Strong support for Trump linked to willingness to persecute immigrants

Authored by newscientist.com and submitted by mvea
image for Strong support for Trump linked to willingness to persecute immigrants

Fusion is a feeling of “oneness” with someone NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images

In the years since Donald Trump took ofice as President of the United States, he has often used incendiary language when discussing immigrants, Muslims and various other groups. Hate crimes have been on the rise in the US since 2015, and a recent review by ABC News found Trump has been invoked in at least 36 criminal cases of violent acts, threats or allegations of assault.

But it has been difficult to quantify the extent to which his language has really inspired or triggered such crimes. Now a study has found that people who strongly identify with Trump say they are more willing to commit violence against immigrants.

When you identify with a person’s values and views, you usually still consider these as separate from yourself, says Jonas Kunst at the University of Oslo in Norway. “But when you experience what we call fusion, the boundaries overlap like a Venn diagram, and you can lose your sense of self a bit.”

Fusion is a visceral feeling of oneness. Kunst and his colleagues found that this type of identification may play into hate crimes. They ran seven studies among white Americans, each with hundreds of respondents.

Kunst says the team chose this group to study because white Americans commit about half of all hate crimes annually in the US. To find people who strongly identify with Trump, they specifically studied white people affiliated with the Republican party, who account for the majority of Trump’s supporters, he says. Four independent researchers told New Scientist the study is robust enough to trust the findings.

The team first asked people how much they identified with Trump, using a common psychological measure for identity fusion. Then they asked questions about which behaviours these people would be willing to engage in.

In one scenario, respondents were told to imagine that a law had been passed outlawing Islamic cultural organisations, and then asked how likely they would be to report members of such organisations to the police, support the use of physical force to find them, and even personally use physical force to track down and detain them.

People whose identities were more fused with Trump were more likely to say they were willing to commit violence in these scenarios.

In similarly designed surveys, Kunst and his team found that those fused with Trump were also more willing to persecute Iranians and immigrants. This fusion was measured by asking people to rank how strongly they agreed with several statements, including “I am one with Donald Trump”.

By studying surveys from before the 2016 election, and from after Trump’s ban on Muslims entering the US from seven Middle East countries was put in place in 2017, Kunst and his colleagues found that it was possible to predict whose identity was most likely to become fused with that of Trump after he was elected: those who were more willing to persecute immigrants before the election.

“The authors have provided compelling evidence of what many have suspected for some time: for Trump supporters, antipathy toward some of the favourite targets of his antipathy – immigrants, Muslims and Iranians – is deeply personal,” says Bill Swann at the University of Texas at Austin. “That is, those whose personal selves were deeply aligned or ‘fused’ with Trump felt emboldened to assault members of groups that Trump has vilified.”

“It’s important to be clear that it is not identification per se which produces anti-social behaviour,” says Stephen Reicher at the University of St Andrews in the UK. “For instance, identification with the civil rights movement in the 1960s led to remarkably pacific responses even in the face of extreme provocation.”

The effect of this fusion is not, therefore, to become more or less rational, or more or less moral, Reicher says. It’s a shift in the nature of the self and the reasoning a person bases their actions upon. In this case, those who have fused with Trump seem to be emboldened to persecute others based on ideals they held before Trump was elected.

Fusion with political leaders can happen across the political spectrum, though the outcomes may differ. “During the times of Obama, I’d say we may have found similar degrees of fusion, maybe higher because it’s more normative to be fused to Obama than Trump,” says Kunst.

Becoming one with a leader means implementing his or her perspectives or values and being willing to enforce them. “That’s where Trump and Obama are different. I would expect that someone more fused with Obama would engage with the more prosocial goals that he identified.”

captnmr on September 6th, 2019 at 17:15 UTC »

I'm struggling to find if they are implying correlation or causation. Do people who are more willing to commit violence support Trump or do Trump supporter become more willing to commit violence? Is it violence in general or specifically towards immigrants? Do they support Trump by virtue of being long-time republican (And supported Bush, McCain, Romney, Trump) or did Trump's message turn them into new supporters?

I also couldn't find the quantification of "more". Is it 1% more? 20% more? If it's 20% more, are we talking about about relative percentage or percentage points? So a 20% increase from 0.001% is not very significant.

I wish the study was linked so I could answer some of these questions myself. I'm particularly interested to know if Trump's presidency causes people to rationalize their violent behavior and validate the use of violence. Does the president serve as a role-model to people already susceptible to commit violence and is it sufficient to push them from thoughts to action?

I'm always wary of scientific claims to discredit a political opponent and hold these studies to a high standard and burden of proof.

NeuroDocPhD on September 6th, 2019 at 15:46 UTC »

EDIT: Through the good work of u/shiruken, u/laughatlivedragons, and u/c_cragg we have a better understanding of the FBI data (spoiler: it's not great). I'll keep my comment below because it's a good record of this process. Please read the comment by u/shiruken (https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/d0gsx6/strong_support_for_trump_linked_to_willingness_to/ez9mqqg/), that by u/laughatlivedragons (https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/d0gsx6/strong_support_for_trump_linked_to_willingness_to/eza5ro8/) and that by u/c_cragg (https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/d0gsx6/strong_support_for_trump_linked_to_willingness_to/eza6yxl/). My response to u/c_cragg should be read too: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/d0gsx6/strong_support_for_trump_linked_to_willingness_to/ezacvk8/

Comment below

I haven't read all the article but here's something from the introduction: "Although Trump also has supporters among racial minority groups, white Americans by far constitute his main group of supporters [36]. Moreover, white Americans commit about half of all hate crimes annually in the United States [37] — a type of behaviour that comes close to the one we aimed to understand in the present research."

Here's the link for Reference 36: https://www.people-press.org/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/.

EDIT: u/shiruken pointed out an error in my interpretation of [36]. I deleted my comments about 36 (my error is in her/his comment) but left the direct link to [36].

[One] issue with the authors' statement. First, here's [37]: https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2017/tables/table-5.xls

Without getting into the accuracy of FBI classifications of hate crimes, "about half" of hate crimes being committed by white Americans is only true if you add white + all unknown race of perpetrator together ((3228 + 1132) / 8437 = 51.68%). If you just go with known perpetrator's race (total crimes - unknown race = 8437 - 1132 = 7305), white Americans perform 44.19% of hate crimes (could be "about half" but that's being a little sloppy). This, however, includes Hispanic and Latino white Americans in the numbers. The exact number of white non-Hispanic Americans who perform hate crimes (recorded by the FBI) is not calculable from those data. In any case, the best estimate (basing only on totals with known race of perpetrators) is that 44.19% of hate crimes are performed by white Americans.

EDIT: u/laughatlivedragons likely found the source for the author's statistic (see the comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/d0gsx6/strong_support_for_trump_linked_to_willingness_to/eza5ro8/). It looks like their reference was incorrect but their statement correct. The rest of my comment stands in that the authors using this 50% of hate crimes committed by white Americans isn't great rationale given demographics of the country (see below).

White alone (not Hispanic or Latino) individuals are 60.4% of the U.S. population (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045218) and white alone (including Hispanic) are 76.5% of the U.S. population. So 76.5% of the U.S. population demographically perform 44.19% of the hate crimes. Unless the authors have data that suggest most white-perpetrated hate crimes since 2016 are by Trump supporters/voters, they are reaching beyond the data with their rationale. [Update: after more careful digging through the FBI data, it looks like the range percent for perpetrators of hate crimes being white could be anywhere from 44 - 63%. It's really not clear which is the accurate percent (I'm leaning towards 63% now). Refer to the comments at the beginning of the post].

While much of the rest of the research paper looks decently sound (again, I haven't done a full read), the authors make the statement multiple times in the paper as part of their rationale for the study (from the discussion: "We focused on white participants because they by far make up Trump’s primary group of supporters [36], are responsible for about half of all hate crimes conducted in the United States [37] and are a readily available group in online panels."). This is a pretty shaky argument that detracts from the main message of their paper.

However, do not discount the paper just because the authors included a statement that they probably shouldn't have included. Just because they used it as (flawed) rationale for their study does not make it a methodological flaw. This does not mean their findings are invalid. This is research that needed to be done. If we can identify factors influencing hate crimes it can help us as a society work towards reducing hate crimes.

johnly81 on September 6th, 2019 at 14:55 UTC »

For everyone here saying this study is obvious, have a look at the Trump supporters in here trying to deny this. There are many immigrants that support Trump, so in their minds this is illogical. These kinds of studies can help all of us better understand each other, and hopefully lessen hate in the world through education.

Here is what I think is the big takeaway from this study:

Kunst and his colleagues found that it was possible to predict whose identity was most likely to become fused with that of Trump after he was elected: those who were more willing to persecute immigrants before the election.