Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Black and Latinx conservatives upshift competence relative to liberals in mostly white settings


Racial minorities vary in their sociopolitical views, as figures such as Barack Obama and Ted Cruz often demonstrate. Here, I examine the implications for interracial behaviour, proposing that Black and Latinx conservatives—specifically, those who are more supportive of hierarchy—upshift competence relative to liberals in mostly white settings, distancing themselves from stereotypes. Analysing 250,000 Congressional remarks and 1 million tweets revealed that Black and Latinx conservatives (determined by voting behaviour) referenced high power and ability more than liberals. No such pattern emerged for white politicians. A meta-analysis of four experiments further revealed that Black conservatives (determined by social dominance orientation) referenced high status more than liberals when responding to a white (but not Black) partner. This was robust to controls and unique to hierarchy-based conservatism. Finally, analysing 18,000 editorials suggested the following implications: the more minority conservatives referenced power in Congress, the more journalists referenced power in editorials about them. The findings highlight the diverse ideology of racial minorities, as well as the behavioural implications.

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Power references in Congressional speech as a function of politician ideology and politician race/ethnicity.
Fig. 2: Ability references in Congressional tweets as a function of politician ideology and politician race/ethnicity.
Fig. 3: Indirect effects of politician ideology predicting power references in editorials through power references in Congressional speech for Black and Latinx or white politicians.

Data availability

All data supporting the findings in this manuscript are available at the Open Science Foundation (

Code availability

All code for analyses supporting the findings in this manuscript are available at the Open Science Foundation (


  1. 1.

    Vespa, J., Medina, L., & Amstrong, D. M. Demographic Turning Points for the United States: Population Projections for 2020 to 2060 (US Census Bureau, 2018).

  2. 2.

    Bailik, K. For the Fifth Time in a Row, the New Congress is the Most Racially and Ethnically Diverse Ever (Pew Research Center, 2019);

  3. 3.

    Burns, C., Barton, K., & Kerby, S. The State of Diversity in Today’s Workforce: As Our Nation Becomes More Diverse So Too Does Our Work Force (Center for American Progress, 2012);

  4. 4.

    Leary, M. R. Self-presentation: Impression Management and Interpersonal Behavior (Westview Press, 1995).

  5. 5.

    Roberts, S. O. et al. Racial inequality in psychological research: trends of the past and recommendations for the future. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 15, 1295–1309 (2020).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Dupree, C. H., Torrez, B., Obioha, O. & Fiske, S. T. Race-status associations: distinct effects of three novel measures among White and Black perceivers. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 120, 601–625 (2021).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Vorauer, J. D., Hunter, A. J., Main, K. J. & Roy, S. A. Meta-stereotype activation: evidence from indirect measures for specific evaluative concerns experienced by members of dominant groups in interethnic interaction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 78, 690–707 (2000).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Zou, L. & Cheryan, S. Two axes of subordination: a new model of racial position. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 112, 696–717 (2017).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Bergsieker, H. B., Shelton, J. N. & Richeson, J. A. To be liked versus respected: divergent goals in interracial interactions. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 99, 248–26 (2010).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Dupree, C. H. & Fiske, S. T. Self-presentation in interracial settings: the competence downshift by white liberals. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 117, 579–604 (2019).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    White, I. K., & Laird, C. H. Steadfast Democrats: How Social Forces Shape Black Political Behavior (Princeton Univ. Press, 2020).

  12. 12.

    Jefferson, H. The curious case of Black conservatives: construct validity and the 7-point liberal-conservative scale. Preprint at SSRN (2020).

  13. 13.

    Dawson, M. C. Black Visions: The Roots of Contemporary African American Political Ideologies (Univ. Chicago Press, 2001).

  14. 14.

    Philpot, T. Conservative, But Not Republican (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2017).

  15. 15.

    Bejarano, C. E. The Latino Gender Gap in U.S. Politics. (Routledge, 2013).

  16. 16.

    Donato, K. M. & Perez, S. L. A different hue of the gender gap: Latino immigrants and political conservatism in the United States. Russe. Sage J. Soc. Sci. 2, 98–124 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Ho, A. K. et al. The nature of social dominance orientation: theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO7 scale. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 109, 1003–1028 (2015).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Stern, C. & Axt, J. R. Group status modulates the associative strength between status quo supporting beliefs and anti-Black attitudes. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 10, 946–956 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Jost, J. T. & Thompson, E. P. Group-based dominance and opposition to equality as independent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism, and social policy attitudes among African Americans and European Americans. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 36, 209–232 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Eastwick, P. W., Richeson, J. A., Son, D. & Finkel, E. J. Is love colorblind? Political orientation and interracial romantic desire. Pers. Soc. Psychol. B. 35, 1258–1268 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Ayala, M. I. The rationalization of college attainment through a color-blind lens among Latino(a) students. J. Lat. Educ. 19, 107–119 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Claessens, S. et al. The dual evolutionary foundations of political ideology. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 336–345 (2020).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Kteily, N. S., Rocklage, M. D., McClanahan, K. & Ho, A. K. Political ideology shapes the amplification of the accomplishments of disadvantaged vs. advantaged group members. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 1559–1568 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Poole, K. T. & Rosenthal, H. A spatial model for legislative roll call analysis. Am. Jour. Polit. Sci. 29, 357–384 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Poole, K. T. & Rosenthal, H. D-Nominate after 10 years: a comparative update to Congress: a political-economic history of roll-call voting. Legis. Stud. Quart. 26, 5–29 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M. & Malle, B. F. Social dominance orientation: a personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 67, 741–763 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Altemeyer, B. Right-Wing Authoritarianism (Univ. Manitoba Press, 1981).

  28. 28.

    Duckitt, J. & Sibley, C. G. A dual-process motivational model of ideology, politics, and prejudice. Psychol. Inq. 20, 98–109 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C. & Glick, P. Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence. Trends Cog. Sci. 11, 77–83 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Anderson, C., Hildreth, J. A. D. & Howland, L. Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psychol. Bull. 141, 574–601 (2015).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Abele, A. E. et al. Facets of the fundamental content dimensions: agency with competence and assertiveness—communion with warmth and morality. Front. Psychol. 7, 1810 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Keltner, D., Van Kleef, G. A., Chen, S. & Kraus, M. W. A reciprocal influence model of social power: emerging principles and lines of inquiry. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40, 151–192 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Adams, J. S. Inequity in social exchange. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 62, 335–343 (1965).

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Fast, N. J. & Chen, S. When the boss feels inadequate power, incompetence, and aggression. Psychol. Sci. 20, 1406–1413 (2009).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Utz, S. The potential benefits of campaigning via social network sites. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 14, 221–243 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Erlbaum, 1988).

  37. 37.

    Lakens, D. Equivalence tests: a practical primer for t tests, correlations, and meta-analyses. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 8, 355–362 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Rosnow, R. L. & Rosenthal, R. Statistical procedures and the justification of knowledge in psychological science. Am. Psychol. 44, 1276–1284 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Goh, J. X., Hall, J. & Rosenthal, R. Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: some arguments on why and a primer on how. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Comp. 10, 535–549 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Lewis, A. Conservatism in the Black Community (Routledge, 2013).

  41. 41.

    Devine, P. G. & Elliot, A. J. Are racial stereotypes really fading? The Princeton trilogy revisited. Pers. Soc. Psychol. B 21, 1139–1150 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Ambady, N., Bernieri, F. & Richeson, J. A. Toward a histology of social behavior: judgmental accuracy from thin slices of the behavioral stream. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 32, 201–271 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Kraus, M. W., Torrez, B., Park, J. W. L. & Ghayebi, F. The reproduction of social class in brief speech. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 22998–23003 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Frimer, J. A. et al. A decline in prosocial language helps explain public disapproval of the U.S. Congress. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 6591–6594 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Grieco, E. Newsroom Employees are Less Diverse than U.S. Workers Overall (Pew Research Center, 2018);

  46. 46.

    Hayes, A. F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-based Approach. (Guilford, 2013).

  47. 47.

    AlShebli, B. K., Rahwan, T. & Woon, W. L. The preeminence of ethnic diversity in scientific collaboration. Nat. Commun. 9, 51–63 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Richeson, J. A. & Shelton, J. N. Negotiating interracial interactions: costs, consequences, and possibilities. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 16, 316–320 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Voigt, R. et al. Language from police body camera footage shows racial disparities in officer respect. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 6521–6526 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Lucas, B. J. & Kteily, N. S. (Anti-)egalitarianism differentially predicts empathy for members of advantaged versus disadvantaged groups. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 114, 665–692 (2018).

  51. 51.

    Bastian, B. & Haslam, N. Psychological essentialism and stereotype endorsement. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 42, 228–235 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Lakoff, G. Moral Politics (Univ. Chicago Press, 1996).

  53. 53.

    Gallois, C., Ogay, T., & Giles, H. in Theorizing about Intercultural Communication (ed. Gudykunst, W. B.) 121–148 (Sage, 2005).

  54. 54.

    Gaither, S., Cohen-Goldberg, A., Gidney, C. L. & Maddox, K. Sounding Black or White: priming identity and biracial speech. Front. Psychol. 6, 457 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Yu, B. Language and gender in Congressional speech. Lit. Linguist. Comput. 29, 118–132 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Barberá, P. et al. Tweeting from left to right: is online political communication more than an echo chamber? Psychol. Sci. 26, 1531–1542 (2015).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Clinton, J. S., Jackman, S. & Rivers, D. The statistical analysis of roll call data. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 98, 355–370 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Lewis, J. B. et al. Voteview: Congressional roll-call votes database (Voteview, 2020);

  59. 59.

    McCarty, N., Poole, K. T. & Rosenthal, H. The hunt for party discipline in congress. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 95, 673–687 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Silverman, D. Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text and Interaction (Sage, 1993).

  61. 61.

    Nicolas, G., Bai, B. & Fiske, S. Automated dictionary creation for analyzing text: an illustration from stereotype content. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 51, 178–196 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Fellbaum, C. WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database (MIT Press, 1998).

  63. 63.

    Lakens, D., Scheel, A. M. & Isager, P. M. Equivalence testing for psychological research: a tutorial. Adv. Methods Pract. Psych. Sci. 1, 259–269 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S. & Acquisti, A. Beyond the Turk: alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 70, 153–163 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Bonilla-Silva, E. Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States 5th edn (Rowman & Littlefield, 2017).

  66. 66.

    Saini, A. Superior: The Return of Race Science (Beacon Press, 2019).

  67. 67.

    Ridings, C. M. & Gefen, D. Virtual community attraction: why people hang out online. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. (2004).

  68. 68.

    Dino, A., Reysen, S. & Branscombe, N. R. Online interactions between group members differing in status. J. Lang. Soc. Psychol. 28, 85–93 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Walther, J. B. Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Commun. Res 23, 3–43 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Horton, J. J., Rand, D. G. & Zeckhauser, R. J. The online laboratory: conducting experiments in a real labor market. Exp. Econ. 14, 399–425 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D. & Simonsohn, U. False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol. Sci. 22, 1359–1366 (2011).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Zakrisson, I. Construction of a short version of the right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) scale. Pers. Indiv. Diff. 39, 863–872 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Wilson, D. B. Meta-analysis stuff (2005);

  74. 74.

    Hedges, L. V. & Vevea, J. L. Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychol. Methods 3, 486–504 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Cohn, L. D. & Becker, B. J. How meta-analysis increases statistical power. Psychol. Methods 8, 243–253 (2003).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


I thank F. Ghayebi and T. Demeke, who provided assistance with data collection; and S. Fiske, M. Kraus and members of the Contending with Social Inequality laboratory for their feedback on early versions of this paper. The author received no specific funding for this work.

Author information




C.H.D. devised the study concept, designed the experiments, collected and analysed the data, and wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cydney H. Dupree.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Human Behaviour thanks Ivy Onyeador, Eyal Sagi and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs. 1–4, Tables 1–14, Methods, Results and references.

Reporting Summary

Peer Review File

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dupree, C.H. Black and Latinx conservatives upshift competence relative to liberals in mostly white settings. Nat Hum Behav (2021).

Download citation


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing