Abstract
The issue of reparations to the descendants of persons enslaved in the United States is receiving increasing attention in both the public sphere (e.g., 2020 Presidential campaigns) and in academic circles. However, the term “reparations” often goes undefined in such discussions, despite the fact that different types of government action (e.g., an apology versus financial payments) are associated with varying levels of public opposition (or support). We also know little about how attitudes toward reparations explicitly targeting the consequences of slavery differ from attitudes toward more generic race-targeted policies. Drawing on data from an online survey of white Americans conducted in 2016, we examine how levels of opposition to a range of different race-targeted government actions varies by (1) the type and aims of the intervention, and (2) whites’ social locations and political orientations. Regarding policy type, whites are least opposed to selected symbolic reparations (e.g., a memorial to enslaved persons) and to policies designed to ensure “fair treatment” of black Americans in the workplace. Whites are most opposed to reparations in the form of direct financial payments to black Americans and to policies involving “preferential treatment” of blacks in the workplace. In addition, whites who are older, more conservative, and who view race relations as unimportant are most opposed to the reparations and other race-based policies we examine. We conclude with suggestions for future work on this timely topic.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Relevant sections of the dataset used in this study are available, for purposes of replication, from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Code Availability
The code used to generate the analyses reported in the current study is not publicly available, but is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Notes
His idea about reparations vis-à-vis housing and housing policy was still being discussed in the mainstream media six years later (The New Yorker, 2019).
See the list of universities maintained by the University of Virginia (2013) at https://slavery.virginia.edu/universities-studying-slavery/.
Anecdotally this appears to be accurate, though empirical evidence on this claim is lacking. In the limited research that exists, respondents are generally not asked about their conceptualization of reparations. Rather, they are typically asked if they support or oppose policies deemed by the researchers to be reparative in nature. We found one study, Campo et al. (2004), that provided the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary definition before asking respondents to complete a survey concerning the topic.
See Dawson and Popoff (2004), pp. 50–52, for a detailed explanation.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Seattle, WA, Sept. 1–4, 2011.
However, Campo et al. (2004) found no question-order effect when asking about reparations for slavery in conjunction with reparations for Japanese Americans, Holocaust survivors, and American Indians.
We also know that various manifestations of what has been termed “new racism” undergird whites’ opposition to race-targeted policies such as affirmative action (Krysan, 2000). Theories of “new racism” emphasize a shift in U.S. public opinion involving movement away from ideologies positing the supposed biological inferiority of black Americans and toward belief-systems emphasizing blacks’ supposed cultural shortcomings as the key cause of race-based inequalities (Hunt, 2007; Krysan, 2000; Schuman et al., 1997). This shift to newer, more subtle forms of prejudice has been variously termed “symbolic racism” (Sears 1988), “modern racism” (McConahay 1986), “racial resentment” (Kinder & Sanders, 1996), and, in its most sociological guises: “laissez-faire” (Bobo et al., 1997) and “colorblind” (Bonilla-Silva, 2006) racism. While beyond the scope of the present study, future research should examine whether the effects of new racism generalize to opposition to slavery reparations.
The response rate compares the completed surveys to those who were recruited and were non-responsive, refused, or started and did not complete the survey. The completion rate compares starters to finishers.
Supplementary analyses suggest that, in terms of demographics, the 213 cases we dropped are disproportionately female and have lower SES (education and income), but that the exclusion of these cases does not meaningfully alter our presented results or overall narrative regarding the nature and determinants of white Americans’ views on the outcomes we examine. This was determined by running analyses with all available responses rather than listwise deletion if a respondent provided a nonviable answer for one or more of the dependent variables.
Paper presented by Glaser and Ryan at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Seattle, WA, Sept. 1–4, 2011.
Supplementary analyses suggest that it is primarily political ideology, rather than views of race relations, that account for the formerly significant effects of education and SCI on the apology and memorials outcomes respectively.
To further explore the determinants of the explicit reparations outcomes in Table 3, we ran backwards stepwise regression models with an exclusion rule of p ≥ .20 and an inclusion criterion of p ≤ .10. We did so for our Model 1 and Model 2 sets of predictors respectively. Model 1 results confirm that age is the most consistent predictor of opposition to explicit reparations, while Model 2 results again demonstrate the consistent role of conservatism and views of race relations. The age effects persist in Model 2, whereas some Model 1 effects (e.g., education, SCI, region) are attenuated and/or explained away in Model 2 (as is also seen in our presented Table 3 results).
As with Table 3, we ran backwards stepwise regression models for the Table 4 outcomes (with the same exclusion/inclusion criteria) to further explore the key determinants of these outcomes. Model 1 results again confirm that age is the most consistent predictor, while education, region, SCI, and gender also registered selected effects. Model 2 results again confirm the central roles of conservatism and views of race relations across all four outcomes. As seen previously, the age effects from Model 1 persisted in Model 2, whereas some of the effects of the other demographic factors did not.
References
Balfour, L. (2014). Unthinking racial realism: A future for reparations? Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race 11(1), 43–56.
Benton-Lewis, D. (1996). Black reparations Now!: 40 Acres, $50 Dollars, and a Mule, + Interest. Black Reparations Press.
Berry, M. F. (2005). My face is black is true. Vintage.
Blumer, H. (1958). Race prejudice as a sense of group position. The Pacific Sociological Review, 1(1), 3–7.
Bobo, L. D., Charles, C. Z., Krysan, M., & Simmons, A. D. (2012). The real record on racial attitudes. In P. V. Marsden (Ed.), Social trends in American life: Findings from the general social survey since 1972 (pp. 38–83). Princeton: Princeton University.
Bobo, L., & Kluegel, J. R. (1993). Opposition to race-targeting: self-interest, stratification ideology, or racial attitudes? American Sociological Review, 58(4), 443.
Bobo, L., Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, R. A. (1997). Laissez-faire racism: The crystallization of a kinder, gentler, antiblack ideology. In S. A. Tuch & J. K. Martin (Eds.), Racial attitudes in the 1990s: continuity and change (pp. 15–42). Praeger.
Bonilla Silva, E. (2006). Racism without racists—Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the United States (2nd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.
Brooks, D. (2019). Opinion | The case for reparations. The New York Times.
Brown, R., González, R., Zagefka, H., Manzi, J., & Čehajić, S. (2008). Nuestra Culpa: Collective guilt and shame as predictors of reparation for historical wrongdoing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 75–90.
Campo, S., Mastin, T., & Somjen Frazer, M. (2004). Predicting and explaining public opinion regarding U.S. slavery reparations. Howard Journal of Communications, 15(2), 115–130.
Clark, A. (2019). Princeton seminary will pay $27M in slavery reparations. In NJ.COM, October 21. Retrieved November 3, 2019 from https://www.nj.com/news/2019/10/princeton-seminary-will-pay-27m-in-slavery-reparations.html
Coates, T. (2014). The case for reparations. In The Atlantic, June issue. Retrieved March 14, 2019 from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/
Cooper, A. D. (2012). From slavery to genocide: The fallacy of debt in reparations discourse. Journal of Black Studies, 43(2), 107–126.
Coppock, A. (2018). Generalizing from Survey Experiments Conducted on Mechanical Turk: A Replication Approach. Political Science Research and Methods, 7, 613. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2018.10
Craemer, T. (2009). Framing reparations. The Policy Studies Journal, 37(2), 275–298.
Darity, W. A. (2019). Black reparations: The ARC of justice. Public Lecture, Activist Lab & Boston University’s School of Public Health. Boston, MA: Boston University. Retrieved November 6, 2019 from https://www.bu.edu/sph/news-events/signature-programs/diversity-inclusion/reparations/
Darity, W. A., & Mullen, K. A. (2020). From here to equality: Reparations for black Americans in the twenty-first century. UNC Press.
Dawson, M. C., & Popoff, R. (2004). REPARATIONS: Justice and Greed in Black and White. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 1(1), 47–91.
de Botton, A. (2004). Status anxiety. Vintage.
Ehrenreich, B. (1989). Fear of falling: The inner life of the middle class. Pantheon.
Fademan, L. (2018). Beyond reparations. In Harvard Political Review, November 14. Retrieved March 10, 2020 from https://harvardpolitics.com/culture/beyondreparations/
Feagin, J. R. (2019). The case for African American reparations, explained. In The Conversation, April 24. Retrieved April 29, 2019 from http://theconversation.com/the-case-for-african-american-reparations-explained-114124
Feagin, J. R. (2004). Documenting the costs of slavery, segregation, and contemporary racism: Why reparations are in order for African Americans. Harvard BlackLetter Law Journal, 20, 49–81.
Fossett, M. A., & Kiecolt, K. J. (1989). The relative size of minority populations and white racial attitudes. Social Science Quarterly, 70, 820–835.
Gilens, M. (1999). Why Americans hate welfare: Race, media, and the politics of antipoverty policy. The University of Chicago.
Herndon, A. W. (2019). 2020 Democrats embrace race-conscious policies, including reparations. The New York Times.
Hunt, M. O. (2007). African-American, Hispanic, and white beliefs about black/white inequality, 1977–2004. American Sociological Review, 72, 390–415.
Jacoby, J. (2019). Reparations for slavery are unworkable—And unjust. Boston Globe.
Jamerson, J. (2019). Reparations for slavery, shelved for decades, are on the table for 2020 Election. Wall Street Journal, April 12.
Juan, M. J. D., Syed, M., & Azmitia, M. (2016). Intersectionality of race/ethnicity and gender among women of color and white women. Identity: an International Journal of Theory and Research, 16(4), 225–238.
Junn, J. (2017). The Trump majority: White womanhood and the making of female voters in the U.S. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 5(2), 343–352.
Kaufmann, E. (2019). Opinion | Americans are divided by their views on race, not race itself. The New York Times.
Kinder, D. R., & Sanders, L. M. (1996). Divided by color: Racial politics and democratic ideals. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Krysan, M. (2000). Prejudice, politics, and public opinion: Understanding the sources of racial policy attitudes. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 135–168.
McCarthy, T. (2004). Coming to terms with our past, part II: On the morality and politics of reparations for slavery. Political Theory, 32(6), 750–772.
McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism scale. In S. L. Gaertner & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism: Theory and research (pp. 91–125). Academic.
Morin, R. (2019). Booker to introduce reparations study bill in the Senate. In Politico, April 8. Retrieved November 19, 2019 from https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/08/cory-booker-reparations-bill-senate-1261440
Mullinix, K. J., Leeper, T. J., Druckman, J. N., & Freese, J. (2015). The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2(2), 109–138. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2015.19
Newport, F. (2019). Reparations and Black Americans’ attitudes about race. In Gallup.Com, March 1. Retrieved June 4, 2019 from https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/247178/reparations-Black-americans-attitudes-race.aspx
Pettigrew, T. F., Christ, O., Meertens, R. W., Wagner, U., van Dick, R., & Zick, A. (2008). Relative deprivation and intergroup prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 64(2), 385–401.
Schuman, H., Steeh, C., Bobo, L., & Krysan, M. (1997). Racial attitudes in America—Trends and interpretations (Rev). Harvard.
Sears, D. O. (1988). Symbolic racism. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism: Means and controversies (pp. 53–84). Plenum.
Setzler, M., & Yanus, A. B. (2018). Why did women vote for Donald Trump? PS: Political Science and Politics, 51(3), 523–527.
Shnabel, N., Dovidio, J. F., & Levin, Z. (2016). But it’s my right! Framing effects on support for empowering policies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 63, 36–49.
Simmons, A., & Bobo, L. (2015). Can non-full-probability internet surveys yield useful data? A comparison with full-probability face-to-face surveys in the domain of race and social inequality attitudes. Sociological Methodology, 45(1), 357–387.
Swarns, R. L. (2018). Georgetown University plans steps to atone for slave past. The New York Times.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). A social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall.
Taylor, M. C. (1998). How white attitudes vary with the racial composition of local populations: Numbers count. American Sociological Review, 63(4), 512–535.
The New Yorker. (2019). Ta-Nehisi coates revisits the case for reparations. The New Yorker, June 10. Retrieved February 29, 2020 from https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-new-yorker-interview/ta-nehisi-coates-revisits-the-case-for-reparations
Thompson-Miller, R., & Feagin, J. (2007). The oppression of legal segregation: Making a case for reparations for the living? In Conference Papers—American Sociological Association, 1.
Tien, C. (2017). The racial gap in voting among women: White women, racial resentment, and support for Trump. New Political Science, 39(4), 651–669.
Torrejon, R. (2019). Sen. In Cory booker plans to introduce slavery reparations bill to senate. USA TODAY, April 9. Retrieved April 30, 2019 from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/09/cory-booker-introduce-slavery-reparations-bill-senate/3409097002/
United States Census Bureau. (2015). 2015 American community survey. United States Census Bureau.
University of Virginia. (2013). Universities Studying Slavery. In President’s Commission on Slavery and the University. Retrieved June 11, 2019 from https://slavery.virginia.edu/universities-studying-slavery/
Van Bueren, G. (2004). Slavery as piracy—The legal case for reparations for slavery. In R. Walden (Ed.), Racism and human rights (pp. 41–53). Springer.
Weinberg, J. D., Freese, J., & McElhattan, D. (2014). Comparing data characteristics and results of an online factorial survey between a population-based and a crowdsource recruited sample. Sociological Science, 1, 292–310. https://doi.org/10.15195/issn.2330-6696
Woessner, M., & Kelly-Woessner, A. (2006). Slavery Reparations and race relations in America: Assessing how the restitutions debate influences public support for blacks, civil rights, and affirmative action: Slavery reparations and race relations in America. Politics & Policy, 34(1), 134–154.
Young, I. M. (2011). Responsibility for justice. Oxford University Press.
Funding
The data collection was completed with funding from the following agencies: the Social Psychology Section of the American Sociological Association (Graduate Student Investigator Award—2016); the Fahs-Beck Fund for Research and Experimentation at The New York Community Trust (Doctoral Dissertation Grant Recipient—2016); and Northeastern University’s Department of Sociology (2016), and Brudnick Center on Conflict and Violence (2016).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The authors made equal contributions.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. In addition, the authors have full control of all primary data and agree to allow the journal to review their data if requested.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix A
Appendix A
See Table 5.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Reichelmann, A.V., Hunt, M.O. White Americans’ Attitudes Toward Reparations for Slavery: Definitions and Determinants. Race Soc Probl 14, 269–281 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-021-09348-x
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-021-09348-x