University of Richmond

UR Scholarship Repository

Honors Theses Student Research

2024

Black Lives Matter: Is It Political?

Caroline O. Glaser

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.richmond.edu/honors-theses

Part of the Psychology Commons

Recommended Citation
Glaser, Caroline O., "Black Lives Matter: Is It Political?" (2024). Honors Theses. 1770.
https://scholarship.richmond.edu/honors-theses/1770

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research at UR Scholarship Repository. It
has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For
more information, please contact scholarshiprepository@richmond.edu.
Black Lives Matter: Is It Political?

by

Caroline O. Glaser

Honors Thesis

Submitted to:

Psychology Department
University of Richmond
Richmond, VA

May 3, 2024

Advisor: Dr. Jane Berry

 Abstract

The present research focused on fostering greater support for the Black Lives Matter (BLM)

movement by examining factors that predict support for the movement, and possible mechanisms

implicated in this relationship. The BLM movement was founded in 2013 following the death of

teenager Trayvon Martin, and reached a remarkable height of media attention in the summer of

2020, following the murder of George Floyd. Since then, support for BLM has fluctuated,

becoming a highly politicized movement that has faced much public debate. Our study focused

on factors that predict support for BLM in the current political climate. We collected data from

164 undergraduate students at the University of Richmond in the fall of 2023 and the spring of

2024 through a mixed-methods survey to investigate the relationship between self-reported

political affiliation and support for BLM. In an effort to explain this relationship, this study

hypothesized that participants’ beliefs about the existence of racism would influence the

relationship between political affiliation and support for BLM. These beliefs were assessed by

survey items measuring the state of race relations, systemic racism, white privilege, policing,

equal opportunity to succeed, and anti-white racism. Results suggest that greater political

liberalism, for both social and economic issues, predicted support for BLM, and that beliefs

acknowledging racism partially mediated this relationship. These results shed light on how

support for the BLM movement might advance.

Keywords: Black Lives Matter, political ideology, beliefs, racism, movements

 Introduction

The Black Lives Matter (“BLM”) movement is a grassroots effort which was founded in

2013 following the death of Trayvon Martin and the subsequent acquittal of his killer, George

Zimmerman (Herstory, n.d.). Activists Alicia Garcia, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi, through

BLM, sought to bring awareness to violence against Black Americans, particularly at the hands

of police officers, as well as the broader influences of systemic racism in the United States

(U.S.)(Herstory, n.d.). In the ten years since its founding, BLM has fostered important

conversations, public protests, and heated debates.

In view of the continued violence against Black people in America, BLM quickly gained

momentum, and the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter became widely recognized on social media

platforms as a letter of support. However, public response to the movement has become

increasingly polarized (Horowitz et al., 2023). Its advocates call for increased awareness and

tangible action, while its opponents view the movement as divisive and unnecessary. Support for

and visibility of BLM surged internationally in May 2020, with the murder of George Floyd at

the hands of police officer Derek Chauvin. Demonstrations increased across the country, leading

to revived calls for racial justice in the United States and increased concerns about violence and

police brutality during protests.

The murder of George Floyd revealed that racism in America is clearly alive and well

(Roberts & Rizzo, 2020). At the heart of the reality of racism lie two related questions: What are

the sources of racist views and why do racist views persist even, and especially, now? The

purpose of this paper was to investigate key psychological underpinnings of racism and racial

bias in order to better understand how beliefs are interrelated and how they influence support for

BLM. Why do some people support racial justice movements and others do not? Can one’s
recognition of other social issues explain their support for social justice or lack thereof? Research

is needed to address these pressing questions and to better understand the factors that may

influence support for social justice movements, such as individuals’ beliefs about race relations

in the U.S., systemic racism, white privilege, equal opportunity, policing, or whether White

Americans can experience racism.

Support for racial justice movements requires recognition that there are problems with

race relations in the U.S. Without the understanding that certain groups are marginalized or

disadvantaged on the basis of their racial identity, there is no reason to support a movement that

aims to ameliorate such issues. Thus, one’s perception of social inequality may explain some of

the differences in support for social justice movements such as BLM (Lake et al., 2021). The

more an individual believes that racial discrimination is a problem in the U.S. the greater their

support for BLM. This pattern holds across groups, including Asian Americans (Merseth, 2018),

Latinx Americans (Corral, 2020), and African Americans and White Americans (Wouters, 2019).

Beyond perceiving race relations in the U.S. to be problematic, the extent to which an

individual believes racism occurs at a systemic, rather than an individual, level has proven to be

influential for support for racial justice movements. Ng and Lam (2020) propose that a denial of

systemic racism is a viable explanation for the endurance of racism in the U.S. Relatedly, it

seems plausible that rejecting systemic racism enables Americans to deny their responsibility to

support collective action movements in the fight for social justice. In fact, two studies provide

evidence that denial of systemic racism is inversely related to support for social justice

movements, suggesting that an acknowledgement of racism as systemic motivates individual

support for collective action (Postmes et al., 1999; van Zomeren et al., 2008). Thus, it seems
possible that increasing awareness of how racism is embedded in our social system, rather than

only in individual minds, could foster greater support for collective social justice movements.

People’s general perceptions of race and racism in the U.S. represent a potential source of

support for BLM. Reducing these perceptions into their more specific constituent components

may shed light on how race-related and racist attitudes inform support for racial justice

movements. For example, the ways individuals think about white privilege, equal opportunity to

succeed, differential treatment at the hands of police, and the possible existence of anti-white

racism (so-called “reverse racism,” Peucker, 2023) may lay the foundation for overarching

beliefs about race and racism.

White Privilege

White privilege has been defined as the “inherent advantages possessed by a white person

on the basis of their race in a society characterized by racial inequality and injustice” (Oxford

Languages and Google - English | Oxford Languages, n.d.). However, in the essay, “What is

White Privilege, Really?,” Collins (2018) argues that the term “white privilege” lends itself to

great misunderstanding and, consequently, ignorance. Importantly, white privilege is not the idea

that white people have never suffered, nor does it suggest that white people do not have to work

for their success. It does not imply that white people can’t experience poverty or prejudice.

Instead, Collins frames white privilege as the “power of normal,” “power of the benefit of the

doubt,” and as “power of accumulated power.” In these ways, white privilege refers to the

everyday conveniences that white people don’t have to worry about, like having bandages that

blend into their skin tone. Beyond this, Collins says white privilege is also the fact that white

people are more often presented with positive representations of their racial group, and that they

are less likely to be treated as simply a representation of a negative racial stereotype. Finally,
Collins argues, white privilege cannot exist without the systemic racism embedded in our

country and, in turn, white privilege is what supports this system.

Whether a white person believes they have white privilege and whether they recognize

the ways white privilege is embedded in our social systems may serve as a predictive factor for

their level of support for BLM. White privilege is inextricably linked to systemic racism because

acknowledging that white privilege is enabled by an imbalance of power on the basis of race

relies on an acknowledgement of that power dynamic to begin with. In one study, acknowledging

one’s own white privilege and the advantages it affords actually enhanced participants’ support

for and participation in social justice movements (Radke et al., 2020). Radke asserted that this

occurs because it fosters a greater sense of responsibility for improving the lives of

disadvantaged groups, or those without the same privilege. In another study, awareness of one’s

own white privilege partially mediated the effect of bearing witness to racial discrimination,

suggesting that differing levels of participation in collective social justice efforts are not only

explained by first-hand experiences of racism but also the concurrent acceptance of their racial

privilege (Uluğ & Tropp, 2021). In both studies, importantly, it was not whether individuals

“have” white privilege, but instead, whether they were able to recognize that they do indeed have

such privilege and how it influences their lives that predicted their willingness to participate in

and support social justice movements, such as BLM. The concept of acknowledging one’s white

privilege was adopted in the present research, and used in conjunction with other potential

predictors of support for BLM, including equal opportunity to succeed, racialized police

practices, and anti-white racism. We reasoned that a social system that promotes the pervasive

privilege of one group over another undoubtedly denies the possibility for equal opportunity to

succeed within that system.

 Equal Opportunity

Equal opportunity refers to the ability for someone to succeed in the United States and

recognition of the ways in which racial injustice prevents equal access to this success (Gomberg,

2007, 1). Individuals may be disadvantaged by any social categorization, whether it be

socioeconomic status, age, gender, or race. It seems that those who believe that all individuals

have an equal opportunity to succeed in the U.S. tend to deny the impact of socialized categories

and instead, believe that those who are not successful must not be working hard enough.

Intuitively, individuals who subscribe to this way of thought are likely to be less supportive of

social justice movements, like BLM, because they are unlikely to believe in the very issues such

movements aim to ameliorate. In fact, research shows that those who believe everyone has an

equal opportunity to succeed argue that women and minority groups make lower wages due to a

lack of education or technical skill—not that they are systemically disadvantaged. Importantly,

those who made this argument were less likely to support BLM (Holt, 2018). In contrast,

believing that not everyone has the same opportunities to succeed due to systemically embedded

disadvantages may foster support for social justice movements. Beliefs about equal opportunity

may extend beyond economic and employment opportunities, and influence beliefs about

systems of law enforcement and criminal justice.

Policing

The fight against police brutality toward Black Americans in the U.S. remains one of the

core motivations of the BLM movement. Support for BLM is fundamentally tied to the premise

that police treat people differently based on the color of their skin, and that this racialized

treatment includes actions such as greater use of force, excessive traffic stops, disproportionate

punishment for the same crimes, and racially motivated criminalization of certain crimes in
people of color versus white people (Brunson, 2007). The extant literature on policing and

BLM is fairly consistent in demonstrating an inverse relationship between support for the police

and support for BLM. One study found that viewing police misconduct as an infrequent issue

was one of the greatest predictors of lack of support for BLM, although this study’s items

regarding police misconduct did not explicitly assess misconduct in terms of racial bias (Ilchi &

Frank, 2021). Other research measured perceptions of racialized and differential treatment of

Black people at the hands of police directly to support for BLM (Updegrove et al., 2020).

Updegrove et al. concluded that those who rated police as likely to treat Black Americans less

fairly than White Americans were up to 70% less likely to oppose BLM than those who said

police treat Black and White Americans equally fairly. A third study further demonstrated the

relationship between differential treatment at the hands of police and support for BLM, finding

that participants who rated police–community relations as positive (or not problematic),

measured by items such as “Treating individuals of different racial and ethnic groups equally,”

showed greater support for BLM and BLM demonstrators (Wouters, 2019). Thus, the extant

literature provides compelling evidence for a negative relationship between support for police

and support for BLM, particularly as support for police relates to believing that police officers

treat all people equally, regardless of race (Ilchi & Frank, 2021; Updegrove et al., 2020; Wouters,

2019). Within the context of the potentially racially biased use of force at the hands of police, an

examination of who can and cannot experience racism is also critical to understanding the

complexities underlying perceptions of racial justice in America.

Anti-White Racism

The belief that white people can or cannot experience racism relies on an understanding

of the nuances that separate discrimination, prejudice, and racism. Discrimination “refers to the
unjust treatment of persons based on perceived, categorical differences,” thus corresponding to

interpersonal behaviors (Fish & Syed, 2020, 3). Prejudice “refers to preconceived,

unsubstantiated opinions of persons based on perceived categorical differences,” (Fish & Syed,

2020, 3) and therefore corresponds more to beliefs. Racism, on the other hand, relies on and

motivates racial hierarchies and their resulting power dynamics (Fish & Syed, 2020).

Considering these three constructs, White Americans can certainly experience discrimination and

prejudice on the basis of race, for example, if someone explicitly chose not to hire them due to

their being white or assumed they were less capable as a result of their being white, respectively.

However, recognizing that whiteness is the dominant racial category in the U.S., White

Americans cannot experience racism grounded in social and political hierarchies, at least

according to the view of racism proffered by Fish and Syed.

Perceptions of race relations, belief in systemic racism, white privilege, equal

opportunity, policing, and anti-white racism, are likely predictors of support for BLM, largely

because they relate to one’s beliefs about race in America. One powerful potential predictor

missing from this group of variables is political beliefs. Although political beliefs do not

necessarily nor inherently include attitudes towards race or racism, support for BLM has been

shown to consistently skew along partisan lines (Arora & Stout, 2019). This paper sought to

identify the potentially political nature of support for BLM by measuring participants’ political

affiliations and their support for BLM, and the beliefs and attitudes about race and racism that

they hold, that may mediate this relationship.

Political Affiliation

Political support for BLM falls clearly along party lines. Democratic party alignment is

positively correlated with support for BLM, while Republican party alignment is negatively
correlated with support for BLM (Arora & Stout, 2019). More recently, Horowitz et al. (2023)

reported that 84% of Americans who lean Democrat expressed support for BLM in 2023, and

82% of those who lean Republican expressed opposition to the movement. Taken together, these

studies suggest that political affiliation and support for BLM are linked in ways that require

further investigation. In this study, we characterize political affiliation as political conservatism

and political liberalism as opposed to Republican or Democrat for the following reasons. First,

the aims of this study are geared less towards voting behavior and more towards political

ideologies. Erikson and Tedin (2003) define political ideology as a “set of beliefs about the

proper order of society and how it can be achieved.” To that end, political ideology has remained

historically constant, while the sorting of ideological camps into political parties of Democrat

and Republican has fluctuated over time, as seen in the highly conservative southern Democrats

in the early to mid 1900s (Levendusky, 2010). Further, though much extant literature uses party

affiliation as a measure of political beliefs, the notably increasing hostility between Democrats

and Republicans (Abramowitz & Saunders, 2008) suggests that political ideology may be less

divisive or isolating than party affiliation, allowing participants to more accurately report their

political leanings without fear of judgment (Nadeem, 2022).

Beyond our casting of political ideologies as the measure of political affiliation, we also

separated political ideology into social and economic liberalism and conservatism. Individuals

often report that they lean conservative on some political issues (e.g., a balanced budget) and

liberal on others (e.g., women’s rights to reproductive choice). This divergence is typically

expressed between social and economic issues, hence the popular identity as “socially liberal”

yet “fiscally conservative,” for example. With the understanding that participants may rate their

levels of political conservatism or liberalism differently when presented with various political
topics, the measure of political affiliation in this study used two different items, one for social

issues and one for economic issues, to allow participants the opportunity to express differing

levels of endorsement along social and economic issues.

The overarching purpose of this paper was to assess whether political conservatism or

liberalism is related to acceptance or perceptions of race relations, systemic racism, white

privilege, equal opportunity, policing, and anti-white racism, and ultimately, support for the

BLM movement. Two hypotheses were tested:

H1: Liberal political affiliation will be positively related to support for BLM.

H2: Beliefs that acknowledge the existence of racism will mediate the relationship

between political affiliation and support for BLM.

Method

This research and its procedures were approved by the University of Richmond’s

Institutional Review Board, in alignment with the ethical standards for human subjects testing.

Participants

This research focused on perceptions of race relations and BLM among college-age

students on the University of Richmond’s campus in Richmond, Virginia. Responses were

collected from students on campus in the fall of 2023 and the spring of 2024. These students

were initially recruited from an introductory psychology course (PSYC100) as one opportunity

to fulfill a research requirement for the course. We also recruited student participants more

widely from disciplines beyond psychology by posting fliers around campus. All participants

were registered through the SONA platform and were offered the same time slots each week.

Participants who took the survey outside of the PSYC100 pool were compensated with $20.00 in

cash following the completion of the survey.

 The final sample for this study comprised 164 participants, with 56 participants taking the

survey in the fall of 2023 and 108 taking the survey in the spring of 2024. Of these, 106 were

from the PSYC100 pool, and 58 were rapid participants. The age of participants in the sample

ranged from 18 to 23 years with an average age of 19.57 years. 72% of the sample self-identified

as a woman, 24.4% self-identified as a man, 1.8% self-identified as non-binary, 0.6%

self-identified as gender fluid, 0.6% self-identified as gender queer, and 0.6% preferred not to

give a gender identity. In terms of racial and ethnic breakdown, 70.1% self-identified as

European–American, White, Anglo, or Caucasian, 12.2% self-identified as Hispanic, Latino(a,x),

Chicano(a.x), or Spanish origin, 9.8% self-identified as African-American, Black, African, or

Caribbean, 8.5% self-identified as East Asian-American or East Asian, 6.7% self-identified as

Middle Eastern or North African, 5.5% self-identified as South Asian-American or South Asian,

1.8% self-identified as Southeast Asian, 0.6% self-identified as Native American or American

Indian, 0.6% self-identified as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and 1.2% preferred not to

identify. When asked to describe their hometown, 70.1% reported living in a suburban area,

22.6% reported living in an urban area, and 7.3% reported living in a rural area.

Materials

All participants took an online, self-report survey in person on a computer in a research

lab in the Psychology Department. The survey was programmed and administered in Qualtrics

CoreXM. Completion of the survey took between 45 and 60 minutes for most participants, and a

research assistant sat in the room to monitor. Participants’ personal belongings were kept outside

of the testing room, excluding a water bottle if they chose to have one. When participants were

seated, the research assistant briefly reviewed the information on the consent form including the

purpose of the study, the anticipated duration, the confidentiality statement, and a note that if
they should have any questions during the survey they may ask, or if they had any questions after

the survey, the researcher would provide the faculty research mentor’s email contact information.

Participants were then instructed to read through the consent form on their own and then

continue on to the survey.

There were 74 total questions on the survey that were worded using quantitative and

qualitative response formats. Most of the quantitative questions employed a 1-7 or 1-10 Likert

scale, or a Yes/No option. Some of the quantitative questions were followed by a qualitative

question of the form “Explain why or why not.” These qualitative questions provided an

opportunity for participants to explain or expand upon a quantitative rating they had just

previously given. Other qualitative questions were not linked to quantitative items and several

asked participants to define certain terms, such as white privilege. When the participant was

finished, the researcher debriefed them by reviewing the purpose of the study and emphasizing

the confidentiality of their responses, then asked whether they had any questions at that time.

After responding to any questions, the researcher thanked the participant for coming in, and

either paid them or had them scan a QR code to receive full PYSC100 credit, and then showed

them out of the lab.

Previous iterations

This research project began in 2020 when the faculty mentor for my study, Dr. Jane

Berry, sought to investigate age and race differences in attitudes towards the Black Lives Matter

movement in the broader Richmond, Virginia community. A questionnaire was developed by Dr.

Berry and her research students at the time, including both newly-created and published

questionnaire items. Young, middle-aged, and older adults were recruited to complete the survey.

Over subsequent semesters and with new student researchers, the survey expanded and
subsequent iterations were released and tested over the next few years among both adults in the

Richmond, Virginia community, as well as students on the University of Richmond’s campus. In

the fall of 2023, this survey was reviewed and updated by Dr. Berry and her lab for its fifth

iteration of data collection. This version of the survey focused more exclusively on the student

population at the University of Richmond in an attempt to more clearly understand the range of

attitudes towards BLM in this population. New items have been included in each iteration. Much

of the current survey includes items that were written for and included in the original study.

Measures

Support for BLM was measured by one item worded as “On the following scale, please

rate your support or non-support for BLM by selecting a number where 1 = ‘I do not support

BLM’ to 10 = ‘I do support BLM.” Following this rating, participants were given the opportunity

to explain their response by typing in a text box with the label, “Please briefly explain your

answer.” All qualitative items, like this one, followed the same format and wording.

Perceptions of race relations in the U.S. were measured by four items with the following

response format: “Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the statements below,

where 1 = ‘I strongly disagree’ and 10 = ‘I strongly agree.’” For this study, one item from this

section was selected for analysis, “There are very few problems with race relations in the United

States,” and participants selected a response option on the aforementioned 1 to 10 scale.

Participants’ beliefs about systemic racism were identified using a single measure with a

corresponding qualitative response option. The quantitative item was worded as, “To what extent

do you believe in systemic racism?” and participants chose from a 7-point scale which was

labeled from left to right as “Strongly deny,” “Moderately deny,” “Mildly deny,” “Neither deny

nor believe,” “Mildly believe,” “Moderately believe,” and “Strongly believe.”

 Participants’ understanding of white privilege was measured in two ways for the purposes

of this paper. First, participants were given a definition of white privilege, which was as follows:

“White privilege is defined as the inherent advantages possessed by a white person on the basis

of their race in a society characterized by racial inequality and injustice” (Nakintu, 2021).

Participants were told to use the definition to answer the subsequent questions. One of these

questions is of particular interest for this paper, which was worded as “Please indicate the extent

to which you believe white privilege exists.” Participants responded on a 10-point response scale

ranging from 1 (“It doesn’t exist at all”) to 10 (“It exists everywhere”). Second, in an effort to

examine participants’ understanding of white privilege on a systemic level rather than just an

individual level, participants were given the directions to “Please indicate the extent to which

you agree or disagree with the statements below,” followed by four items from Pinterits and

colleagues (2009)’s The White Privilege Attitudes Scale (WPAS). For this study, one item from

this section was selected for analysis, “Our social structure system promotes white privilege.”

Participants responded on a 7-point response scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 7

(“Strongly agree”).

Participants' attitudes towards policing were measured by nine Likert-scaled items

ranging from 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly agree”), each with a corresponding

qualitative response option. Participants saw the instructions “Please rate the extent to which you

agree or disagree with the following statements.” For this study, one item from this section was

selected for analysis, “Police treat people differently based on the color of their skin,” which

participants responded to on a 7-point scale from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree.”

Participants’ perceptions of opportunity to succeed in the U.S. were measured by a single

item which was worded as follows: “Do you believe that everybody has an equal opportunity to
succeed in the US? Please rate your belief on the following scale where 0 = ‘No, not everybody

has an equal opportunity to succeed’ to 5 = ‘Yes, everybody has an equal opportunity to

succeed.’” This item was followed by a qualitative response option.

Participants’ thoughts about whether White Americans are able to experience racism was

measured by a single item, worded as “Can white people in America experience racism?”

Participants responded by selecting either “No” or “Yes,” followed by a qualitative response

option.

Participants’ political beliefs were evaluated by two related items in order to investigate

potential differences comprising economic versus social political affiliations. These two items

were worded, respectively, as “Please rate your political affiliation on the following scale with

regard to economic issues” and “Please rate your political affiliation on the following scale with

regard to social issues.” Participants responded to each item on a 7-point scale, ranging from

“Strongly conservative,” to “Moderately conservative,” to “Mildly conservative,” to “Neither

conservative nor liberal,” to “Mildly liberal,” to “Moderately liberal,” to “Strongly liberal.”

Importantly, and as discussed above, these two items asked participants to reflect on their

political ideological affiliation, rather than their party affiliation.

To summarize, the seven items described above—perceptions of race relations problems,

belief in systemic racism, existence of white privilege, systemic white privilege, equal

opportunity, policing, and anti-white racism—were composited into a single measure that we

labeled, “Beliefs Acknowledging Race and Racism” (BARR). This measure represents the extent

to which one acknowledges or recognizes the systemic influences of racism in the U.S. and how

this system advantages some over others on the basis of race. For BARR, higher scores indicate a

greater recognition of the systemic influences of racism and its impact.

 Results

All of the analyses were run on SPSS 29.0.1.0. The path analyses were run using the

Hayes (2022) PROCESS Model 4 (version 4.0) with 95% confidence intervals, determined from

5,000 bootstrap samples. Each of the seven items were rescaled from their original metrics (e.g.,

1-7) to 0 to 100, in order to combine them into a single measure (BARR). Accordingly, BARR is

reported on a scale from 0 to 100. The other three items—economic political affiliation, social

political affiliation, and support for BLM—were also rescaled from 1 to 10 to 0 to 100 for ease

of comparison across items.

Correlations were calculated to examine inter-relationships between political affiliation,

support for BLM, and conceptualizations of race relations in the U.S., systemic racism, white

privilege, equal opportunity, policing, and anti-white racism (see Table 1). Almost all of the

correlations were significant. Importantly, both economic and social political affiliation were

positively correlated with support for BLM, r = .53 (economic) and r = .50 (social), both p <

0.01. These results support Hypothesis 1, which stated that the more liberal an individual

reported themselves to be, the greater their support for BLM. Interestingly, economic and social

political affiliation were significantly correlated, r = .61, p < 0.01. While this correlation is quite

high, it is not 1.00, suggesting that these two items measure something related, but not identical.

Reliability analyses were conducted to assess the internal consistency of the seven items

that were composited for BARR. These analyses produced a Cronbach’s alpha of .78,

demonstrating high internal consistency between the items. A principal components analysis of

the seven items yielded one factor, further justifying our composite of the items into a single

construct, BARR. The factor loadings are presented in Figure 1, on the paths from each item to
BARR. Together, the reliability analysis and the factor analysis indicate that these seven items

can be reliably composited into a single measure, BARR.

Path analyses were conducted to test the hypothesized mediation model using the Hayes

(2022) PROCESS Model 4 (version 4.0). Additionally, two separate hierarchical regression

analyses were performed, one with economic political affiliation as predictor variable and one

with social political affiliation as predictor variable, and with BARR as the mediator, and support

for BLM as the outcome variable. These two models are presented as a combined model in

Figure 1, though these are visual, nonstatistical model comparisons. The analyses of both models

revealed support for Hypothesis 2, described below.

The indirect effect of economic political affiliation on support for BLM through BARR

was significant, 𝜷 = .22, LLCI = .1338, ULCI = .3117. The initial direct effect of economic

political affiliation on support for BLM was significant, 𝜷 = .50, t = 7.37, p < .001, LLCI =

.3188, ULCI = .5524. The final direct effect of economic political affiliation on support for BLM

was also significant, 𝜷 = .28, t = 3.99, p < .001, LLCI = .1209, ULCI = .3580, indicating support

for a partial, but not full, mediation effect. Overall, 40% of the variance in support for BLM was

explained by the model. This model is presented in Figure 2.

The indirect effect of social political affiliation on support for BLM through BARR was

significant, 𝜷 = .26, LLCI = .1558, ULCI = .3822. The initial direct effect of social political

affiliation on support for BLM was significant, 𝜷 = .53, t = 7.95, p < .001, LLCI = .3812, ULCI =

.6331. The final direct effect of social political affiliation on support for BLM was also

significant, 𝜷 = .27, t = 3.35, p < .001, LLCI = .1051, ULCI = .4068, indicating support for a

partial, but not full, mediation effect. Overall, 38% of the variance in support for BLM was

explained by the model. This model is presented in Figure 3.

 Discussion

The data provide clear support for the hypotheses, specifically, (H1) political liberalism

predicted support for BLM and (H2) beliefs acknowledging racism partially mediated the

relationship between political affiliation and support for BLM. Further, these results held for

both economic and social political affiliation models. Hypothesis 1 was supported such that the

more liberal a person is for both economic and social issues, the greater their support for BLM

and, vice versa, the more conservative a person is for both economic and social issues, the lesser

their support for BLM. Hypothesis 2 was supported such that economic liberals were more likely

to support BLM than economic conservatives, and this relationship was partially mediated by

BARR, and social liberals were more likely to support BLM than social conservatives, and this

relationship was also partially mediated by BARR.

The results for Hypothesis 1 replicate existing findings, such that generally liberal

political views are related to greater support for BLM, though current work on BLM tends to

employ political parties (e.g., Democrat) rather than ideology (e.g., liberalism) (Arora & Stout,

2019). With regard to social movements overall, though, McCright and Dunlap (2008) found that

both political liberalism and identification with the Democratic party predicted greater support

for social justice movements, of which the BLM movement is one. In this way, political

ideologies are less often examined than political parties, though one study provides evidence for

a relationship between political conservatism and support for anti-BLM social media messages

(Muldrow & Shearman, 2024).

Given statistical support for Hypothesis 1, we proceeded to test the second hypothesis,

meant to elucidate the potential mechanism or mechanisms driving the relationship between

political affiliation and support for BLM. Hypothesis 2 was supported: Beliefs that acknowledge
race and racism in America, including evaluations of race relations problems, belief in systemic

racism, the existence of white privilege, the systemic support of white privilege, equal

opportunity to succeed, policing, and anti-white racism were shown to partially mediated the

relation between political ideology and BLM support. These results make a novel contribution to

the literature, though other studies have suggested similar mechanisms. For example, Barker and

colleagues (2021) found that differences in liberal-conservative ideological values influenced

perceptions of the legitimacy of social protests, such that ideological conservatism was

negatively associated with levels of protest legitimacy.

Our two models each explained around 40% of the variance in support for BLM. The

study by Barker and colleagues (2021) points to other psychological factors that may help to

explain additional variance in BLM support. For instance, social dominance orientation has been

shown to not only mediate the relationship between intergroup contact and support for social

justice movements, such as BLM (Meleady & Vermue, 2019), but to also map onto political

ideology (Barker et al., 2021). Further, Miller and colleagues (2021) suggest that “lay

conceptualizations of racism” underlie support or non-support for BLM in particular, proposing

that the more one views racism as occurring on an individual, rather than systemic, level, the less

likely they are to support BLM. Taken together, these studies offer insight into the different types

of social and psychological factors that may promote or undermine support for social and racial

justice movements and, in this way, bolster the findings of the present study and encourage

future directions in this area.

Limitations

There were some limitations to this study. First, the results are limited by the lack of

racial diversity of its sample. With a 70.1% white sample, we were unable to analyze whether
race of participant influenced our results. A more diverse sample would have strengthened the

generalizability of our results. Although our sample is representative of the University of

Richmond’s campus and its predominantly white study body, the conclusions drawn from this

study are limited to populations similar to the University of Richmond, which is categorized as

both a PWI and a selective liberal arts college (SLAC).

Additionally, a more expansive measure of political affiliation may provide insight into

more subtle differences in political attitudes across various social and economic issues. For

example, future iterations of this study could provide examples of each type of issue and ask

participants to rate their political ideology for that issue with the option to respond qualitatively

to each. By extending the questions aimed at political affiliation, our study may be able to grasp

a more nuanced understanding of how political beliefs map differently onto different issues.

Future Directions

Future work in this research must seek to uncover the roots of political beliefs. The extant

literature has pointed in several directions to do just that, although it's possible the development

of political beliefs may vary greatly as a result of individual differences in family background,

educational experiences, and regional backgrounds. For example, the family unit may be

responsible for building the foundation of political beliefs, with political values being transmitted

from parent to child ​(Jennings & Niemi, 1968). Alternatively, it is possible that one’s political

identity is shaped by their geographical location such that two individuals of the same political

affiliation from different geographical places may actually disagree on the same issue (Feinberg

et al., 2017). Beyond family and location, Barker-Plummer (1995) proposes that news is a

“political resource” that, by portraying social movements in a certain light, deeply impacts public

opinions and stances on that movement. In a way, these findings may suggest that the media
portrayal of political parties, officials, and actions may influence how individual members of the

public choose to politically identify. Moreover, some work has even suggested that strengthened

partisan identity is able to shift individuals’ political beliefs and views on certain issues (Gerber

et al., 2010). By investigating these various avenues along which political affiliation may be

formed, this line of research could reveal the underlying causes of politicized support for racial

justice movements, like BLM.

Conclusion

The ultimate goal of this work is to produce evidence-based support for racial justice

movements. At its core, racial justice does not require political debate, echoing the sentiment

shared at the height of media attention on BLM in 2020, “it’s not political” (Zagoria, 2020).

Nonetheless, as the results from this study show, BLM has been made to be political, with its

support and opposition falling well along partisan lines. By examining the foundation of political

beliefs, this line of research could help to disentangle politics from racial justice and potentially

inform methods of fostering greater support for racial justice movements, regardless of political

ideology.
 Tables and Figures

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for items used in analyses.

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Support for BLM 81.64 23.37 1

2. Political Affiliation (economic) 52.64 26.88 .50** 1

3. Political Affiliation (social) 71.04 24.41 .53** .61** 1

4. Race Relations 84.21 18.09 .24** .19* .30** 1

5. Systemic Racism 81.30 23.12 .45** .28** .52** .28** 1

6. White Privilege (exists) 78.52 23.36 .60** .39** .63** .41** .59** 1

7. White Privilege (systemic) 72.87 22.55 .61** .45** .60** .44** .62** .75** 1

8. Police Differential Treatment 74.13 21.92 .40** .39** .46** .33** .47** .61** .60** 1

9. Anti-White Racism 37.20 48.48 .30** .32** .28** .15 .22** .31** .34** .278** 1

10. Equal Opportunity 74.88 27.55 .33** .36** .43** .52** .37** .39** .43** .42** .27** 1

11. BARR 71.87 18.35 .58** .49** .63** .57** .68** .78** .81** .71** .66** .68** 1

Note. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Figure 1
Combined path analysis depicting effects of economic and social political affiliation and beliefs about race on support for BLM.

Note: these are nonstatistical model comparisons.

Figure 2
Path analysis depicting effects of economic political affiliation and beliefs about race on support for BLM.
Figure 3
Path analysis depicting effects of social political affiliation and beliefs about race on support for BLM.
 References

Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2008). Is polarization a myth? The Journal of

Politics, 70(2), 542–555. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381608080493

Arora, M., & Stout, C. T. (2019). Letters for Black lives: Co-ethnic mobilization and support

for the Black Lives Matter movement. Political Research Quarterly, 72(2), 389–402.

Barker, D., Nalder, K., & Newham, J. (2021). Clarifying the ideological asymmetry in

public attitudes toward political protest. American Politics Research, 49(2), 157–170.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X20975329

Barker‐Plummer, B. (1995). News as a political resource: Media strategies and political

identity in the U. S. women’s movement, 1966–1975. Critical Studies in Mass

Communication, 12(3), 306–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295039509366939

Brunson, R. K. (2007). “Police don’t like Black people”: African-American young men’s

accumulated police experiences. Criminology & Public Policy, 6(1), 71–101.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2007.00423.x

Collins, C. (2018). What is white privilege, really? Learning For Justice, 60.

Corral, Á. J. (2020). Allies, antagonists, or ambivalent? Exploring Latino attitudes about the

Black Lives Matter movement. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 42(4),

431–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986320949540

Erikson, R. S., & Tedin, K. L. (2001). American public opinion: Its origins, content, and

impact (6th ed). Longman.

Feinberg, M., Tullett, A. M., Mensch, Z., Hart, W., & Gottlieb, S. (2017). The political

reference point: How geography shapes political identity. PLOS ONE, 12(2), e0171497.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171497
Fish, J., & Syed, M. (2020). Racism, discrimination, and prejudice. In The Encyclopedia of

Child and Adolescent Development (pp. 1–12). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119171492.wecad464

Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., & Washington, E. (2010). Party affiliation, partisanship, and

political beliefs: A field experiment. American Political Science Review, 104(4),

720–744. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055410000407

Gomberg, P. (2007). How to make opportunity equal: Race and contributive justice.

Blackwell Pub.

Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process

analysis: A regression-based approach (Third edition). The Guilford Press.

Herstory. (n.d.). Black Lives Matter. Retrieved December 21, 2023, from

https://blacklivesmatter.com/herstory/

Holt, L. F. (2018). Using the elaboration likelihood model to explain to whom “#Black

Lives Matter”...and to whom it does not. Journalism Practice, 12(2), 146–161.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2017.1370974

Horowitz, J. M., Hurst, K., & Braga, D. (2023). Support for the Black Lives Matter

movement has dropped considerably from its peak in 2020.

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/06/14/support-for-the-black-lives-matt

er-movement-has-dropped-considerably-from-its-peak-in-2020/

Ilchi, O. S., & Frank, J. (2021). Supporting the message, not the messenger: The correlates

of attitudes towards Black Lives Matter. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 46(2),

377–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09561-1
Jennings, M. K., & Niemi, R. G. (1968). The transmission of political values from parent to

child. American Political Science Review, 62(1), 169–184.

https://doi.org/10.2307/1953332

Lake, J. S., Alston, A. T., & Kahn, K. B. (2021). How social networking use and beliefs

about inequality affect engagement with racial justice movements. Race and Justice,

11(4), 500–519. https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368718809833

Levendusky, M. (2010). The partisan sort: How liberals became Democrats and

conservatives became Republicans. University of Chicago Press.

McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2008). The nature and social bases of progressive social

movement ideology: Examining public opinion toward social movements. Sociological

Quarterly, 49(4), 825–848. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2008.00137.x

Meleady, R., & Vermue, M. (2019). The effect of intergroup contact on solidarity-based

collective action is mediated by reductions in SDO. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 49(5), 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12586

Merseth, J. L. (2018). Race-ing solidarity: Asian Americans and support for Black Lives

Matter. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 6(3), 337–356.

https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2018.1494015

Miller, S. S., O’Dea, C. J., & Saucier, D. A. (2021). “I can’t breathe”: Lay

conceptualizations of racism predict support for Black Lives Matter. Personality and

Individual Differences, 173, 110625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110625

Muldrow, A. F., & Shearman, S. M. (2024). How political identification and individual

differences influence Black Lives Matter message reactions. Howard Journal of

Communications, 0(0), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10646175.2024.2306823

Nadeem, R. (2022). As partisan hostility grows, signs of frustration with the two-party

system. Pew Research Center.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/08/09/as-partisan-hostility-grows-signs-of-fr

ustration-with-the-two-party-system/

Nakintu, S. (2021). Diversity, Equity and Inclusion: Key Terms and Definitions | National

Association of Counties.

https://www.naco.org/resources/featured/key-terms-definitions-diversity-equity-inclusio

Ng, E. S., & Lam, A. (2020). Black Lives Matter: On the denial of systemic racism, White

liberals, and polite racism. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal,

39(7), 729–739. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-09-2020-297

Oxford Languages and Google—English | Oxford Languages. (n.d.). Retrieved December

21, 2023, from https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/

Peucker, M. (2023). What is ‘reverse racism’ – and what’s wrong with the term? The

Conversation.

http://theconversation.com/what-is-reverse-racism-and-whats-wrong-with-the-term-208

009

Pinterits, E. J., Poteat, V. P., & Spanierman, L. B. (2009). The White Privilege Attitudes

Scale: Development and initial validation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(3),

417–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016274

Postmes, T., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., & Young, H. (1999). Comparative processes in

personal and group judgments: Resolving the discrepancy. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 76(2), 320–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.2.320

Radke, H. R. M., Kutlaca, M., Siem, B., Wright, S. C., & Becker, J. C. (2020). Beyond

allyship: Motivations for advantaged group members to engage in action for

disadvantaged groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24(4), 291–315.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868320918698

Roberts, S. O., & Rizzo, M. T. (2021). The psychology of American racism. American

Psychologist, 76(3), 475–487. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000642

Uluğ, Ö. M., & Tropp, L. R. (2021). Witnessing racial discrimination shapes collective

action for racial justice: Enhancing awareness of privilege among advantaged groups.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 51(3), 248–261.

https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12731

Updegrove, A. H., Cooper, M. N., Orrick, E. A., & Piquero, A. R. (2020). Red states and

Black lives: Applying the racial threat hypothesis to the Black Lives Matter movement.

Justice Quarterly, 37(1), 85–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2018.1516797

van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity

model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three

socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 504–535.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504

Wouters, R. (2019). The persuasive power of protest: How protest wins public support.

Social Forces, 98(1), 403–426.

Zagoria, A. (2020). Duke’s Coach K Says ‘Black Lives Matter’ is ‘not a political statement;

it’s a human rights statement.’ Forbes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamzagoria/2020/06/27/dukes-coach-k-says-black-lives-

matter-is-not-a-political-statement-its-a-human-rights-statement/?sh=14982acb2188