Skip to content
Contents
The Public Mind

    Type to search. Planned chapters match by title only.

    Chapter 4.6

    Fifty years of racial attitudes

    Among white respondents to the General Social Survey, the share attributing racial inequality mainly to discrimination was 30.0% in 2014 and 41.2% in 2018, after equal-treatment answers had risen from the 1970s to the 2000s.

    Affiliation
    NYU Stern
    Published

    In 1972 the General Social Survey (GSS) asked whether there should be a law against marriages between Black people and whites, and 63%62.6% percent of respondents giving the answerEstimandweighted share of white respondents who gave the answer: no (no law against black-white marriage)Interval95% CI 59.7% to 65.4%n1,306Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004, wtssps before)Populationwhite respondents (GSS race code, Hispanic whites included) who answered the itemPeriod1972SourceGeneral Social Survey of white respondents said no. By 2002, the last year the question was asked, 88%87.6% percent of respondents giving the answerEstimandweighted share of white respondents who gave the answer: no (no law against black-white marriage)Interval95% CI 84.9% to 90.3%n742Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004, wtssps before)Populationwhite respondents (GSS race code, Hispanic whites included) who answered the itemPeriod2002SourceGeneral Social Survey said no. The share of white respondents who said Black people's worse jobs, income and housing are mainly due to discrimination fell from the late 1970s to 2004, held roughly level until 2014 and rose after it. A question about equal treatment under law and a question about the cause of inequality have different histories, and the surveys ask four kinds of question about race, each moving on its own schedule.

    Four kinds of question moved on different schedules

    The division into kinds follows Schuman, Steeh, Bobo and Krysan [1]. Principles ask whether Black and white people should be treated alike, in marriage, in housing and in a party's choice of a presidential nominee. Explanations ask whether the gap in jobs, income and housing is mainly due to discrimination, inborn ability, a lack of chance for education or a lack of motivation or will power. Policy items ask what government should do about the gap. Affect is the American National Election Studies (ANES) feeling thermometerFeeling thermometerA 0 to 100 rating of a group or person, where 0 is the coldest feeling and 100 the warmest. The American National Election Studies ask respondents to rate parties, candidates and social groups this way., a rating of a group from zero to one hundred.

    Figure 1 plots the first three kinds among white GSS respondents. Every equal-treatment line rises; three of them have no readings after 2010, and the two still asked in 2024 kept rising after 2012. The shares saying yes to the explanations fell between the 1970s and the mid-2000s, though the education share's change over the first of those periods has an interval that includes zero. From the early 2000s to 2014 the discrimination, education and policy lines are roughly level, and after 2014 they rise. The share citing will power, which had been falling since the 1990s, falls more steeply after 2014. Affect has a schedule of its own. In face-to-face interviews the rating of Black Americans among white respondents fell between 2008 and 2012, by similar amounts in the two parties. From 2012 to 2016 it rose among white Democrats in both modes and among white Republicans on the web; in person the Republican interval includes zero. With no 2014 study, the ANES dates that rise only to the interval from 2012 to 2016. By 2024 white respondents rated Black and white Americans alike.

    How the survey asked, and whom

    The GSS interviews a new sample of US adults each time, so every share here describes the white respondents asked in that year."White" is the GSS race code, which includes Hispanic whites; the ANES and CES samples in the vote section below are white non-Hispanic. Each share counts the people who answered the item, weightedSurvey weightsNumbers that scale each respondent so the sample matches the population on known traits such as age, race, education and region. A weighted average counts a respondent with a large weight for more than one with a small weight. so that the sample matches the population on known traits. The GSS interviewed in person, with some telephone interviews from 2004, through 2018. It held no survey in 2020, interviewed mostly on the web in 2021, and used in-person and web interviews in 2022 and 2024. A change of survey modeSurvey modeHow respondents were interviewed: in person, by phone, on paper or online. Mode can change answers, so a change in mode can look like a change in opinion., the way a survey reaches its respondents, can change answers. The 2014 and 2016 surveys were conducted mostly in person, so the movement after 2014 does not come from a change of mode, while the levels after 2018 depend on mode for several items. The report gives every estimate with its interval and sample size.

    Most explanation and policy answers moved after 2014

    Figure 2 pools the surveys into periods and gives the change between neighboring periods for every item, in pointsPercentage pointThe unit for the difference between two percentages. A change from one share to another is stated in points, not in percent, so that absolute and relative change are not confused.. The equal-treatment items changed most between 1972-1977 and 1988-1994. The chapter dates six explanation and policy items: discrimination, will power, government help, spending, affirmative action and the special-favors statement. Between 2004-2008 and 2010-2014, the pooled periods before and during the Obama presidency, their changes have intervals that include zero, except affirmative action. Between 2010-2014 and 2016-2018 each of the six dated items moved, and the inborn-ability share did not. The share of white respondents citing discrimination was 30%30.0% percent of respondents giving the answerEstimandweighted share of white respondents who gave the answer: yes (discrimination)Interval95% CI 27.0% to 33.0%n1,215Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004, wtssps before)Populationwhite respondents (GSS race code, Hispanic whites included) who answered the itemPeriod2014SourceGeneral Social Survey in 2014 and 41%41.2% percent of respondents giving the answerEstimandweighted share of white respondents who gave the answer: yes (discrimination)Interval95% CI 37.4% to 45.1%n1,076Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004, wtssps before)Populationwhite respondents (GSS race code, Hispanic whites included) who answered the itemPeriod2018SourceGeneral Social Survey in 2018.

    The chapter dates the movement with a step fitted to the in-person surveys of 2000 to 2018, one level before a first new survey and one from it on. The best-fitting first new survey is 2016 for each dated item. Single-survey comparisons agree: between the 2012 and 2014 surveys the change has an interval that excludes zero for 00 items out of sixEstimandnumber of items whose change in the share among white respondents has an interval that excludes zeroWeightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004, wtssps before)Populationsix dated itemsPeriod2012 to 2014SourceGeneral Social Survey of the six dated items, and between 2014 and 2016 it does so for 55 items out of sixEstimandnumber of items whose change in the share among white respondents has an interval that excludes zeroWeightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004, wtssps before)Populationsix dated itemsPeriod2014 to 2016SourceGeneral Social Survey. A step is one assumption about the form of change. A trend that is flat and then bends fits the discrimination and will-power shares better, because those shares kept moving after 2016, and by that reading the rise starts at or before the 2014 survey. The last column pools the web and mixed-mode surveys of 2021 to 2024, so a change into it can come from the change of mode. In person, the share citing discrimination changed by +12.0 (95% CI 5.3 to 18.7)+12.0 percentage pointsEstimandchange in the weighted share who gave the answer (discrimination) among in-person respondentsInterval95% CI 5.3 to 18.7n2,747Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004, wtssps before)Populationwhite respondents (GSS race code, Hispanic whites included) who answered the item, in-person interviewsPeriod2016-2018 to 2022-2024SourceGeneral Social Survey points from 2016-2018 to 2022-2024, so that rise holds in person and not on the web. The spending share is lower on the web than in person in 2022-2024, and its in-person change is within sampling error of zero. The chapter therefore does not read the lower all-interview spending level after 2018 as a fall.

    Figure 2

    Equal-treatment items changed most before 2008, and the policy items changed most from 2010-2014 on

    Change in the share of white respondents (GSS race code, Hispanic whites included) giving the answer named in each row, percentage points, between pooled periods of surveys; empty cells are items not asked in both periods

    −40.00.0+40.0
    Faded: the interval includes 0.0No estimate
    A grid of items by five pairs of periods, shaded by the change in the share of white respondents giving the named answer. The equal-treatment rows carry the largest positive changes in the first two columns. The explanation rows are negative in the first two columns, and the discrimination and education rows turn positive in the fourth column. The policy rows are near zero in the third column and positive in the fourth, with the spending row the largest.
    Row1972-1977 to 1988-19941988-1994 to 2004-20082004-2008 to 2010-20142010-2014 to 2016-20182016-2018 to 2021-2024
    Principle: no law against intermarriage+14.3, interval +12.6 to +15.9, n = 13,447No estimateNo estimateNo estimateNo estimate
    Principle: would vote for a Black nominee+6.7, interval +5.1 to +8.3, n = 10,621+7.7, interval +5.7 to +9.8, n = 6,579+1.7, interval −0.7 to +4.0, n = 2,050No estimateNo estimate
    Principle: no right to exclude neighbors+20.3, interval +18.2 to +22.3, n = 9,565No estimateNo estimateNo estimateNo estimate
    Principle: open-housing law+23.7, interval +21.6 to +25.9, n = 10,051+7.4, interval +5.0 to +9.8, n = 9,327+3.4, interval +0.7 to +6.1, n = 6,393+7.2, interval +4.4 to +10.0, n = 5,696+4.3, interval +0.1 to +8.5, n = 3,570
    Principle: accepts a relative's marriageNo estimate+36.6, interval +33.0 to +40.2, n = 4,301+8.6, interval +6.2 to +11.1, n = 6,445+5.3, interval +3.0 to +7.7, n = 5,763+7.0, interval +5.0 to +9.0, n = 7,741
    Explanation: discrimination−5.0, interval −8.3 to −1.7, n = 7,178−7.1, interval −9.4 to −4.7, n = 8,958+0.6, interval −2.1 to +3.3, n = 6,234+8.4, interval +5.3 to +11.5, n = 5,589+9.2, interval +5.9 to +12.5, n = 5,964
    Explanation: inborn ability−9.6, interval −12.4 to −6.7, n = 7,246−7.9, interval −9.5 to −6.4, n = 9,096−0.3, interval −1.9 to +1.3, n = 6,352−1.5, interval −3.1 to +0.2, n = 5,695−1.7, interval −3.3 to −0.2, n = 6,046
    Explanation: lack of chance for education−1.2, interval −4.6 to +2.1, n = 7,282−6.5, interval −9.0 to −4.0, n = 9,093−1.9, interval −4.8 to +1.0, n = 6,315+9.1, interval +5.9 to +12.4, n = 5,661−1.0, interval −4.4 to +2.3, n = 5,995
    Explanation: lack of will power−4.5, interval −7.8 to −1.3, n = 7,103−9.3, interval −11.8 to −6.7, n = 8,880−2.5, interval −5.4 to +0.5, n = 6,189−9.0, interval −12.2 to −5.7, n = 5,556−10.4, interval −13.6 to −7.2, n = 5,935
    Policy: help end of the government-help scale−7.2, interval −9.8 to −4.6, n = 7,353−1.9, interval −3.6 to −0.3, n = 9,200+0.4, interval −1.5 to +2.3, n = 6,315+10.0, interval +7.6 to +12.4, n = 5,643+4.9, interval +2.3 to +7.6, n = 7,577
    Policy: too little spending+5.7, interval +3.7 to +7.7, n = 10,047−2.5, interval −5.1 to +0.1, n = 6,601−1.7, interval −4.7 to +1.3, n = 4,806+20.9, interval +17.2 to +24.5, n = 3,867−4.1, interval −7.8 to −0.4, n = 5,520
    Policy: preferential hiringNo estimate+0.6, interval −1.8 to +3.0, n = 4,215+2.1, interval +0.1 to +4.0, n = 6,216+5.7, interval +3.3 to +8.2, n = 5,500+2.1, interval −0.4 to +4.6, n = 7,373
    Policy: rejects the special-favors viewNo estimate+0.6, interval −1.7 to +3.0, n = 4,346+1.4, interval −0.5 to +3.3, n = 6,427+8.2, interval +5.8 to +10.6, n = 5,748+7.3, interval +4.7 to +9.9, n = 7,691
    Show data
    Data for Equal-treatment items changed most before 2008, and the policy items changed most from 2010-2014 on
    colconf_highconf_lowestimatenrowview
    1972-1977 to 1988-199415.9012.6014.3013,447Principle: no law against intermarriageall
    1972-1977 to 1988-19948.305.106.7010,621Principle: would vote for a Black nomineeall
    1988-1994 to 2004-20089.805.707.706,579Principle: would vote for a Black nomineeall
    2004-2008 to 2010-20144−0.7001.702,050Principle: would vote for a Black nomineeall
    1972-1977 to 1988-199422.3018.2020.309,565Principle: no right to exclude neighborsall
    1972-1977 to 1988-199425.9021.6023.7010,051Principle: open-housing lawall
    1988-1994 to 2004-20089.8057.409,327Principle: open-housing lawall
    2004-2008 to 2010-20146.100.7003.406,393Principle: open-housing lawall
    2010-2014 to 2016-2018104.407.205,696Principle: open-housing lawall
    2016-2018 to 2021-20248.500.1004.303,570Principle: open-housing lawall
    1988-1994 to 2004-200840.203336.604,301Principle: accepts a relative's marriageall
    2004-2008 to 2010-201411.106.208.606,445Principle: accepts a relative's marriageall
    2010-2014 to 2016-20187.7035.305,763Principle: accepts a relative's marriageall
    2016-2018 to 2021-20249577,741Principle: accepts a relative's marriageall
    1972-1977 to 1988-1994−1.70−8.30−57,178Explanation: discriminationall
    1988-1994 to 2004-2008−4.70−9.40−7.108,958Explanation: discriminationall
    2004-2008 to 2010-20143.30−2.100.6006,234Explanation: discriminationall
    2010-2014 to 2016-201811.505.308.405,589Explanation: discriminationall
    2016-2018 to 2021-202412.505.909.205,964Explanation: discriminationall
    1972-1977 to 1988-1994−6.70−12.40−9.607,246Explanation: inborn abilityall
    1988-1994 to 2004-2008−6.40−9.50−7.909,096Explanation: inborn abilityall
    2004-2008 to 2010-20141.30−1.90−0.3006,352Explanation: inborn abilityall
    2010-2014 to 2016-20180.200−3.10−1.505,695Explanation: inborn abilityall
    2016-2018 to 2021-2024−0.200−3.30−1.706,046Explanation: inborn abilityall
    1972-1977 to 1988-19942.10−4.60−1.207,282Explanation: lack of chance for educationall
    1988-1994 to 2004-2008−4−9−6.509,093Explanation: lack of chance for educationall
    2004-2008 to 2010-20141−4.80−1.906,315Explanation: lack of chance for educationall
    2010-2014 to 2016-201812.405.909.105,661Explanation: lack of chance for educationall
    2016-2018 to 2021-20242.30−4.40−15,995Explanation: lack of chance for educationall
    1972-1977 to 1988-1994−1.30−7.80−4.507,103Explanation: lack of will powerall
    1988-1994 to 2004-2008−6.70−11.80−9.308,880Explanation: lack of will powerall
    2004-2008 to 2010-20140.500−5.40−2.506,189Explanation: lack of will powerall
    2010-2014 to 2016-2018−5.70−12.20−95,556Explanation: lack of will powerall
    2016-2018 to 2021-2024−7.20−13.60−10.405,935Explanation: lack of will powerall
    1972-1977 to 1988-1994−4.60−9.80−7.207,353Policy: help end of the government-help scaleall
    1988-1994 to 2004-2008−0.300−3.60−1.909,200Policy: help end of the government-help scaleall
    2004-2008 to 2010-20142.30−1.500.4006,315Policy: help end of the government-help scaleall
    2010-2014 to 2016-201812.407.60105,643Policy: help end of the government-help scaleall
    2016-2018 to 2021-20247.602.304.907,577Policy: help end of the government-help scaleall
    1972-1977 to 1988-19947.703.705.7010,047Policy: too little spendingall
    1988-1994 to 2004-20080.100−5.10−2.506,601Policy: too little spendingall
    2004-2008 to 2010-20141.30−4.70−1.704,806Policy: too little spendingall
    2010-2014 to 2016-201824.5017.2020.903,867Policy: too little spendingall
    2016-2018 to 2021-2024−0.400−7.80−4.105,520Policy: too little spendingall
    1988-1994 to 2004-20083−1.800.6004,215Policy: preferential hiringall
    2004-2008 to 2010-201440.1002.106,216Policy: preferential hiringall
    2010-2014 to 2016-20188.203.305.705,500Policy: preferential hiringall
    2016-2018 to 2021-20244.60−0.4002.107,373Policy: preferential hiringall
    1988-1994 to 2004-20083−1.700.6004,346Policy: rejects the special-favors viewall
    2004-2008 to 2010-20143.30−0.5001.406,427Policy: rejects the special-favors viewall
    2010-2014 to 2016-201810.605.808.205,748Policy: rejects the special-favors viewall
    2016-2018 to 2021-20249.904.707.307,691Policy: rejects the special-favors viewall
    1972-1977 to 1988-199415.9012.6014.3013,447Principle: no law against intermarriageinperson
    1972-1977 to 1988-19948.305.106.7010,621Principle: would vote for a Black nomineeinperson
    1988-1994 to 2004-20089.805.507.706,440Principle: would vote for a Black nomineeinperson
    2004-2008 to 2010-20144−0.9001.501,800Principle: would vote for a Black nomineeinperson
    1972-1977 to 1988-199422.3018.2020.309,565Principle: no right to exclude neighborsinperson
    1972-1977 to 1988-199425.9021.6023.7010,051Principle: open-housing lawinperson
    1988-1994 to 2004-2008105.107.608,950Principle: open-housing lawinperson
    2004-2008 to 2010-20145.40−0.4002.505,597Principle: open-housing lawinperson
    2010-2014 to 2016-201810.304.307.305,064Principle: open-housing lawinperson
    2016-2018 to 2022-202410.601.606.103,175Principle: open-housing lawinperson
    1988-1994 to 2004-200839.4032.1035.803,915Principle: accepts a relative's marriageinperson
    2004-2008 to 2010-201411.706.409.105,645Principle: accepts a relative's marriageinperson
    2010-2014 to 2016-20188.1035.605,128Principle: accepts a relative's marriageinperson
    2016-2018 to 2022-20248.902.905.903,437Principle: accepts a relative's marriageinperson
    1972-1977 to 1988-1994−1.70−8.30−57,178Explanation: discriminationinperson
    1988-1994 to 2004-2008−4.50−9.40−6.908,594Explanation: discriminationinperson
    2004-2008 to 2010-20144.40−1.401.505,470Explanation: discriminationinperson
    2010-2014 to 2016-2018125.408.704,980Explanation: discriminationinperson
    2016-2018 to 2022-202418.705.30122,747Explanation: discriminationinperson
    1972-1977 to 1988-1994−6.70−12.40−9.607,246Explanation: inborn abilityinperson
    1988-1994 to 2004-2008−5.70−9−7.308,719Explanation: inborn abilityinperson
    2004-2008 to 2010-20141.20−2.30−0.6005,568Explanation: inborn abilityinperson
    2010-2014 to 2016-20180.400−3.10−1.305,069Explanation: inborn abilityinperson
    2016-2018 to 2022-20245.10−2.201.502,807Explanation: inborn abilityinperson
    1972-1977 to 1988-19942.10−4.60−1.207,282Explanation: lack of chance for educationinperson
    1988-1994 to 2004-2008−4.20−9.40−6.808,718Explanation: lack of chance for educationinperson
    2004-2008 to 2010-20142−4.20−1.105,533Explanation: lack of chance for educationinperson
    2010-2014 to 2016-201811.805.108.505,040Explanation: lack of chance for educationinperson
    2016-2018 to 2022-20243.70−9.70−32,780Explanation: lack of chance for educationinperson
    1972-1977 to 1988-1994−1.30−7.80−4.507,103Explanation: lack of will powerinperson
    1988-1994 to 2004-2008−5.70−11−8.308,515Explanation: lack of will powerinperson
    2004-2008 to 2010-2014−0.200−6.50−3.405,428Explanation: lack of will powerinperson
    2010-2014 to 2016-2018−5.30−12.10−8.704,949Explanation: lack of will powerinperson
    2016-2018 to 2022-2024−0.800−13.40−7.102,733Explanation: lack of will powerinperson
    1972-1977 to 1988-1994−4.60−9.80−7.207,353Policy: help end of the government-help scaleinperson
    1988-1994 to 2004-2008−0.400−3.70−2.108,858Policy: help end of the government-help scaleinperson
    2004-2008 to 2010-20142.80−1.300.8005,554Policy: help end of the government-help scaleinperson
    2010-2014 to 2016-201811.906.809.305,018Policy: help end of the government-help scaleinperson
    2016-2018 to 2022-20248.40−0.5003.903,338Policy: help end of the government-help scaleinperson
    1972-1977 to 1988-19947.703.705.7010,047Policy: too little spendinginperson
    1988-1994 to 2004-2008−1.20−6.60−3.906,227Policy: too little spendinginperson
    2004-2008 to 2010-20143.40−30.2004,144Policy: too little spendinginperson
    2010-2014 to 2016-201824.3016.5020.403,412Policy: too little spendinginperson
    2016-2018 to 2022-20245.10−7.70−1.302,309Policy: too little spendinginperson
    1988-1994 to 2004-20083.10−1.900.6003,847Policy: preferential hiringinperson
    2004-2008 to 2010-20144.300.2002.205,453Policy: preferential hiringinperson
    2010-2014 to 2016-20188.703.506.104,899Policy: preferential hiringinperson
    2016-2018 to 2022-202410.601.706.203,192Policy: preferential hiringinperson
    1988-1994 to 2004-20083−1.700.7003,966Policy: rejects the special-favors viewinperson
    2004-2008 to 2010-20142.90−10.9005,643Policy: rejects the special-favors viewinperson
    2010-2014 to 2016-201811.406.408.905,127Policy: rejects the special-favors viewinperson
    2016-2018 to 2022-202410.101.505.803,405Policy: rejects the special-favors viewinperson

    The equal-treatment rows have their largest cells in the first two columns and the policy rows have theirs in the last two, with the sign of each change printed in its cell. Each cell is the share of white respondents giving the answer in the later period minus the share in the earlier period, and cells whose 95% interval includes zero are faded. Values in Table 2.

    Note: Periods pool the surveys of 1972 to 1977, 1988 to 1994, 2004 to 2008, 2010 to 2014, 2016 to 2018 and 2021 to 2024, after rescaling each year's weights to average one. The last column pools 2021, 2022 and 2024, mostly web and mixed-mode interviews, so a change into it can come from the change of mode; the in-person view uses the in-person interviews of 2022 and 2024.Note: A direction is the answer named in the row label: for example a positive change in the explanation rows is a larger share saying yes to that explanation. Intervals assume a simple random sample of the weighted respondents (the Kish effective sample size); they do not use the survey's sampling design.Source: General Social Survey, 1972-2024; weighted (weight_use); white respondents (race code white, Hispanic whites included); 95% intervals on the Kish effective sample size

    The movement after 2014, by party

    Figure 3 splits the six dated items by party, leanersPartisan leanerA respondent who first says they are independent but, when asked, says they lean toward one party. Most figures group leaners with the party they lean toward, and each chapter says which grouping it uses. included. Among white Democrats the share citing discrimination was 45%44.9% percent of respondents giving the answerEstimandweighted share who gave the answer (discrimination)Interval95% CI 39.6% to 50.2%n471Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004, wtssps before)Populationwhite democrats (leaners included; GSS race code, Hispanic whites included) who answered the itemPeriod2014SourceGeneral Social Survey in 2014 and 62%61.6% percent of respondents giving the answerEstimandweighted share who gave the answer (discrimination)Interval95% CI 55.5% to 67.6%n392Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004, wtssps before)Populationwhite democrats (leaners included; GSS race code, Hispanic whites included) who answered the itemPeriod2018SourceGeneral Social Survey in 2018; among white Republicans it was 18%18.2% percent of respondents giving the answerEstimandweighted share who gave the answer (discrimination)Interval95% CI 14.2% to 22.2%n468Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004, wtssps before)Populationwhite republicans (leaners included; GSS race code, Hispanic whites included) who answered the itemPeriod2014SourceGeneral Social Survey and 23%23.3% percent of respondents giving the answerEstimandweighted share who gave the answer (discrimination)Interval95% CI 18.0% to 28.5%n458Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004, wtssps before)Populationwhite republicans (leaners included; GSS race code, Hispanic whites included) who answered the itemPeriod2018SourceGeneral Social Survey. Between 2010-2014 and 2016-2018 the interval of the change excludes zero on each of the six dated items among Democrats and on 44 items out of sixEstimandnumber of dated items whose change between pooled periods has an interval that excludes zeroWeightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004, wtssps before)Populationwhite RepublicansPeriod2010-2014 to 2016-2018SourceGeneral Social Survey among Republicans. The Democratic change minus the Republican change has an interval that excludes zero for discrimination and government help, and one that includes zero for will power and spending, on both of which Republicans also moved. In the mode view, the Democratic web levels after 2018 lie beyond the 2014 level for every dated item, and so do the in-person cells that clear the sample floor. Black respondents moved in the same direction on some of the dated items.

    Figure 3

    From 2010-2014 to 2016-2018 white Democrats moved on each of the six dated items and white Republicans on 4, and the Democratic change is separable from the Republican change on 4

    Share of white Democrats and white Republicans (GSS race code, Hispanic whites included; leaners included) giving the answer named above each panel, percent, 2000 to 2024, all interviews and by interview mode

    Share giving the answer (%)

    • Democrats
    • Republicans
    DiscriminationLack of motivation or will powerAt the help end of the scaleToo little spentFavors preferential hiringRejects the special-favors view
    Show data
    Data for From 2010-2014 to 2016-2018 white Democrats moved on each of the six dated items and white Republicans on 4, and the Democratic change is separable from the Republican change on 4
    conf_highconf_lowestimatenpanelpooledseriesviewyear
    44.9035.6040.30523DiscriminationnoDemocratsall2000
    43.9029.9036.90260DiscriminationnoDemocratsall2002
    49.1034.8042258DiscriminationnoDemocratsall2004
    42.1032.4037.20532DiscriminationnoDemocratsall2006
    45.1033.8039.40422DiscriminationnoDemocratsall2008
    47.2035.4041.30423DiscriminationnoDemocratsall2010
    47.603641.80398DiscriminationnoDemocratsall2012
    50.2039.6044.90471DiscriminationnoDemocratsall2014
    59.7049.6054.60541DiscriminationnoDemocratsall2016
    67.6055.5061.60392DiscriminationnoDemocratsall2018
    84.8078.1081.50858DiscriminationnoDemocratsall2021
    85.4071.7078.50306DiscriminationnoDemocratsall2022
    8165.6073.30237DiscriminationnoDemocratsall2024
    30.4022.1026.20524DiscriminationnoRepublicansall2000
    28.1017.3022.70289DiscriminationnoRepublicansall2002
    21.9012.5017.20316DiscriminationnoRepublicansall2004
    2819.9024585DiscriminationnoRepublicansall2006
    26.5016.8021.70389DiscriminationnoRepublicansall2008
    25.6016.1020.90408DiscriminationnoRepublicansall2010
    25.2014.8020345DiscriminationnoRepublicansall2012
    22.2014.2018.20468DiscriminationnoRepublicansall2014
    25.101721.10538DiscriminationnoRepublicansall2016
    28.501823.30458DiscriminationnoRepublicansall2018
    22.7015.9019.30732DiscriminationnoRepublicansall2021
    31.801724.40321DiscriminationnoRepublicansall2022
    27.8015.1021.40314DiscriminationnoRepublicansall2024
    52.9043.4048.20520Lack of motivation or will powernoDemocratsall2000
    5540.3047.70255Lack of motivation or will powernoDemocratsall2002
    52.7038.5045.60263Lack of motivation or will powernoDemocratsall2004
    47.2037.2042.20531Lack of motivation or will powernoDemocratsall2006
    5442.5048.30421Lack of motivation or will powernoDemocratsall2008
    45.4033.9039.70417Lack of motivation or will powernoDemocratsall2010
    46.8035.1040.90389Lack of motivation or will powernoDemocratsall2012
    4332.7037.90470Lack of motivation or will powernoDemocratsall2014
    33.2024.1028.60546Lack of motivation or will powernoDemocratsall2016
    29.9019.2024.50397Lack of motivation or will powernoDemocratsall2018
    18.9012.6015.80856Lack of motivation or will powernoDemocratsall2021
    18.807.5013.20305Lack of motivation or will powernoDemocratsall2022
    15.505.1010.30244Lack of motivation or will powernoDemocratsall2024
    59.8050.4055.10518Lack of motivation or will powernoRepublicansall2000
    60.6047.2053.90272Lack of motivation or will powernoRepublicansall2002
    60.5047.9054.20312Lack of motivation or will powernoRepublicansall2004
    62.3052.9057.60583Lack of motivation or will powernoRepublicansall2006
    60.5048.5054.50382Lack of motivation or will powernoRepublicansall2008
    6654.5060.30403Lack of motivation or will powernoRepublicansall2010
    63.6050.6057.10340Lack of motivation or will powernoRepublicansall2012
    59.2048.8054466Lack of motivation or will powernoRepublicansall2014
    57.1047.1052.10533Lack of motivation or will powernoRepublicansall2016
    50.3037.9044.10442Lack of motivation or will powernoRepublicansall2018
    49.2040.7045721Lack of motivation or will powernoRepublicansall2021
    52.3035.1043.70314Lack of motivation or will powernoRepublicansall2022
    48.203340.60315Lack of motivation or will powernoRepublicansall2024
    27.3019.4023.30551At the help end of the scalenoDemocratsall2000
    21.2011.2016.20284At the help end of the scalenoDemocratsall2002
    21.6011.3016.50278At the help end of the scalenoDemocratsall2004
    23.101519518At the help end of the scalenoDemocratsall2006
    21.7013.1017.40420At the help end of the scalenoDemocratsall2008
    26.3016.3021.30422At the help end of the scalenoDemocratsall2010
    23.1013.8018.50399At the help end of the scalenoDemocratsall2012
    23.1014.9019471At the help end of the scalenoDemocratsall2014
    42.3032.8037.50584At the help end of the scalenoDemocratsall2016
    45.1033.6039.30417At the help end of the scalenoDemocratsall2018
    61.3052.9057.10853At the help end of the scalenoDemocratsall2021
    57.4045.2051.30592At the help end of the scalenoDemocratsall2022
    53.1040.7046.90490At the help end of the scalenoDemocratsall2024
    9.705.107.40584At the help end of the scalenoRepublicansall2000
    10.9047.50280At the help end of the scalenoRepublicansall2002
    10.303.907.10307At the help end of the scalenoRepublicansall2004
    9.904.907.40584At the help end of the scalenoRepublicansall2006
    5.401.203.30412At the help end of the scalenoRepublicansall2008
    8.6035.80384At the help end of the scalenoRepublicansall2010
    6.101.303.70349At the help end of the scalenoRepublicansall2012
    5.401.603.50463At the help end of the scalenoRepublicansall2014
    104.807.40526At the help end of the scalenoRepublicansall2016
    15.307.4011.40457At the help end of the scalenoRepublicansall2018
    10.405.708.10744At the help end of the scalenoRepublicansall2021
    10.1047.10667At the help end of the scalenoRepublicansall2022
    9.603.906.70602At the help end of the scalenoRepublicansall2024
    4433.1038.50384Too little spentnoDemocratsall2000
    40.2028.9034.50368Too little spentnoDemocratsall2002
    39.8028.7034.30389Too little spentnoDemocratsall2004
    4734.6040.80384Too little spentnoDemocratsall2006
    46.2033.2039.70292Too little spentnoDemocratsall2008
    44.6030.4037.50260Too little spentnoDemocratsall2010
    48.4034.3041.30277Too little spentnoDemocratsall2012
    42.603136.80348Too little spentnoDemocratsall2014
    67.8056.4062.10396Too little spentnoDemocratsall2016
    74.9061.7068.30288Too little spentnoDemocratsall2018
    80.4071.8076.10629Too little spentnoDemocratsall2021
    78.3065.6071.90454Too little spentnoDemocratsall2022
    74.4060.9067.60370Too little spentnoDemocratsall2024
    27.201822.60374Too little spentnoRepublicansall2000
    20.3012.5016.40431Too little spentnoRepublicansall2002
    24.1015.5019.80456Too little spentnoRepublicansall2004
    22.1013.3017.70395Too little spentnoRepublicansall2006
    27.6015.4021.50253Too little spentnoRepublicansall2008
    177.6012.30277Too little spentnoRepublicansall2010
    23.2011.3017.30230Too little spentnoRepublicansall2012
    2010.9015.50320Too little spentnoRepublicansall2014
    38.5027.3032.90377Too little spentnoRepublicansall2016
    4228.3035.10330Too little spentnoRepublicansall2018
    19.9012.6016.20550Too little spentnoRepublicansall2021
    28.6015.4022442Too little spentnoRepublicansall2022
    23.5013.5018.50442Too little spentnoRepublicansall2024
    21.9014.5018.20519Favors preferential hiringnoDemocratsall2000
    20.6010.2015.40259Favors preferential hiringnoDemocratsall2002
    19.109.2014.10263Favors preferential hiringnoDemocratsall2004
    18.1011.1014.60538Favors preferential hiringnoDemocratsall2006
    19.301115.20414Favors preferential hiringnoDemocratsall2008
    23.4013.9018.60412Favors preferential hiringnoDemocratsall2010
    26.5016.6021.60386Favors preferential hiringnoDemocratsall2012
    24.9016.2020.50460Favors preferential hiringnoDemocratsall2014
    32.4023.3027.80527Favors preferential hiringnoDemocratsall2016
    41.5029.1035.30367Favors preferential hiringnoDemocratsall2018
    43.6035.1039.40839Favors preferential hiringnoDemocratsall2021
    48.8036.8042.80589Favors preferential hiringnoDemocratsall2022
    43.8031.8037.80471Favors preferential hiringnoDemocratsall2024
    11.406.208.80543Favors preferential hiringnoRepublicansall2000
    11.304.307.80288Favors preferential hiringnoRepublicansall2002
    10.804.207.50317Favors preferential hiringnoRepublicansall2004
    9.304.506.90591Favors preferential hiringnoRepublicansall2006
    10.604.407.50391Favors preferential hiringnoRepublicansall2008
    11.805.208.50402Favors preferential hiringnoRepublicansall2010
    9.1036.10345Favors preferential hiringnoRepublicansall2012
    10.104.607.30464Favors preferential hiringnoRepublicansall2014
    11.6068.80535Favors preferential hiringnoRepublicansall2016
    11.804.908.40450Favors preferential hiringnoRepublicansall2018
    4.401.502.90724Favors preferential hiringnoRepublicansall2021
    10.904.307.60627Favors preferential hiringnoRepublicansall2022
    11.105.208.10626Favors preferential hiringnoRepublicansall2024
    19.6012.8016.20550Rejects the special-favors viewnoDemocratsall2000
    177.5012.20264Rejects the special-favors viewnoDemocratsall2002
    22.9012.1017.50269Rejects the special-favors viewnoDemocratsall2004
    21.5013.9017.70553Rejects the special-favors viewnoDemocratsall2006
    19.6011.4015.50436Rejects the special-favors viewnoDemocratsall2008
    24.7015.2019.90432Rejects the special-favors viewnoDemocratsall2010
    25.4015.9020.70398Rejects the special-favors viewnoDemocratsall2012
    27.901923.50478Rejects the special-favors viewnoDemocratsall2014
    40.8031.2036557Rejects the special-favors viewnoDemocratsall2016
    443238400Rejects the special-favors viewnoDemocratsall2018
    59.9051.4055.70864Rejects the special-favors viewnoDemocratsall2021
    64.705358.90615Rejects the special-favors viewnoDemocratsall2022
    574551499Rejects the special-favors viewnoDemocratsall2024
    1168.50552Rejects the special-favors viewnoRepublicansall2000
    11.104.207.70290Rejects the special-favors viewnoRepublicansall2002
    125.108.60324Rejects the special-favors viewnoRepublicansall2004
    9.304.506.90599Rejects the special-favors viewnoRepublicansall2006
    9.803.806.80393Rejects the special-favors viewnoRepublicansall2008
    8.503.105.80420Rejects the special-favors viewnoRepublicansall2010
    6.201.303.80355Rejects the special-favors viewnoRepublicansall2012
    93.906.40476Rejects the special-favors viewnoRepublicansall2014
    104.807.40552Rejects the special-favors viewnoRepublicansall2016
    16.208.1012.10463Rejects the special-favors viewnoRepublicansall2018
    9.4057.20735Rejects the special-favors viewnoRepublicansall2021
    17.809.4013.60651Rejects the special-favors viewnoRepublicansall2022
    12.906.609.70647Rejects the special-favors viewnoRepublicansall2024
    44.9035.6040.30523DiscriminationnoDemocrats, in personbymode2000
    43.9029.9036.90260DiscriminationnoDemocrats, in personbymode2002
    53.403745.20197DiscriminationnoDemocrats, in personbymode2004
    42.3032.4037.30498DiscriminationnoDemocrats, in personbymode2006
    43.6031.4037.50362DiscriminationnoDemocrats, in personbymode2008
    49.403743.20379DiscriminationnoDemocrats, in personbymode2010
    48.1035.7041.90348DiscriminationnoDemocrats, in personbymode2012
    52.1040.6046.40397DiscriminationnoDemocrats, in personbymode2014
    61.3050.8056499DiscriminationnoDemocrats, in personbymode2016
    70.2057.5063.90355DiscriminationnoDemocrats, in personbymode2018
    85.8078.9082.40775DiscriminationnoDemocrats, webbymode2021
    84.9071.7078.30300DiscriminationyesDemocrats, webbymode2023
    30.4022.1026.20524DiscriminationnoRepublicans, in personbymode2000
    28.1017.3022.70289DiscriminationnoRepublicans, in personbymode2002
    23.8013.1018.40253DiscriminationnoRepublicans, in personbymode2004
    28.4020.1024.30548DiscriminationnoRepublicans, in personbymode2006
    26.101621.10339DiscriminationnoRepublicans, in personbymode2008
    26.5016.5021.50361DiscriminationnoRepublicans, in personbymode2010
    26.201520.60293DiscriminationnoRepublicans, in personbymode2012
    24.6015.8020.20417DiscriminationnoRepublicans, in personbymode2014
    25.3016.9021.10500DiscriminationnoRepublicans, in personbymode2016
    3119.8025.40409DiscriminationnoRepublicans, in personbymode2018
    38.1021.7029.90249DiscriminationyesRepublicans, in personbymode2023
    22.9015.7019.30621DiscriminationnoRepublicans, webbymode2021
    23.8010.9017.40319DiscriminationyesRepublicans, webbymode2023
    52.9043.4048.20520Lack of motivation or will powernoDemocrats, in personbymode2000
    5540.3047.70255Lack of motivation or will powernoDemocrats, in personbymode2002
    53.9037.8045.90201Lack of motivation or will powernoDemocrats, in personbymode2004
    49.8039.6044.70497Lack of motivation or will powernoDemocrats, in personbymode2006
    56.4043.9050.20360Lack of motivation or will powernoDemocrats, in personbymode2008
    46.5034.5040.50373Lack of motivation or will powernoDemocrats, in personbymode2010
    48.8036.1042.50339Lack of motivation or will powernoDemocrats, in personbymode2012
    43.6032.4038395Lack of motivation or will powernoDemocrats, in personbymode2014
    34.1024.4029.30504Lack of motivation or will powernoDemocrats, in personbymode2016
    29.6018.4024359Lack of motivation or will powernoDemocrats, in personbymode2018
    17.9011.5014.70774Lack of motivation or will powernoDemocrats, webbymode2021
    11.3037.20301Lack of motivation or will poweryesDemocrats, webbymode2023
    59.8050.4055.10518Lack of motivation or will powernoRepublicans, in personbymode2000
    60.6047.2053.90272Lack of motivation or will powernoRepublicans, in personbymode2002
    60.4046.5053.40249Lack of motivation or will powernoRepublicans, in personbymode2004
    62.605357.80545Lack of motivation or will powernoRepublicans, in personbymode2006
    61.2048.8055332Lack of motivation or will powernoRepublicans, in personbymode2008
    64.8052.8058.80360Lack of motivation or will powernoRepublicans, in personbymode2010
    65.5051.9058.70289Lack of motivation or will powernoRepublicans, in personbymode2012
    58.2047.2052.70416Lack of motivation or will powernoRepublicans, in personbymode2014
    56.9046.5051.70495Lack of motivation or will powernoRepublicans, in personbymode2016
    51.3038.3044.80395Lack of motivation or will powernoRepublicans, in personbymode2018
    5638.3047.20247Lack of motivation or will poweryesRepublicans, in personbymode2023
    49.5040.3044.90612Lack of motivation or will powernoRepublicans, webbymode2021
    47.1030.5038.80318Lack of motivation or will poweryesRepublicans, webbymode2023
    27.3019.4023.30551At the help end of the scalenoDemocrats, in personbymode2000
    21.2011.2016.20284At the help end of the scalenoDemocrats, in personbymode2002
    21.4010.2015.80228At the help end of the scalenoDemocrats, in personbymode2004
    2415.7019.80481At the help end of the scalenoDemocrats, in personbymode2006
    21.4012.6017371At the help end of the scalenoDemocrats, in personbymode2008
    26.701621.30370At the help end of the scalenoDemocrats, in personbymode2010
    23.5013.4018.50344At the help end of the scalenoDemocrats, in personbymode2012
    24.3015.3019.80400At the help end of the scalenoDemocrats, in personbymode2014
    42.2032.5037.40539At the help end of the scalenoDemocrats, in personbymode2016
    46.1033.9040367At the help end of the scalenoDemocrats, in personbymode2018
    53.4038.3045.90349At the help end of the scaleyesDemocrats, in personbymode2023
    61.4052.5056.90773At the help end of the scalenoDemocrats, webbymode2021
    57.9046.7052.30630At the help end of the scaleyesDemocrats, webbymode2023
    9.705.107.40584At the help end of the scalenoRepublicans, in personbymode2000
    10.9047.50280At the help end of the scalenoRepublicans, in personbymode2002
    10.603.507245At the help end of the scalenoRepublicans, in personbymode2004
    9.404.406.90547At the help end of the scalenoRepublicans, in personbymode2006
    6.301.603.90361At the help end of the scalenoRepublicans, in personbymode2008
    9.503.206.40339At the help end of the scalenoRepublicans, in personbymode2010
    7.501.704.60298At the help end of the scalenoRepublicans, in personbymode2012
    5.801.603.70401At the help end of the scalenoRepublicans, in personbymode2014
    9.804.407.10490At the help end of the scalenoRepublicans, in personbymode2016
    16.10812.10418At the help end of the scalenoRepublicans, in personbymode2018
    14.606.3010.40492At the help end of the scaleyesRepublicans, in personbymode2023
    10.505.608.10634At the help end of the scalenoRepublicans, webbymode2021
    5.501.503.50663At the help end of the scaleyesRepublicans, webbymode2023
    4433.1038.50384Too little spentnoDemocrats, in personbymode2000
    40.2028.9034.50368Too little spentnoDemocrats, in personbymode2002
    34.9022.9028.90293Too little spentnoDemocrats, in personbymode2004
    47.2035.3041.20361Too little spentnoDemocrats, in personbymode2006
    41.9028.5035.20259Too little spentnoDemocrats, in personbymode2008
    43.5028.6036.10230Too little spentnoDemocrats, in personbymode2010
    51.7036.5044.10238Too little spentnoDemocrats, in personbymode2012
    43.4030.8037.10295Too little spentnoDemocrats, in personbymode2014
    69.1057.2063.10360Too little spentnoDemocrats, in personbymode2016
    76.1062.4069.30261Too little spentnoDemocrats, in personbymode2018
    78.706270.40265Too little spentyesDemocrats, in personbymode2023
    81.2072.1076.70561Too little spentnoDemocrats, webbymode2021
    76.3064.7070.50491Too little spentyesDemocrats, webbymode2023
    27.201822.60374Too little spentnoRepublicans, in personbymode2000
    20.3012.5016.40431Too little spentnoRepublicans, in personbymode2002
    23.7013.9018.80351Too little spentnoRepublicans, in personbymode2004
    20.4011.8016.10373Too little spentnoRepublicans, in personbymode2006
    26.1013.8020218Too little spentnoRepublicans, in personbymode2008
    17.107.2012.20253Too little spentnoRepublicans, in personbymode2010
    25.201218.60192Too little spentnoRepublicans, in personbymode2012
    22.8012.4017.60271Too little spentnoRepublicans, in personbymode2014
    38.4026.7032.50351Too little spentnoRepublicans, in personbymode2016
    39.6025.8032.70292Too little spentnoRepublicans, in personbymode2018
    3619.7027.90309Too little spentyesRepublicans, in personbymode2023
    20.9012.8016.90462Too little spentnoRepublicans, webbymode2021
    18.609.8014.20483Too little spentyesRepublicans, webbymode2023
    21.9014.5018.20519Favors preferential hiringnoDemocrats, in personbymode2000
    20.6010.2015.40259Favors preferential hiringnoDemocrats, in personbymode2002
    19.508.4013.90205Favors preferential hiringnoDemocrats, in personbymode2004
    18.3011.2014.70504Favors preferential hiringnoDemocrats, in personbymode2006
    19.7010.7015.20357Favors preferential hiringnoDemocrats, in personbymode2008
    24.5014.4019.50370Favors preferential hiringnoDemocrats, in personbymode2010
    25.6015.3020.40335Favors preferential hiringnoDemocrats, in personbymode2012
    25.8016.3021387Favors preferential hiringnoDemocrats, in personbymode2014
    33.2023.5028.30483Favors preferential hiringnoDemocrats, in personbymode2016
    42.2029.2035.70332Favors preferential hiringnoDemocrats, in personbymode2018
    50.1035.3042.70337Favors preferential hiringyesDemocrats, in personbymode2023
    43.7034.7039.20758Favors preferential hiringnoDemocrats, webbymode2021
    46.2035.1040.60618Favors preferential hiringyesDemocrats, webbymode2023
    11.406.208.80543Favors preferential hiringnoRepublicans, in personbymode2000
    11.304.307.80288Favors preferential hiringnoRepublicans, in personbymode2002
    10.303.306.80254Favors preferential hiringnoRepublicans, in personbymode2004
    9.904.807.40552Favors preferential hiringnoRepublicans, in personbymode2006
    125.108.50338Favors preferential hiringnoRepublicans, in personbymode2008
    13.205.909.60358Favors preferential hiringnoRepublicans, in personbymode2010
    10.703.707.20297Favors preferential hiringnoRepublicans, in personbymode2012
    8.603.406413Favors preferential hiringnoRepublicans, in personbymode2014
    11.605.708.70497Favors preferential hiringnoRepublicans, in personbymode2016
    13.605.909.80403Favors preferential hiringnoRepublicans, in personbymode2018
    17.508.6013468Favors preferential hiringyesRepublicans, in personbymode2023
    4.301.302.80618Favors preferential hiringnoRepublicans, webbymode2021
    4.9012.90656Favors preferential hiringyesRepublicans, webbymode2023
    19.6012.8016.20550Rejects the special-favors viewnoDemocrats, in personbymode2000
    177.5012.20264Rejects the special-favors viewnoDemocrats, in personbymode2002
    2512.5018.70206Rejects the special-favors viewnoDemocrats, in personbymode2004
    2113.4017.20518Rejects the special-favors viewnoDemocrats, in personbymode2006
    20.9011.7016.30374Rejects the special-favors viewnoDemocrats, in personbymode2008
    23.2013.6018.40387Rejects the special-favors viewnoDemocrats, in personbymode2010
    23.4013.6018.50350Rejects the special-favors viewnoDemocrats, in personbymode2012
    27.6018.1022.90403Rejects the special-favors viewnoDemocrats, in personbymode2014
    40.9030.8035.80512Rejects the special-favors viewnoDemocrats, in personbymode2016
    44.8032.1038.50362Rejects the special-favors viewnoDemocrats, in personbymode2018
    62.8048.4055.60370Rejects the special-favors viewyesDemocrats, in personbymode2023
    60.9051.9056.40779Rejects the special-favors viewnoDemocrats, webbymode2021
    61.9050.8056.30627Rejects the special-favors viewyesDemocrats, webbymode2023
    1168.50552Rejects the special-favors viewnoRepublicans, in personbymode2000
    11.104.207.70290Rejects the special-favors viewnoRepublicans, in personbymode2002
    13.405.409.40259Rejects the special-favors viewnoRepublicans, in personbymode2004
    9.604.707.20561Rejects the special-favors viewnoRepublicans, in personbymode2006
    9.903.706.80341Rejects the special-favors viewnoRepublicans, in personbymode2008
    9.603.606.60373Rejects the special-favors viewnoRepublicans, in personbymode2010
    5.400.8003.10305Rejects the special-favors viewnoRepublicans, in personbymode2012
    9.5046.80424Rejects the special-favors viewnoRepublicans, in personbymode2014
    9.704.407514Rejects the special-favors viewnoRepublicans, in personbymode2016
    17.809.1013.40415Rejects the special-favors viewnoRepublicans, in personbymode2018
    189.2013.60501Rejects the special-favors viewyesRepublicans, in personbymode2023
    9.604.807.20625Rejects the special-favors viewnoRepublicans, webbymode2021
    12.6069.30662Rejects the special-favors viewyesRepublicans, webbymode2023

    In every panel the Democratic line moves after 2014, and by point estimate the Republican line moves by less. Each line is the weighted share of white Democrats or white Republicans giving the answer named above the panel, with a 95% band. The mode view splits each party into in-person and web interviews, and its open circle at 2023 pools the 2022 and 2024 interviews. Values in Table 6.

    Note: The GSS was in person (with some telephone interviews from 2004) through 2018, had no 2020 survey, had 87.3% of its 2021 interviews on the web and mixed in-person and web interviews in 2022 and 2024. The mode view plots in-person interviews through 2018 and web interviews from 2021.Note: The 2022 and 2024 cells alone fall below the effective sample floor for several items, so the mode view pools them in one point at 2023; a point is dropped when the pooled cell is still below the floor, as for in-person Democrats on the discrimination and will-power items. The help-end panel counts the two answers nearest to government should help. Intervals assume a simple random sample of the weighted respondents (the Kish effective sample size); they do not use the survey's sampling design.Source: General Social Survey, 1972-2024; weighted (weight_use); white respondents by party, leaners included (race code white, Hispanic whites included); 95% intervals on the Kish effective sample size

    The tie to the vote rose from 2012 to 2016

    Among white ANES voters for a major-party candidate, the chapter measures how closely the racial resentmentRacial resentmentA survey scale, developed by Donald Kinder and Lynn Sanders, that measures moral judgments about the work ethic and deservingness of Black Americans. Higher scores mean more resentment. index tracks the vote: the points of Republican share of the two-party vote that go with one standard deviationStandard deviationA measure of how far values typically fall from their average. A larger standard deviation means the values are more spread out. more resentment in that year. That tie rose from 1988 to 2004 and again from 2012 to 2016. The change from 2008 to 2012 is +1.1 (95% CI −2.4 to 4.6)+1.1 percentage points of the Republican two-party presidential vote per standard deviation of the attitudeEstimandchange in the weighted linear probability slope on the standardized attitude (party not held fixed)Interval95% CI −2.4 to 4.6n3,323Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationwhite non-Hispanic voters for a major-party candidatePeriod2008 to 2012SourceANES Cumulative Data File points, an interval that includes zero, so it is within sampling error. The change from 2012 to 2016 is +8.2 (95% CI 5.8 to 10.5)+8.2 percentage points of the Republican two-party presidential vote per standard deviation of the attitudeEstimandchange in the weighted linear probability slope on the standardized attitude (party not held fixed)Interval95% CI 5.8 to 10.5n4,483Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationwhite non-Hispanic voters for a major-party candidatePeriod2012 to 2016SourceANES Cumulative Data File points, and its interval does not reach zero. The 2004 to 2008 change has an interval that includes zero and reaches above the 2012 to 2016 change, so a rise that large during the 2008 campaign is not ruled out. Face-to-face interviews alone, which hold the ANES mode fixed across the web sample added in 2012, show no rise distinguishable from zero between those elections. Nor does the Cooperative Election Study (CES), an online survey with one racial policy item in 2008 and 2012. Tesler finds that racial attitudes became more closely tied to evaluations of politicians and to opinion on policies attached to President Obama [2]. The slope here is for the vote; it is an association across elections, not an effect of the Obama presidency. Party identification is measured in the same interview and can follow racial attitudes as well as precede them [3]; Companion 4.6a, Racial attitudes and ideology takes the split between and within parties further.

    What these surveys cannot tell you

    Each survey interviews new people, so a change in a share mixes people who changed their answers, people who changed party and the replacement of older adults by younger ones, and the data cannot separate them. The step and the kink give different starts, the 2016 survey and the 2014 survey or earlier, and neither says why the level changed; the 2016 GSS was fielded during the presidential campaign. The items measure answers to questions and not behavior, and the data cannot tell a change in belief from a change in willingness to say what the question invites. The levels after 2018 depend on interview mode on several items, so the later comparisons are read by mode and not as changes over time. Planned, Racial attitudes after George Floyd's death (planned) covers the weeks after May 2020.

    Go deeper

    • The report: every estimate with its interval and sample size.
    • Tables: every figure of the report as a table.
    • Issues: the explorer for this part.

    Reading paths that include this chapter:

    Data sources

    • General Social SurveyCumulative data 1972-2024 (race, party and the race items; interview mode from the raw file)Years: 1972-2024 (35 study years) · Weights: weight_use · License: See the provider's terms of use.
    • ANES Cumulative Data FileCumulative Data File 1964-2024: thermometers, resentment items, aid to Black Americans, affirmative action, party and presidential vote; mode weights for 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2024Years: 1948-2024 (33 study years; even years only after 2004; no 2006, 2010 or 2014 study) · Weights: VCF0009z; VCF0009x and VCF0009y for the mode views · License: Free download after accepting the ANES terms of use; cite the release.
    • Cooperative Election StudyCumulative Common Content 2008 and 2012: affirmative action item, party and presidential voteYears: 2006-2024 (every year; self-reported turnout is available in the 10 even years) · Weights: weight (single wave) · License: See the provider's terms of use.

    All data sources

    References

    1. Schuman, Howard; Steeh, Charlotte; Bobo, Lawrence; Krysan, Maria (1997). Racial Attitudes in America: Trends and Interpretations, revised edition. Harvard University Press.
    2. Tesler, Michael (2016). Post-Racial or Most-Racial? Race and Politics in the Obama Era. University of Chicago Press. press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo22961444.html
    3. Engelhardt, Andrew M. (2021). Racial Attitudes Through a Partisan Lens. British Journal of Political Science 51(3): 1062-1079. doi:10.1017/S0007123419000437

    How to cite

    @misc{singh2026fiftyyearsofracialattitudes,
  author = {Singh, Vishal},
  title = {Fifty years of racial attitudes},
  year = {2026},
  url = {https://vishalsingh.org/politics/fifty-years-of-racial-attitudes},
  note = {In The Public Mind. Published 3 October 2026.}
}