New study claims status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote

A new study from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, the official scientific journal of the National Academy of Sciences claims "status threat" is what motivated voters to vote for Trump, not so-called "economic anxiety".

The study is here: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/04/18/1718155115

Abstract

This study evaluates evidence pertaining to popular narratives explaining the American public’s support for Donald J. Trump in the 2016 presidential election. First, using unique representative probability samples of the American public, tracking the same individuals from 2012 to 2016, I examine the “left behind” thesis (that is, the theory that those who lost jobs or experienced stagnant wages due to the loss of manufacturing jobs punished the incumbent party for their economic misfortunes). Second, I consider the possibility that status threat felt by the dwindling proportion of traditionally high-status Americans (i.e., whites, Christians, and men) as well as by those who perceive America’s global dominance as threatened combined to increase support for the candidate who emphasized reestablishing status hierarchies of the past. Results do not support an interpretation of the election based on pocketbook economic concerns. Instead, the shorter relative distance of people’s own views from the Republican candidate on trade and China corresponded to greater mass support for Trump in 2016 relative to Mitt Romney in 2012. Candidate preferences in 2016 reflected increasing anxiety among high-status groups rather than complaints about past treatment among low-status groups. Both growing domestic racial diversity and globalization contributed to a sense that white Americans are under siege by these engines of change.

If you don't want to read it all, the conclusion is a good summary:

Narratives are important, because they structure people’s understanding of what has occurred and why. They also guide the behavior of elected representatives in deciding how to represent their constituencies. When the people have spoken, the postelection narrative decides what it is they have said. Based on these results, it would be a mistake for people to understand the 2016 election as resulting from the frustration of those left behind economically. Instead, both experimental evidence and panel survey evidence document significant political consequences from a rising sense of status threat among dominant groups in the United States.

Lack of a college education was persistently noted as the strongest predictor of Trump support. This pattern led journalists with limited data toward economic explanations. However, education is also the strongest predictor of support for international trade, a relationship that is not tied to income or occupation so much as ethnocentrism (52). Negative attitudes toward racial and ethnic diversity are also correlated with low levels of education. In this election, education represented group status threat rather than being left behind economically. Those who felt that the hierarchy was being upended—with whites discriminated against more than blacks, Christians discriminated against more than Muslims, and men discriminated against more than women—were most likely to support Trump.

Why does it matter whether Trump’s support was driven by being left behind economically as opposed to a sense that one’s status in the domestic or international hierarchy has suffered? Some workers obviously have suffered financially, even if the general trend is toward improvement. However, these losses were not politicized when it came to voting in 2016. Trump’s victory may be viewed more admirably when it is attributed to a groundswell of support from previously ignored workers than when it is attributed to those whose status is threatened by minorities and foreign countries. More importantly, elected officials who embrace the left behind narrative may feel compelled to pursue policies that will do little to assuage the fears of less educated Americans. Furthermore, Trump’s “us vs. them” rhetoric does little to lead whites and minorities or Americans and foreigners to view one another in less threatening ways, and it calls to whites’ attention the fact that they are already doing quite well relative to minority groups and relative to those in the countries that they often find threatening.

The left behind thesis has focused attention on economically beleaguered victims of trade-related job loss. While this group certainly deserves public support, misunderstanding the election narrative still has potentially negative consequences. Most manufacturing job loss is not related to trade (56). Furthermore, Trump’s supporters largely oppose strengthening the safety net for those left behind (Table S4). Those concerned with left-behind sectors are likely to be disappointed if they expect the current administration and its supporters to prioritize the economically beleaguered manufacturing sector.

The 2016 election was a result of anxiety about dominant groups’ future status rather than a result of being overlooked in the past. In many ways, a sense of group threat is a much tougher opponent than an economic downturn, because it is a psychological mindset rather than an actual event or misfortune. Given current demographic trends within the United States, minority influence will only increase with time, thus heightening this source of perceived status threat. Although whites will likely still be the best-educated and most well-off racial group, by 2040, they are unlikely to dominate in numbers. Likewise, despite US status as an extremely wealthy country relative to those countries perceived to threaten it economically, many Americans find that small comfort.

These results also directly refute the long-held belief among political scientists that political elites “waltz before a blind audience” when it comes to international issues (36). Public opinion on trade in particular has been assumed not to matter, because politicians are not held accountable for low salience issues (57). Trump’s emphasis on these particular issues in his campaign increased the salience of international affairs. In politicizing these issues, he put greater distance between the candidates of the two parties on international issues. Elections are always structured by the candidates who happen to be in play at the time. However, in 2016, large changes in the nominees’ issue positions relative to their predecessors in the previous election made this an especially important factor. Because globalization itself is unlikely to wane, these are likely to remain important electoral issues for the foreseeable future.

Most critically, these results speak to the importance of group status in the formation of political preferences. Political uprisings are often about downtrodden groups rising up to assert their right to better treatment and more equal life conditions relative to high-status groups. The 2016 election, in contrast, was an effort by members of already dominant groups to assure their continued dominance and by those in an already powerful and wealthy country to assure its continued dominance.

Not shocking but it's nice to see actual academic papers on this.

It's nice people have opinions.

yeah I never bought into the 'economic' argument as a motivation.

I personally think its completely because of sexism and racism, but I suppose status might be linked kinda sorta, but economics I felt was always a silly enlargement.

interesting. never heard the term "status threat" before but it certainly encapsulates perfectly the attitude of some of the trump voters i know

@n64dd: Any reason you had to quote that again rather than reply?

Forum etiquette should perhaps be a part of the rules here.

Yeah that term was new to me as well.

Pretty obvious that it was.

Racists gonna racist, so they voted for a racist.

One of the best ways I've heard it explained is that racism causes economic anxiety, not the other way around. I think it was an article on a study I was reading the other day, when people feel threatened by minorities they tend to rate the economy as doing worse than it actually is, but the economy had no measurable effect on people's views of minorities.

And there certainly is a segment of Trump voters who are not very well off, white, and resentful of minorities. The oldest story in the American book is that elites feared cooperation between the white, black, and native American underclasses so they gave special status to white laborers. It's why indentured servitude had a way for people to work their way out and chattel slavery didn't. Still, the overall narrative is faulty because Hillary actually captured the larger share of lower class voters, because Trump captured a larger share of wealthy and educated voters than perception would indicate, and because negative views of minorities are more prevalent in wealthier voters than perception indicates. Every time racist sentiment bubbles up we tend to default to a stereotypical view of a hillbilly in a trailer and, while those people do exist, it's simply not true that they're the only racists in this country.

You people are making the right out to be the boogie man.

Can't you just accept that both candidates sucked ass, and people hated Hillary more than Trump?

and sexist.

Hillary has been demonized as pure sulfur smelling evil for more than 20 years now. Mind you nobody seems able to point to specifics on what they are refering to that makes her evil but that rarely stops anyone

so the 'perception' of economic hardship could be a motivator you are saying?

I can see that,

I know someone with plenty of 'stuff' makes 6 figures and yet complains about how hard he has to work while minorities get off free.

no...he doesnt actually have to work but his perception is as such.

Well, she won the popular vote, so most of the country disagrees with you. Way to address my actual argument, by the way, instead of going off on an unrelated tangent. Talk about us making boogeymen and then trot out Hillary for absolutely no reason, laughable.

Most of the country didn't vote...

its not hard to do when the lead canidate on the Right said the following:

'When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."'

and still wins the nomination

Hillary was never nor has ever been remotely close to being as bad as what Trump as said and done. not even in the same near orbit

(by the way, in that quote he basically called my friends wife's parents 'the worst')

Ok, what part of what he said was wrong?

a lot but accurate or not, given that statement do you honestly not understand why people on the Left see that as 'the boggie man'?\

the question is not is it accurate or not, the question is 'why does the Left think the Right is the boogie man'...well....

now as an example, a friend of mine has a wonderful hard working successful wife, who Trump basically just said her parents are 'people with a lot of problems'. so yeah, we might look at that with not the same accurate and clearly knowledgeable eyes as you do but that is where leadership comes in.

meaning, learn how to speak to both sides while at the same time getting done your objective, whatever it maybe

@tryit: I think it's usually a little more paternalistic than that, but essentially yes. Basically, if you make a lot of money and you hold racist views you're far more attenuated to stories of white economic hardship. The more you hear about whites struggling, which is likely because we're still a very segregated country especially when you go up the economic ladder, the more emotionally motivated you are. You then feel you have to do something, and can very easily be persuaded by the omnipresent arguments that minorities are to blame for their economic hardship. It's basically a form of confirmation bias. Seeing white people struggling increases the perception that the economy overall is struggling.

Rich people thinking they work harder than everyone else is slightly different. It's a combination of the fact that they probably do push themselves much harder than they should and are pushed a lot harder than they should by their bosses, and the fact that they feel a need to rationalize having so much more than other people. We're all overworked in this country, top to bottom, it's just that some people get paid more for it and because of that they start to think of themselves as more valuable or important. Racist views just bleed into that.

sounds legit to me

He didn't say anything racist or untrue?

again.. please try to understand what I am saying

If the question is 'why does the Left see him as the boogie man'

then it doesnt matter if its true or not, if you do not see how that statement can be offensive to a lot of people then THAT is the problem, REGARDLESS of if its true or not.

Now two: Do you honestly think the majority of people risking their life to come here over the southern border are doing it to rape people?

There is a difference between people that Mexico sends to us, and ones that come here on their own.

the people that mexico sends us?

I dont even know what that means and I dont know why you would think the vast majority of people on the Left would know what that means.

saying something that sounds offensive but actually has some kind of hidden meaning that only people on the Right understand is NOT a good example of why people on the Left should not be freaking out.

If you can't understand basic sentences, you shouldn't be on a forum.

the question is NOT, is he right and what does it mean.

The question IS, does the statement sound offensive to many people of which would tend to freak out about it?

yes is the answer.

so again...an example of the reason why people are freaking out about the Right is found in one of many Trump quotes and actions such as this one:

'When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."'

REGARDLESS of if the statement is true or not.

and yes..most people would not know what 'mexico sending their people' compared to 'people from mexico coming here to work'

so I dont know what speakish that is.

@tryit: So true on the Hillary thing. The best is the "she sold 20% of u.s. uranium to Russia", nonsense..

Nice twisting of facts there.

You mean 2 states with a huge amount of democratic voters disagreed with the rest of the country who in a majority voted for Trump.

No i think he means that more people voted for Hillary than Trump

I'd be curious about how they collected the actual data or evidence to determine this. I don't doubt that there is some credence to that article's assertions, it certainly makes sense that Trump supporters would fear change and rally around him because he seemed to be about the status quo or a "return to the good old times". However, I'm usually very, very skeptical about "sociologic data" It's frequently gathered by imperfect surveys and questionaires that are often designed to find exactly what the investigator is looking for. It's extremely difficult to try to ascertain the exact reasoning why someone acts a certain way. Surveys and questionaires are poor attempts at this because people frequently don't answer honestly or don't fully understand the questions asked. They can certainly give you some insight, but I also tend to carry a heavy dose of skepticism for them.

Unfortunately, unlike some studies where both the investigator and participant can be blinded and randomized, that's not the case with these types. This author probably held his conclusions very strongly before collecting his evidence. The trouble with that type of investigation is that you will always find things that support what you want to prove.

It's extremely difficult to try to ascertain the exact reasoning why someone acts a certain way. Surveys and questionarres are poor attempts at this because people frequently don't answer honestly or dont fully understand the questions asked. They can certainly give you some insight, but I tend to be very skeptical of their results.

The part where he chooses to appeal to the worst in all of us. It's a pessimistic, phobic, and hateful outlook, which is what Trump and his voters seem to thrive on and desire. They don't want to look for or see the good in a situation but only choose to see the worst and feed on it. Trump enables that, he's like a mirror that reveals people. Sure there are criminals and rapists in Mexico (just like any other place on the planet), so while there is a semblance of truth in what Trump said, what is false to also say,

"When Mexico sends its people, they are sending their best. They're sending you. They're sending you. They're sending people that help solve problems, and they're solving these problems with us. They're not bringing drugs, they're not criminals nor racists. And some, I assume, are bad people (who are)."

That's also a true statement, the only difference being the glass being half full. What part of Trump's original statement above my reframing justifies it as being more acceptable or truthful? He makes no distinction, it is a lump generalization of people painting the majority of them as detestable, while "some", he assumes, are good people. Who would ever wish to advocate such a mentality? So why do you (or any Trump supporter) endorse that instead of looking on the positive side and giving people a more hopeful outlook instead of a hateful and phobic one?

Yeah, I think the really funny thing is that he's criticizing Hillary for getting votes in certain states, but it's only because Trump got votes in certain states that he won. Further confirming the fact that where you vote determines how much your vote counts for, and that conservatives consistently use that as a cudgel against Democratic voters. If two states with a huge amount of democratic voters give the popular vote to Hillary then it means more voters wanted Hillary to win than Trump, regardless of where they voted. I could just as easily say "well, if you throw out Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, and Alabama then Hillary would have won the electoral college. Just a couple of red states that voted for a Republican candidate, why should we count them?"

I agree with most of this assessment. More people that voted wanted Hillary to win. I just don't like when people say a majority of the country wanted that when most people didn't vote.

They do need to improve the voting system.

@n64dd: as an aussie, trust me when I say your voting system is better than ours. We have to vote or we get a fine. It results in uneducated votes ,donkey votes and people dont care votes so they vote for who ever.

trump won because he was the lesser than 2 evils. He had a great slogan. Hillary sold to the Russians. shes with a guy who cheats and has gone to the notorious pedo island. yeah trump cheats but he isn't a pedo. if she wasn't a woman, it wouldn't be a contest aswell because a lot of her surporters where a loud minority of sjws. he is also different and that scares people. and like @sonicare said the data collection was probably off, where did they do the questionare? and the fact that there saying its because of white Christian males is stupid, there where plenty of blacks, latinos and white women voting for him.

I think ending gerrymandering and streamlining voter registration would be a good thing. Everybody should be able to vote and have it count.

we've had 5 pms in 8 years. Though Im sure its just cause our government is so shit atm. 12 people just got kicked out for not even being aussie.

Considering his whole campaign more or less started off with the whole "rapists, murders, etc from Mexico" thing, and given the type of people that are Trump supporters, this is not surprising.

To be honest, I never really considered the economic factor, it's an argument for both sides. But the race and "status threat" thing is definitely legit. A lot of people still think that America is a white, Christian country, sadly.

1. No, he was not.

2. MAGA? Well, I don't know if it was great or not, but it was certainly some nationalistic bullshit, that's for sure.

3. Did she sell to the Russians? What did she sell. Let's also not forget Trump's Russian ties. As for the pedo thing, WTF are you going on about? So they know a pedophile, a lot of people do. Bill Clinton, by the way, was said to "have been there, but not done anything improper" by the victim pressing the lawsuit against Epstein (the actual pedophile)

4. "Yeah Trump cheats..." that's what we call a double standard, my friend; oh yeah, sure, it's OK to cheat, but to be married to a cheater?! That is inexcusable!" WTF man have some god damn pride in yourself. As for him being a pedo, well, it would not be a large leap for me to believe that he was if anyone came forth. He already is known for "grabbing women by the pussy" and his incestuous attraction to his daughter.

5. "If she wasn't a woman..." damn dude, you are one big-time sexist. Australia really is becoming the next America; racist, down on women, afraid of non-whites, and growing obesity epidemic.

6. No, he isn't different. He is just another rich dude who got so rich he covets the next thing rich people want, and that's power.

7. Meh, maybe, maybe not; "data collection probably off" is an old standby excuse for people to throw out there to cast doubt on shit. It can be true, mind you, but at the same time it could not be true as well. But the fact is someone went to a lot of trouble to write this academic paper and it is worth taking seriously.

She got more votes than trump. Winning the electoral college doesn't mean one was more popular overall. Therefore, it looks like the people hated trump more. Just to clear up your falsehood.

Not everybody in the whole country voted.

I think we can agree we need to amend our voting system?

yes.

ironically doing so would decimate the GOP

trump won because of our ass backwards EC to help the wealthy white men have more of a say than the working man, women, and minorities. And it looks like all your information comes from conservative websites and shills since your reasons are false. How embarrassing that you don't do research.

As for your if she wasn't a woman..............is Australia that sexist or just you?

Yeah and that also means your statement was wrong.

I have been saying we need to get rid of the EC. Until we do then we aren't really electing presidents.

I'll go with my statement is wrong then.

I'm in favor of our original system. Multiple parties run, most votes gets the presidency, 2nd most gets vice presidency. You could have 2 parties in the white house, more checks and balances. Do you like this solution or have your own?

You specifically said, "most of the country" voted for Hilliary, not a majority of people.

And if you look at the states, the fact is that most of the States voted for Trump IE the country, not Hilliary.

There is a reason why Trump is the president and not Hilliary after all.

Another attempt by the left to explain an election loss and ridicule the people who voted for a change in the status quo.

no I think its more like just correcting false claims is all

Topical map!

@kittennose said:

Topical map!

its not complicated

ASSERTION: 'More people voted for Trump then for Hillary'

Correction: 'That is incorrect"

the assertion includes ONLY people who voted, not people who did not vote

IDK if it was your intent but you made it sound as if those on the left are manipulated by emotion rather than fact.

ok..

still doesnt change the answer to the question

QUESTION: 'why does the Left see us a evil'

ANSWER: 'How you say things is disgusting' (doesnt matter if its true or false, doesnt matter if we are snowflakes, doesnt matter if we are disgusting, doesnt matter if we are SJW, doesnt matter if we weak, doesnt matter if we are unable, and in generall all just a bad thing, doesnt matter if we like emotions better than facts)

if you call someone bad...they will not react to you in a positive way so it should not be a shocker why the left things this way of you.

so again...

what

is

the

question?

and while we are at it, can you explain what the difference is between 'mexico sending us people' and 'people from mexico coming over' because N64DD is saying there is a difference and I dont know what he is talking about

and while you are at it, feel free to expand on how 'you' in his statement are not rapists but people 'mexcio send us' are

We would let to north east and the west coast elect the president and the rest of the country would not matter. The country was established as a representative republic not a democracy.