (collective intentions). In addition, we provided participants with an opportunity to express political solidarity with the focal marginalized outgroup (i.e. Arab Americans); specifically they were asked to indicate their support for one protective policy (anti-discrimination laws) and one punitive policy (domestic surveillance) targeting this outgroup. In addition to testing whether the focal outgroup and election outcome manipulations affected participants’ trust, solidarity intentions, and political solidarity, we also explored whether greater betrayal is associated with lower trust, solidarity intentions, and political solidarity.

Drawing on the theoretical framework outlined previously, we formed the following predictions:

H1. Building on the premise that shared marginalization can foster intergroup coalition (i.e., stigma-based solidarity), and that such coalitional bonds typically generate normative expectations of loyalty, we predict that participants will report greater feelings of betrayal in response to and be more surprised by the anti-Harris voting behavior of Arab Americans (a marginalized outgroup) than the pro-Trump voting behavior of White men (an advantaged outgroup).

H2. Because the psychological intensity of betrayal is often linked to the severity of the harm, participants will report greater feelings of betrayal when the election outcome is consequential (a Trump victory) compared to when it is not (a Harris victory).

Method

Participants

We collected data from 946 White women recruited via Prolific. Participation was restricted to individuals who identified as women, Democrats, and Harris voters. One participant was excluded for missing data, resulting in a final sample of 945 White women (Mage= 45.0, SDage= 14.65). A sensitivity power analysis was conducted in G*Power (Faul et al., 2009) for a two-way between-subjects ANOVA with four groups. With an α = .05 and desired power of .95, the final sample size of Study 1 provided sufficient sensitivity to detect a minimum partial η² of .014.

Materials

All materials are stored at https://osf.io/4q95z.

Manipulations. Participants read a brief passage about the current status of women’s rights in the United States to make gender-based marginalization and its relevance to the election salient. The passage indicated that over the past decade, women’s rights have faced significant setbacks. The passage highlighted that the 2024 election will be consequential in shaping women’s rights in the future.

Election Outcome. Participants were randomly assigned to read one of two hypothetical vignettes about the election outcome. Participants were presented with a newspaper headline announcing a Harris or Trump victory, with accompanying text: “Imagine you wake up next Wednesday, November 6, and you learn that after a very close race, Kamala Harris [Donald Trump] has won the presidential election.”

Marginalized vs. Advantaged Focal Outgroup. Participants were randomly assigned to read one of two hypothetical exit poll summaries. Participants in the Arab Americans condition read that a record number of Arab Americans– the majority of whom voted Democratic in the 2020 election– did not support Harris, and instead voted for a third-party candidate or did not vote at all. Participants in the White men condition read that a record number of White men– the majority of whom voted Republican in the 2020 election–supported Trump.

Measures. Unless otherwise indicated, items were assessed on 5-point scales (1=not at all, 5=very much so).

Betrayal and Surprise. Participants indicated both how betrayed and surprised they would feel “when considering the voting behavior of” of the group [White men or Arab Americans] associated with their experimental condition.

Trust. Participants rated how much they trusted the focal outgroup [White men or Arab Americans] to act in their best interest in the future.

Solidarity Intentions. Individual solidarity intentions were assessed with the item, “How willing would you be to act in solidarity with [White men or Arab Americans] in the future?” Collective solidarity intentions were assessed with the item, “Women should work together with [target group] to achieve common political goals.” Participants completed the item regarding both Arab Americans and White men.

Policy Support. Participants indicated their support for one harmful policy (mass domestic surveillance) and one protective policy (anti-discrimination laws) relevant to the outgroup (i.e., Arab Americans) on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly oppose, 7 = strongly support).

Procedure

Study 1 was launched on November 3, 2024, three days prior to the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions in a 2 (election outcome: Harris wins, Trump wins) x 2 (focal outgroup: White men, Arab Americans) design. After reading the passage on women’s rights, participants were shown the election outcome headline for their condition, followed by the voting behavior of their focal outgroup. Participants then reported their feelings of surprise and betrayal, trust, and solidarity intentions.^[1] They provided demographic information, were debriefed, and compensated $1.20. All procedures, methods, and materials for both studies were approved by Yale University’s Institutional Review Board.

Results

Analyses were conducted with R 4.4.1 (R Core Team, 2024), using the effect size (Ben-Shachar et al., 2020) and tidyverse (Wickham et al., 2019) packages. Unless otherwise specified, all measures were submitted to a 2 (outcome) x 2 (focal outgroup) ANOVA. Descriptive statistics and pairwise correlations for all measures are provided in Table 1. The condition means are reported in Table 2.

Table 1

Study 1 Descriptive Statistics and Inter-Correlations Among Study Measures

Table 2

Study 1 Means and Standard Deviations of Primary Dependent Measures by Election Outcome and Focal Outgroup Condition

Betrayal

As depicted in Figure 1, betrayal was higher in the Trump wins, compared with the Harris wins, condition, F(1, 938) = 179.07, p < .001, η²ₚ = .16. Contrary to predictions, participants felt more betrayed by White men than Arab Americans, F(1, 938) = 119.52, p < .001, η²ₚ = .11. The interaction was non-significant, F(1, 938) = 1.01, p = .315, η²ₚ = .001.

Surprise

Participants were more surprised in the Trump wins, compared with Harris wins, condition, F(1, 940) = 54.14, p < .001, η²ₚ = .05, and in the Arab Americans, compared with the White men, condition, F(1, 940) = 140.06, p < .001, η²ₚ = .13. The interaction was non-significant, F(1, 940) = 3.44, p = .064, η²ₚ = .004.

Figure 1

Mean Betrayal by Focal Outgroup and Election Outcome

Trust

Participants reported greater trust in their focal outgroup in the Arab Americans, compared with White men, condition, F(1, 941) = 196.86, p < .001, η²ₚ = .17. Trust was also higher in the Harris wins vs. Trump wins condition, F(1, 941) = 11.42, p < .001, η²ₚ = .01. The interaction was non-significant, F(1, 941) = 0.72, p = .395, η²ₚ < .001.

Solidarity Intentions

Individual solidarity toward the focal outgroup was higher in the Arab Americans compared with White men condition, F(1, 940) = 332.59, p < .001, η²ₚ = .26, as well as in the Harris wins vs. Trump wins condition, F(1, 940) = 13.41, p < .001, η²ₚ = .01. The interaction was non-significant, F(1, 940) = 0.06, p = .811, η²ₚ < .001.

Collective solidarity intentions toward both outgroups (i.e., solidarity targets) were analyzed with a 2 (election outcome) x 2 (focal outgroup) x 2 (solidarity target: Arab Americans, White men) mixed-effects ANOVA. Analyses revealed main effects of focal outgroup condition, F(1, 935) = 4.34, p = .037, η²ₚ = .005, and of solidarity target, F(1, 935) = 90.94, p < .001, η²ₚ = .09, both of which were qualified by a significant focal outgroup by solidarity target interaction, F(1, 935) = 21.23, p < .001, η²ₚ = .02. As depicted in Figure 2, collective solidarity intentions toward Arab Americans did not differ between participants who considered the voting behavior of Arab Americans and those who considered the voting behavior of White men, t(937.69) = -0.47, p = .638, d = -0.03. By contrast, collective solidarity intentions toward White men were significantly lower among participants who considered the voting behavior of White men compared with participants who considered the voting behavior of Arab Americans, t(920.66) = 3.96, p < .001, d = 0.26.

Figure 2

Interaction between Focal Outgroup Condition and Solidarity Target on Collective Solidarity Intentions

Although there was no main effect of election outcome, F(1, 935) = 0.58, p = .447, η²ₚ < .001, the interaction between election outcome and focal outgroup condition was reliable, F(1, 935) = 8.01, p = .005, η²ₚ = .01. Among participants in the Trump wins condition, those who considered the voting behavior of Arab Americans reported greater solidarity intentions (overall) compared with participants who considered the voting behavior of White men, t(911.71) = 4.15, p < .001, d = 0.27. This difference by focal outgroup condition was not observed among participants in the Harris wins condition, t(934.60) = -0.71, p = .480, d = –0.05. No other effects were significant (all p.

Policy Support

No effects were significant (ps ≥ .282).

Betrayal as a Correlate of Future Solidarity and Policy Support

Examination of the correlations (see Table 1) revealed that betrayal was significantly associated with lower trust (r = -.34, p < .001) and individual solidarity intentions (r = –.35, p < .001) toward the relevant focal outgroup. Betrayal did not correlate with lower collective solidarity intentions toward either Arab Americans (r = .04, p = .141) or White men (r = .00, p = .945). Although betrayal by Arab Americans was unrelated to support for the protective, anti-discrimination policy (r = -.06, p = .201), it was positively, albeit only modestly, correlated with support for the harmful, mass surveillance policy (r = .11, p = .013).

Discussion

Days before the 2024 U.S. presidential election, Study 1 made gender-based marginalization salient in a sample of White women Harris voters, then tested whether they would feel greater betrayal regarding the ostensible anti-Harris voting behavior of Arab Americans, another marginalized societal group, compared with the pro-Trump voting behavior of White men, an advantaged societal group. Contrary to predictions, participants who considered the behavior of White men reported greater betrayal than participants who considered the behavior of Arab Americans. Participants also reported lower trust and solidarity intentions toward White men compared with Arab Americans. Interestingly, the election outcome did not moderate these effects, although betrayal was higher in the Trump wins compared with the Harris wins condition, suggesting that the consequences of disloyal behavior contribute to the magnitude of its psychological impact (Gaboriaud et al., 2022). Further, consistent with evidence that betrayal reduces willingness to trust and cooperate with transgressing parties (Gobin & Freyd, 2014; Koehler & Gershoff, 2003), betrayal was negatively associated with participants’ trust and individual (but not collective) solidarity intentions toward the focal outgroup; similarly, the more participants felt betrayed by Arab Americans, the more support they indicated for a harmful policy targeting the Arab American community.

Although the observed betrayal pattern did not align with expectations from a stigma-based solidarity framework (Craig & Richeson, 2016), it is consistent with perspectives from relationship science (Burgoon, 2015). Most White women have close ties to White men– as partners, fathers, brothers– which may generate expectations of care that extend to political support. In other words, feelings of betrayal among White women who voted for Harris in response to White men’s pro-Trump voting could reflect the violation of expectations grounded in relational ties, which may supersede expectations for solidarity due to shared stigmatization. It is also possible that the observed pattern reflects a violation of expectations for solidarity from one’s racial ingroup (Foddy et al., 2009; Travaglino et al., 2014). Although we cannot rule this possibility out completely, we think it unlikely, given that gender, and the implications of the election for women’s rights, were made salient at the beginning of the study and, thus, participants are likely to have engaged in the study from the lens of their gender rather than their racial identity.

It is also possible that the observed betrayal pattern simply reveals participants’ lack of expectations for stigma-based solidarity. Research suggests that cross-group solidarity is more difficult to foster between groups that experience stigmatization along different dimensions of identity (e.g., gender vs. race; Craig et al., 2012). Indeed, in past research, making pervasive sexism salient among White women increased their expression of racial bias, consistent with social identity theory, rather than promoting more positive racial attitudes (Craig et al., 2012). Making gender marginalization salient among the White women sampled in the present work, in other words, may not have increased their expectations that Arab Americans– a group that faces ethno-religious marginalization– should be in solidarity with them. Without expectations for solidarity, participants should not feel betrayed.

Last, this betrayal finding may stem from differences in the perceived severity or consequences of each group’s voting behavior. Arab Americans were described as withholding support for Harris, whereas White men were described as voting for Trump. Research suggests that acts of commission are perceived as greater violations than acts of omission (Yeung et al., 2022), which could contribute to greater betrayal and reduced trust towards those voting for Trump. We also acknowledge that providing the 2020 voting histories for each group–done to ensure common knowledge regarding these groups’ past coalitional behavior–created a potential confound between marginalized/dominant group status and past Democratic/Republican voting behavior. Given the surprising pattern of results, questions regarding their emergence, and the reliance on hypothetical scenarios before the actual election, we conducted a second study, just after the election, to investigate this phenomenon further.

Study 2

Roughly a week after the 2024 U.S. presidential election, Study 2 examined the responses of White and Black women who voted for Harris to the actual voting behavior (based on exit polls) of a marginalized racial group (Latino men) and an advantaged racial group (White men). Specifically, participants were asked to reflect on the election outcome and then shown a figure summarizing exit poll data, broken down by race and gender, indicating that the majority of both Latino men and White men voted for Trump. Unlike in Study 1, participants were exposed to the voting behavior of each focal outgroup and asked to report their feelings of betrayal regarding each. In order to further probe the experience of betrayal, Study 2 examined it at the personal and collective levels of self-construal (Ellemers & Haslam, 2012).

Study 2 also included a manipulation to increase the salience of threat and the stakes of the election; specifically, at the start of the experiment, after reflecting on the outcome of the election, participants were randomly assigned to consider the threats of a Trump presidency (threat), the (lost) promise of a Harris presidency (promise), or to do neither of these tasks (neutral control). This design allowed us to test whether participants experience differential betrayal, at either the personal or collective level of self-identification, by the pro-Trump voting behavior of White men (an advantaged group) compared with Latino men (a marginalized group), and whether threat salience may directly affect betrayal and/or moderate the emergence of differential betrayal regarding the two focal outgroups. In addition to betrayal, we again assessed participants’ feelings of surprise, as well as their collective solidarity intentions regarding each focal outgroup and political solidarity (i.e. opposition to a proposed harmful policy) with the focal marginalized outgroup. As in Study 1, we explored whether greater feelings of betrayal are associated with lower solidarity intentions and policy opposition.

We recruited both White and Black women participants in the present study for two primary reasons. First, including White women allows us to examine the replicability of the betrayal pattern observed in Study 1. Second, because the results of Study 1 were not consistent with the predictions of the stigma-based solidarity framework, we decided to examine the responses of another marginalized group; namely, Black women–a group that is marginalized based on both their racial and gender identity. We believe the inclusion of Black women offers a clearer opportunity for the emergence of stigma-based solidarity betrayal, relative to that provided by White women in the context of the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Specifically, both target groups—Latino men and White men—are racial and gender outgroups for Black, but not White, women. Latino men share a common stigmatized status in the U.S. racial hierarchy with Black women, whereas White men have dominant status. Consequently, Black women may be poised to experience greater betrayal in response to the pro-Trump voting behavior of Latino men compared with White men, due to the violation of expectations born of shared marginalization.

Drawing on the findings of Study 1 and our theoretical framework, we formed the following predictions:

H1. We predict different betrayal patterns to emerge for White and Black women.

H1a. Replicating the results of Study 1, White women are expected to experience greater betrayal from White men compared with Latino men, reflecting either women’s relational ties to and/or racial ingroup affiliation with White men.

H1b. Black women’s reactions are expected to reflect stigma-based solidarity betrayal; Black women will experience greater betrayal regarding the pro-Trump voting behavior of Latino men compared with White men.

H2. As found in Study 1, we expect the voting behavior of Latino men (marginalized group) to be more surprising to both White and Black women than the behavior of White men (advantaged group).

H3. As found in Study 1, we predict that greater feelings of betrayal will be associated with lower solidarity intentions and harmful policy opposition.

Method

Participants

We collected data from 1,124 women recruited via Prolific. Participation was restricted to individuals who identified as women, White or Black, and Harris voters. Eight participants were excluded for reporting a multiracial identity, resulting in a final sample of 1,116 women (Mage= 42.88; SDage = 13.65; 48.6% Black, 51.4% White).

A sensitivity power analysis was conducted in G*Power (Faul et al., 2009) for a two-way mixed-factorial repeated measures ANOVA with two groups (participant race; Black or White) and two repeated measures (focal outgroup; Latino or White men). Because the correlation between repeated measures varied across items, sensitivity estimates were computed across a range of plausible correlations (r = .30, .50, .70), assuming ε = 1. With α = .05 and desired power of .95, the final sample size of Study 2 (N = 1116) provided sufficient sensitivity to detect minimum partial η² values between .002 and .004.

Materials

All materials are stored at https://osf.io/4q95z

Manipulations.

Threat Salience. Participants were asked to think back to the moment they realized Harris had lost the election to Trump. Participants were then asked to list either a few things about Donald Trump that make them or other Harris voters feel threatened (threat), or about Kamala Harris that make them or other Harris voters feel inspired (promise). Participants in the third condition (control) were not asked to list anything.

Exit Poll Information. Participants were shown a bar chart of actual 2024 election exit poll data broken down by race and gender from a major U.S. media outlet (Kates, 2024), followed by a simplified figure highlighting the vote shares of Latino men and White men. Participants were reminded that a majority of both groups voted for Trump. No information was provided about the groups’ prior voting histories.

Measures. All items were assessed on 5-point scales from (1 = not at all to 5 = very much so), unless otherwise indicated.

Surprise. Participants reported how surprised they felt in response to each outgroup’s voting behavior.

Betrayal. Individual betrayal was assessed with the following item for each focal outgroup: “I feel betrayed by [Latino/White] men who supported Trump.” Collective betrayal was assessed with the following two items for each focal outgroup: “[Latino/White] men who supported Trump betrayed (Black) women,” and “[Latino/White] men supporting Trump let (Black) women down.” The two items were strongly correlated (rs ≥ .83) and, thus, averaged.

Reasons For Betrayal. Exploratory measures probed potential reasons underlying betrayal. Participants were asked to report the extent to which they felt betrayed because: 1) “My group has fought for the rights of other oppressed groups for decades”– history of solidarity; 2) “Latino men (should) protect the rights of other vulnerable groups since they also could be hurt”– shared stigmatization; and 3) “White men (should) know that a second Trump administration will be disastrous for women”– expectations for relational care.

Collective Solidarity Intentions. One item assessed participants’ belief that their ingroup (Black women, women) should work with each outgroup [Latino men/White men] to achieve common political goals. This item was measured on a 6-point scale (1= strongly disagree to 6= strongly agree).

Policy Opposition. As in Study 1, in addition to probing solidarity intentions directly, participants were also asked to indicate their opposition to a harmful policy targeting the Latino community (i.e. the marginalized target group), embedded among three other policies described as negatively affecting other groups, all of which Trump had indicated would be implemented at the start of his presidency. Specifically, participants indicated their willingness to oppose each of the following four harmful policies: mass deportations (Latino Americans), punitive criminal-legal policies (Black Americans), restricting women’s reproductive healthcare (women), and repealing affordable health care (low-income Americans).

Procedure

Data collection for Study 2 began on November 12, 2024, and took place six to eight days after the U.S. presidential election. After providing informed consent, participants reflected on the election outcome, and completed the threat/promise free-writing task. After, participants were shown the exit poll data, then reported their surprise, completed the betrayal measures, followed by the solidarity measures including the policy opposition items. Participants reported their demographics, were debriefed and compensated $2.20. Additional exploratory measures are presented in the Supplemental Online Materials.

Results

Analyses were conducted in R 4.4.1 (R Core Team, 2024), using the effectsize (Ben-Shachar et al., 2020), lme4 (Bates et al., 2015), and tidyverse (Wickham et al., 2019) packages. Initial analyses revealed that the threat/promise salience manipulation had no significant main or interactive effects on any measures (.957 ≥ ps ≥ .091 for all main effects), so this factor was dropped from analyses. Results for the full threat/promise salience manipulation are presented in the Supplementary Materials. Unless otherwise noted, all dependent variables were submitted to a 2 (participant race: Black, White) x 2 (focal outgroup: Latino men, White men) mixed-model ANOVA. Descriptive statistics and correlations for all dependent variables are presented in Table 3. The condition means are provided in Table 4.

Table 3

Study 2 Full Sample Descriptive Statistics and Inter-Correlations Among Measures for the White (Bottom Diagonal) and Black (Top Diagonal) Samples.

Table 4

Study 2 Means and Standard Deviation of Primary Measures by Participant Race and Focal Outgroup

Surprise

White women reported greater surprise than Black women, F(1, 1110) = 18.11, p < .001, η²ₚ = .02. Replicating Study 1, participants also reported more surprise about Latino men’s voting behavior than White men’s, F(1, 1110) = 2104.42, p < .001, η²ₚ = .65. The interaction was non-significant, F(1, 1110) = 0.06, p = .805, η²ₚ < .001.

Betrayal

Individual Betrayal. There was a significant main effect of participant race, F(1, 1111) = 296.05, p < .001, η²ₚ = .21; White women reported greater feelings of betrayal than Black women. There was also a main effect of focal outgroup, with participants reporting greater betrayal by Latino men than White men, F(1, 1111) = 69.83, p < .001, η²ₚ = .06. These effects were qualified by a significant interaction, F(1, 1111) = 415.90, p < .001, η² = .27. Consistent with predictions and as depicted in Figure 3, White women felt more betrayed by White men compared with Latino men, t(570) = -8.76, p < .001, d = -0.36, whereas Black women felt more betrayed by Latino men compared with White men, t(541) = 19.31, p < .001, d = 0.90.

Collective Betrayal. Similar to the results for individual betrayal, White women reported greater collective betrayal than Black women, F(1, 1111) = 479.32, p < .001, η²ₚ =.30, and participants reported greater collective betrayal by Latino men than White men, F(1, 1105) = 137.60, p < .001, η²ₚ = .11. Both effects were qualified by a significant interaction, F(1, 1105) = 316.10, p < .001, η²ₚ = .22. As predicted, White women reported greater collective betrayal by White men compared with Latino men, t(569) = -6.33, p < .001, d = -0.15, whereas Black women reported greater collective betrayal by Latino men than White men, t(537) = 12.74, p < .001, d = 0.47; see Figure 3.

Figure 3

Mean Ratings of Individual and Collective Betrayal by Participant Race and Focal Outgroup

Collective Solidarity Intentions

The main effect of participant race emerged; White women expressed greater belief that their ingroup should work in solidarity with each of the outgroups (i.e., White and Latino men) compared with Black women, F(1, 1113) = 126.69, p < .001, η²ₚ = .10. The main effect of focal target group also emerged; participants overall reported greater belief that they should work with Latino men than with White men, F(1, 1113) = 41.19, p < .001, η²ₚ = .04. The interaction was non-significant, F(1, 1113) = 0.09, p = .760, η²ₚ < .001.

Policy Opposition

Policy opposition was submitted to a 2 (participant race: Black, White) x 4 (policy target: low-income people, Latine people, Black people, women) mixed model ANOVA. Analyses revealed that White women reported greater willingness than Black women to work to oppose the harmful policies, F(1, 1111) = 132.47, p < .001, η²ₚ = .11. There was also a main effect of the policy target, F(3, 3339) = 257.05, p < .001, η²ₚ = .19. As depicted in Figure 4, participants were least willing to work to oppose mass deportation– i.e., the policy described as being disproportionately harmful to Latine people– compared to the other policies. This effect was qualified by an interaction with participant race, F(3, 3339) = 76.48, p < .001, η²ₚ = .06. Among Black participants, opposition to the mass deportation policy was substantially lower than opposition to any other policy (all ps < .001). Among White participants, opposition to the mass deportation policy was also lower than opposition to any other policy (all ps < .001), though the magnitude of those differences were smaller than those observed among Black participants.

Figure 4

Willingness to Oppose Harmful Policies by Participant Race and Policy Target

Probing the Roots of Betrayal

Consistent with the logic of the stigma-based solidarity framework, Black women (M = 3.78, 95% CI [3.67, 3.90]) indicated that their feelings of betrayal stemmed from violated expectations born of historical solidarity more than White women (M = 3.38, 95% CI [3.28, 3.49]) did, t(1105.6) = 5.16, p < .001, d = 0.31, see Figure 5. White women (M = 4.34, 95% CI [4.26, 4.42]) endorsed the item reflecting expectations for relational care from White men more than Black women (M = 2.80, 95% CI [2.68, 2.92]), t(954.35) =-20.44, p < .001, d = -1.24. Surprisingly, White women (M = 4.25, 95% CI [4.17, 4.33]) rated shared stigmatization as a basis to expect solidarity from Latinos significantly more than Black women (M = 3.95, 95% CI [3.85, 4.06]), t(1014.90) = -4.41, p < .001, d = -0.27.

Figure 5

Roots of Betrayal

Betrayal as a Correlate of Future Solidarity and Policy Opposition

As in Study 1, we examined whether betrayal was associated with participants’ solidarity intentions. Among White women, collective solidarity toward Latino men was negatively related to collective (r = -.09, p = .028), but not individual (r = -.05, p = .271), betrayal by Latino men. Similarly, collective solidarity toward White men was negatively associated with both collective (r = -.12, p = .004) and individual (r = -.11, p = .011) betrayal by White men. Contrary to expectations, Black women’s collective solidarity toward Latino men was unrelated to both individual (r = -.01, p = .815) and collective (r = -.06, p = .134) betrayal by Latino men, as was collective solidarity toward White men (individual betrayal: r = .04, p = .328; collective betrayal: r = -.06, p = .184). Also contrary to predictions, betrayal by Latino men among both White women (rs = .20, .28, ps < .001) and Black women (rs = .11, .12, ps < .011) was positively related to willingness to oppose a harmful policy targeting Latinos. Participants’ relative feelings of betrayal by Latino men, compared with White men, however, were either unrelated or modestly negatively related to policy opposition, a pattern that held for all policies (– .09 ≤ rs ≤ .03, ps ≥ .031).

Discussion

Study 2 examined White and Black women Harris voters’ responses to the majority pro-Trump voting behavior of White and Latino men in the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Replicating Study 1, White women reported greater betrayal in response to White men’s, compared with Latino men’s, voting behavior. In contrast, and consistent with predictions, Black women reported feeling greater betrayal in response to the voting behavior of Latino men, compared with White men. Consistent with the stigma-based solidarity framework (Craig & Richeson, 2016), Black women’s pattern of betrayal seems to reflect the violation of greater expectations for solidarity from Latino men, another marginalized group, compared with White men, an advantaged group. Further, Black women, more than White women, endorsed the idea that Latino men betrayed expectations for stigma-based solidarity born of Black women’s history of engaging in cross-group solidarity for the benefit of other oppressed groups.

The betrayal reported by White women is also intriguing. Like in Study 1, White women in Study 2 reported feeling more betrayed by White men than Latino men, despite the pro-Trump voting behavior of White men being expected and unsurprising. We speculated after Study 1 that this could be due to expectations for care from White men, given the interpersonal ties between White men and women. Exploratory items assessing participants’ reasons for feeling betrayed suggested that this may be the case; White women endorsed the idea that White men should have shown solidarity due to the harms women face from a Trump presidency more than Black women did. In addition, the generally high levels of betrayal reported by White women are also fascinating. Although this could simply reflect differences in the use of the scale by White and Black women, it may reveal actual experiences of greater betrayal by White women, compared with Black women, Harris voters. That is, White women may have experienced relational betrayal of solidarity from White men and stigma-based betrayal of solidarity from Latino men. Consistent with this possibility, White women reported feeling more betrayed by Latino men due to shared marginalization from a Trump presidency, compared with Black women.

The results for solidarity intentions and willingness to oppose harmful policies were less clear. Whereas White women’s feelings of collective betrayal by White and Latino men were negatively associated with their intentions to work in solidarity with these groups in the future, Black women’s feelings of betrayal were not. That said, Black women– who, on average, reported feeling more betrayed by Latino men than White men– were also strikingly unwilling to oppose a Trump administration policy identified as harmful to the Latine community. Adding more opacity, feelings of betrayal by Latino men were positively related to willingness to oppose the harmful policy among both Black and White women. Apparently, participants were unwilling to completely withdraw support from a vulnerable group, despite the perceived betrayal by some of its members.

General Discussion

Drawing on research examining the dynamics of stigma-based solidarity (Craig & Richeson, 2016), we investigated whether marginalized groups experience stigma-based solidarity betrayal. Specifically, two studies conducted in the context of the 2024 U.S. presidential election examined White (Studies 1 and 2) and Black (Study 2) women Harris voters’ reactions to the imagined or actual anti-Harris/pro-Trump voting behavior of either a marginalized group (Arab Americans, Latinos) or a dominant group (White men). Contrary to predictions, White women– a group that faces gendered marginalization– felt more betrayed by a lack of political solidarity from White men (an advantaged group) than from marginalized racial/ethnic groups (i.e., Arab Americans, Latino men). The pattern of betrayal for Black women however, was consistent with the predictions of the stigma-based solidarity framework. Black women felt more betrayed by a lack of political solidarity from Latino men, another marginalized group, compared with White men, a dominant group. This is the first empirical evidence (to our knowledge) of a stigma-based solidarity betrayal effect.

Despite being unpredicted, the pattern of betrayal among White women is fascinating. Betrayal is thought to involve a violation of expectations; yet, White women felt more betrayed by White men’s voting behavior, compared with Arab Americans and Latino men, despite finding White men’s behavior less surprising. This betrayal pattern, however, is consistent with research in relationship science centering expectations for care and protection based on relational interdependence (Burgoon, 2015). Indeed, relational ties likely led White women to expect greater concern from White men about the election outcome’s potential impact on women’s rights. When White men’s voting behavior did not reflect this expected concern, they felt betrayed. Interestingly, White women in Study 2 may have experienced stigma-based solidarity betrayal as well. Not only did they report high levels of betrayal by Latino men, they indicated that their betrayal stemmed, in part, from Latinos’ failure to demonstrate solidarity with women based on their shared marginalization. Future research should investigate this intriguing possibility.

The present work also explored potential consequences of intergroup betrayal. Study 1 revealed that betrayal was negatively correlated with feelings of trust and individual solidarity intentions, consistent with predictions and past research (Gobin & Freyd, 2014; Koehler & Gershoff, 2003). The potential implications of betrayal for future cross-group solidarity, however, were less clear. The correlations between betrayal and both collective solidarity intentions and support for/opposition to harmful policies targeting the focal marginalized outgroups in both studies were small in magnitude and/or not statistically significant. In fact, Black women reported greater solidarity intentions toward Latino men relative to White men, despite feeling more betrayed by the voting behavior of the former group. Perhaps given the harms they anticipated from a Trump administration, especially for historically-marginalized groups in the U.S., neither the Black nor White women we sampled were willing to abandon such cross-group alliances (Mujica & Bridges, 2023).

Implications

A number of compelling implications stem from this research. Our findings broaden the scope of work examining stigma-based solidarity (Craig & Richeson, 2016). Past research has considered the conditions and mechanisms that give rise to coalitional, rather than adversarial, attitudes and behaviors among marginalized groups. The present studies consider whether failures to demonstrate such coalitional behaviors engender feelings of betrayal among different marginalized groups. In doing so, we introduce the phenomenon of stigma-based solidarity betrayal, and open a new avenue for research to examine its emergence and implications for future intergroup solidarity.

The present research also suggests a need to revisit, if not broaden, scholarship noting the role of prescriptive norms regarding cooperation and loyalty among ingroups (Abrams, 2011; Marques & Yzerbyt, 1988). Our findings point to the possibility that, under some conditions, different social identity groups have similar expectations for solidarity that, when violated, will engender feelings of betrayal (Drake et al., 2024; Travaglino et al., 2014). Last, the present research reveals the promise of examining betrayal from both an intergroup and interpersonal lens. Our findings are both informed by and offer new insights for current models of the psychology of betrayal (Burgoon, 2015; Freyd, 1996), which have typically not considered the kinds of intergroup dynamics revealed here (cf. Gómez & Gobin, 2024).

In addition to these theoretical implications, the findings have practical importance. Given the context and the groups examined, the present work reveals that in addition to disappointment about the outcome of the 2024 U.S. presidential election, many (Black and White) women Harris voters felt betrayed. Betrayal can promote mistrust, withdrawal of support from the betraying party, and even exit from relationships, institutions, and alliances (Burgoon, 2015; Freyd, 1996). In the context of acute threats to the safety and well-being of these groups from current government policies, betrayal may weaken if not thwart the possibility of the very types of cross-group coalitions that have proved effective to combat similar threats in the past. Yet, our results also suggest that stigma-based solidarity betrayal does not necessarily lead to retaliation or abandonment; perhaps, reflecting motivations to protect marginalized outgroups from harm, despite their disloyalty. Understanding the forces that weaken or preserve stigma-based solidarity in the wake of rising ethno-nationalism and the erosion of democratic norms cannot be more urgent.

Limitations and Future Directions

There are a number of limitations of the present work. Study 1 used hypothetical, albeit realistic, scenarios regarding the voting behavior of different groups before the election. Although Study 2 examined reactions to actual voting behavior based on exit polling, it was still conducted within the context of the 2024 U.S. presidential election, and focused only on responses of White and Black women to the voting behavior of specific ethno-racial groups. That said, the U.S. two-party, winner-take-all system creates a high-stakes, zero-sum environment that is well-suited for investigating perceptions of betrayal based on consequential group-level behavior (i.e., voting). Further, given the anticipated implications of the election for the rights of many marginalized communities, this context offered multiple grounds on which both White and Black women Harris supporters may expect other marginalized groups to support Harris over Trump– that is, to expect stigma-based solidarity.

We acknowledge specific design limitations regarding the comparability of the target groups in Study 1. To maximize ecological validity, we presented the likely voting behavior of target groups as they appeared in prevailing political discourse and/or consistent with historical voting patterns; namely, “White men” versus “Arab Americans.” These decisions, however, introduce imbalances in the design that could cloud the interpretability of the findings. Specifically, the “White men” condition may make gender more salient than the “Arab Americans” condition, perhaps amplifying the perceived gender-based threat of the election for the White women Harris supporters sampled. Alternatively, or additionally, the “White men” condition could have primed a common racial ingroup for the White women participants, especially in contrast to the “Arab Americans” condition. Consequently, the design of Study 1 makes it difficult to isolate the contributions of group status (stigmatized vs. non-stigmatized), expectations for racial ingroup loyalty, expectations for care based on relational ties, and the potential effects of gender salience in shaping participants’ behavior. Although Study 2 addressed the category labeling issue by specifying male targets in both the marginalized and advantaged outgroup conditions, future research should employ fully crossed designs to disentangle status, race, and gender, or test these predictions in contexts where group membership is defined by a single dimension (e.g., religion or nationality) to avoid or perhaps reveal intersectional complexity.

These design concerns notwithstanding, it remains unknown whether the results that emerged in this singular context will be observed in other situations, with different marginalized groups, and outside of the U.S. We have no reason to believe, however, that the dynamics revealed here should be exclusive to voting, political solidarity, or to relations among racial and gender groups in the U.S. Building on research on stigma-based solidarity (Craig & Richeson, 2016), we theorize that the betrayal of such solidarity is potentially a fundamental intergroup process. Although this literature has largely focused on the U.S. context to date, we think that wherever groups perceive a shared or common basis for marginalized status, the potential for stigma-based solidarity exists and, thus, so too does the potential for its betrayal. However, the specific manifestation of this betrayal — including which groups are perceived as coalition partners — will undoubtedly be shaped by the unique historical, political, and cultural hierarchies of a given society. Indeed, we hope the present work inspires scholarship exploring the prospect of stigma-based solidarity betrayal in many different contexts.

In addition to these vital tests of generalizability, future research is also needed to examine the conditions that are more likely to engender betrayal. For instance, is betrayal more likely to emerge when groups that are stigmatized along the same dimension of marginalization fail to demonstrate solidarity, compared with groups that are stigmatized across dimensions, as found for stigma-based solidarity (Craig & Richeson, 2016)? Similarly, what factors determine the consequences of perceived betrayal for the promise of stigma-based solidarity in the future? For whom, and under what conditions, might experiences of betrayal lead marginalized groups to distance themselves from the shared bases of categorization that typically foster coalitional attitudes and behaviors? Or, worse, when might betrayal animate efforts to punish or retaliate against groups that were once coalitional partners? In other words, the present findings offer a glimpse at what we believe is a provocative and potentially important phenomenon– stigma-based solidarity betrayal. Future research is required, however, to establish its robustness, generalizability, boundary conditions, and consequences.

Conclusion

Coalitions among marginalized groups have been a cornerstone of social justice movements. Understanding the causes and consequences of stigma-based solidarity betrayal may offer critical insight into the promise of collective resistance and survival in an era of rising ethno-nationalism and democratic backsliding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Acknowledgements

We thank the members of the Yale Social Perception and Communication lab for helpful feedback on this project. Thank you to the editor and two reviewers who engaged with the work and provided invaluable feedback.

Data Availability Statement

Data, code, and study materials are stored in OSF: https://osf.io/4q95z

Supplementary Materials

The supplementary materials can be found here.

Author Contributions

CS, MR, and JR developed the research goals and aims. CS and MR collected data. MR (lead) and CS performed data analysis. CS, MR, and JR wrote the paper. All authors provided critical edits and approved the final version of the paper.

Endnotes

[1] Participants in both studies completed a number of additional measures that were either exploratory or unrelated to the primary hypotheses. Information about the exploratory measures is provided in the Supplemental Online Materials.. ↩

Readers of this article also read

‹

Research Article

Understanding public responses to counter-protests disrupting social change movements

by Hema Preya Selvanathan et al.

Research Article

Facing a dark future: Young people’s future anxiety and political attitudes in the UK and Greece

by Olaf Borghi, Melina Niraki, Ermioni Seremeta, Kaat Smets, & Manos Tsakiris Cited by 1

Research Article

Partisan forgiveness of political leadership in the 2024 UK general election: Are there limits to transgression credit?

by Fanny Lalot & Dominic Abrams Cited by 1

Research Article

When it doesn’t get better: Leaning into minoritized identity to brace for decline

by Thomas A. Morton & Jessica Salvatore

Review

Weaponising the past: An extended SIMCA model for how social identity and collective memory shape variation in collective action responses to democratic backsliding

by Neil Lavie-Driver & Sander van der Linden

Research Article

War, what is it good for? Propaganda, value-instantiating beliefs, war support and resistance in Russia

by Vladimir Ponizovskiy, Marie Isabelle Weißflog, Evgeny Osin, & Lusine Grigoryan

Review

Race, memory, and colorblindness: Critical history and deconstructing United States democracy

by Michael J. Perez, Adam J. Beam, & Payton A. Small

Research Article

The politics of well-being during democratic backsliding: How partisan affiliation and support for government actions relate to happiness and life satisfaction

by Deborah J. Wu, Kyle F. Law, Stylianos Syropoulos, & Sylvia P. Perry

›

References

Abrams, D. (2011) Extremism is normal: The roles of deviance and uncertainty in shaping groups and society. In M. A. Hogg & D. L. Blaylock (Eds), Extremism and the psychology of uncertainty. Blackwell/ Claremont Applied Social Psychology Series. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp. 36-54. https://doi/10.1002/9781444344073.ch3

Allport, G.W. (1954). On the nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Araiza, L. (2014). To march for others: The Black freedom struggle and the United Farm Workers. University of Pennsylvania Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/ahr/119.5.1724

Balliet, D., Wu, J., & De Dreu, C. K. (2014). Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1556-1581. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037737

Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01

Behnken, B. D. (Ed.). (2016). Civil rights and beyond: African American and Latino/a activism in the twentieth-century United States. University of Georgia Press. https://doi.org/10.1353/book45364

Ben-Shachar, M. S., Lüdecke, D., & Makowski, D. (2020). effectsize: Estimation of effect size indices and standardized parameters. Journal of open source software, 5(56), 2815. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02815

Blumer, H. (1958). Race prejudice as a sense of group position. Pacific Sociological Review, 1, 3–7. https://doi.org/10.2307/1388607

Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). The context and content of social identity threat. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 35-58). Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing.

Burgoon, J. K. (2015). Expectancy violations theory. The international encyclopedia of interpersonal communication, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic102

Chan, N. K. M., & Jasso, F. (2023). From inter-racial solidarity to action: Minority linked fate and African American, Latina/o, and Asian American political participation. Political behavior, 45(3), 1097-1119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-021-09750-6

Cortland, C. I., Craig, M. A., Shapiro, J. R., Richeson, J. A., Neel, R., & Goldstein, N. J. (2017). Solidarity through shared disadvantage: Highlighting shared experiences of discrimination improves relations between stigmatized groups. Journal of personality and social psychology, 113(4), 547. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000100

Craig, M. A., DeHart, T., Richeson, J. A., & Fiedorowicz, L. (2012). Do unto others as others have done unto you? Perceiving sexism influences women’s evaluations of stigmatized racial groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(9), 1107-1119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212445210

Craig, M. A., & Richeson, J. A. (2012). Coalition or derogation? How perceived discrimination influences intraminority intergroup relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 759–777. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026481

Craig, M. A., & Richeson, J. A. (2016). Stigma-based solidarity: Understanding the psychological foundations of conflict and coalition among members of different stigmatized groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(1), 21-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214156112

Dinnerstein, L. (2002). American Jews and the civil rights movement. Reviews in American History, 30(1), 136-140. https://doi.org/10.1353/rah.2002.0008

Drake, R. G., Wilkins, C. L., & Lai, C. K. (2024). Solidarity imbalances after racism and sexism: Black Americans are expected to express high solidarity but anticipate lower solidarity from racial/ethnic outgroups. Social Psychological and Personality Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506241303792

Ellemers, N., & Haslam, S. A. (2012). Social identity theory. Handbook of theories of social psychology, 2, 379-398. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n45

Everett, J. A., Faber, N. S., & Crockett, M. (2015). Preferences and beliefs in ingroup favoritism. Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 9, 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00015

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior research methods, 41(4), 1149-1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

Foddy, M., Platow, M. J., & Yamagishi, T. (2009). Group-Based Trust in Strangers: The Role of Stereotypes and Expectations. Psychological Science, 20(4), 419-422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02312.x

Freyd, J. J. (1996). Betrayal trauma: The logic of forgetting childhood abuse. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gaboriaud, A., Gautheron, F., Quinton, J. C., & Smeding, A. (2022). The effects of intent, outcome, and causality on moral judgments and decision processes. Psychologica Belgica, 62(1), 218. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.1157

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2012). The common ingroup identity model. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 439–457). Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n48

Gay, C. (2006). Seeing difference: The effect of economic disparity on Black attitudes toward Latinos. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 982–997. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00228.x

Gaztambide-Fernández, R. A. (2021). The trials of solidarity: A defence. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 64(3), 302-314. https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2021.0022

Glasford, D. E., & Calcagno, J. (2012). The conflict of harmony: Intergroup contact, commonality and political solidarity between minority groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 323–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.001

Glueck, K. (2024, October 7). The mideast war threatens Harris in Michigan as Arab voters reject her. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/07/us/politics/michigan-harris-arab-muslim-jewish-voters.html

Gobin, R. L., & Freyd, J. J. (2014). The impact of betrayal trauma on the tendency to trust. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 6(5), 505. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0032452

Goh, J. X., & Douglas, T. (2025). Perceived Zero-Sum Competition between Asian Americans and Black Americans. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672251365061

Gómez, J. M., & Gobin, R. L. (2024). “It will always feel worse because it comes with that added ‘betrayal’”: Intersectionality praxis and Black young women survivors’ perspectives on cultural betrayal trauma theory. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 25(5), 656-673. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2024.2383197

Gonlin, V., & Cobb, C. (2023). Who is your fate linked to? Racial discrimination predicting linked fate among people with mixed-race ancestry. Social Identities, 29(4), 353-377. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504630.2023.2249406

Hossain, S. (2024, December 6). Surviving Trump: Grassroots matters. https://lpcexpressnews.com/surviving-trump-why-grassroots-organizing-and-mutual-aid-matter-more-than-ever/

Kates, G. (2024, November 8). Map shows Trump’s 2024 election victory came as voters shifted red across the country. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-election-results-map-shift-red/

Koehler, J. J., & Gershoff, A. D. (2003). Betrayal aversion: When agents of protection become agents of harm. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(2), 244-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00518-6

Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2002). Group reactions to loyalty and disloyalty. In Advances in group processes (pp. 203-228). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0882-6145(02)19008-4

Marques, J. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (1988). The black sheep effect: Judgmental extremity towards ingroup members in inter‐and intra‐group situations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(3), 287-292. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180308

McClain, P. D., & Carew, J. (2018). “Can we all get along?” Racial and ethnic minorities in American politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429495533

Meier, K. J., McClain, P. D., Polinard, J. L., & Wrinkle, R. D. (2004). Divided or together? Conflict and cooperation between African Americans and Latinos. Political Research Quarterly, 57, 399–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290405700305

Mitchell, S. (2024, November 6). The wisdom of grassroots organizers will be crucial with a fascist in the white house. Truthout. https://truthout.org/articles/grassroots-organizing-wisdom-will-be-crucial-with-a-fascist-in-the-white-house/

Mujica, C.A., Bridges, A.J. (2023). What Are the Affective Consequences of Horizontal Versus Vertical Racial/Ethnic Discrimination?. In: Horizontal and Vertical Racial/Ethnic Discrimination. Springer Briefs in Psychology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33058-2_7

Noor, M., Brown, R. J., & Prentice, G. (2008). Precursors and mediators of intergroup reconciliation in Northern Ireland: A new model. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 481–495. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466607X238751

Pérez, E., Vicuña, B., & Ramos, A. (2024a). Taking stock of solidarity between people of color: A mini meta-analysis of five experiments. American Political Science Review, 118(3), 1549-1555. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055423001120

Pérez, E., Vicuña, B., & Ramos, A. (2024b). Shared status, shared politics? Evaluating a new pathway to Black solidarity with other people of color.” Political Behavior, 46, 1151–1170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-023-09863-0

R Core Team (2024). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://doi.org/10.32614/r.manuals

Rangel, L. (2024, November 15). Latino men put machismo first when they voted for Trump. Latinas are angry. The Barbed Wire. http://thebarbedwire.com/2024/11/15/latino-men-put-machismo-first-when-they-voted-for-trump-latinas-are-angry/

Rogers, R. (2009). Political institutions and rainbow coalitions. In Hochschild, J. L., & Mollenkopf, J. H. (Eds.). Bringing outsiders in: Transatlantic perspectives on immigrant political incorporation, 93-110. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Rotella, K. N., Richeson, J. A., Chiao, J. Y., & Bean, M. G. (2013). Blinding trust: the effect of perceived group victimhood on intergroup trust. Personality & social psychology bulletin, 39(1), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212466114

Rothgerber, H. (2014). Evaluation of ingroup disloyalty within a multigroup context. Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000196

Rothgerber, H., & Worchel, S. (1997). The view from below: Intergroup relations from the perspective of the disadvantaged group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1191–1205. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1191

Sanchez, G. R. (2008). Latino group consciousness and perceptions of commonality with African Americans. Social Science Quarterly, 89, 428–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2008.00540.x

Schmitt, M. T., Spears, R., & Branscombe, N. R. (2003). Constructing a minority group identity out of shared rejection: The case of international students. European journal of social psychology, 33(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.131

Sellers, R. M., Rowley, S. A. J., Chavous, T. M., Shelton, J. N., & Smith, M. A. (1997). Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity: A preliminary investigation of reliability and construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 805–815. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.805

Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, J., Hood, W., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robbers cave experiment. Norman, OK: University Book Exchange.

Smith, C. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2014). Institutional betrayal. American Psychologist, 69(6), 575–587. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037564

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-37). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199269464.003.0005

Tang, S., Shepherd, S., & Kay, A. C. (2023). Morality’s role in the Black Sheep Effect: When and why ingroup members are judged more harshly than outgroup members for the same transgression. European Journal of Social Psychology, 53(7), 1605-1622. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.3001

Taylor, K.Y. (2024). Trump’s victory and the necessity of solidarity | International Socialist Review. Retrieved June 29, 2025, from https://isreview.org/issue/104/trumps-victory-and-necessity-solidarity/index.html

Tedin, K. L., & Murray, R. W. (1994). Support for biracial political coalitions among Blacks and Hispanics. Social Science Quarterly, 75, 772–789.

Travaglino, G. A., Abrams, D., de Moura, G. R., & Russo, G. (2014). Organized crime and group-based ideology: The association between masculine honor and collective opposition against criminal organizations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 1, 15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430214533394

Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2012). Self-categorization theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology (pp. 399–417). Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n46

Vollhardt, J. R. (2015). Inclusive victim consciousness in advocacy, social movements, and intergroup relations: Promises and pitfalls. Social Issues and Policy Review, 9, 89–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12011

Wenzel, M., Mummendey, A., & Waldzus, S. (2007). Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: The ingroup projection model. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 331–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280701728302

Wickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J., Chang, W., McGowan, L. D. A., François, R., & Yutani, H. (2019). Welcome to the Tidyverse. Journal of open source software, 4(43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686

Yeung, S. K., Yay, T., & Feldman, G. (2022). Action and inaction in moral judgments and decisions: Meta-analysis of omission bias omission-commission asymmetries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(10), 1499-1515. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211042315

Zdaniuk, B., & Levine, J. M. (2001). Group loyalty: Impact of members’ identification and contributions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(6), 502-509. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2000.1474