A recent study published in Preventive Medicine Reports sheds light on how certain beliefs and societal perceptions can influence support for political violence among white Americans. The research identifies a connection between “replacement thinking”—the belief that immigrants are displacing native-born white Americans—markers of social status threat, and endorsement of political violence. The findings suggest that these beliefs may increase the likelihood of individuals justifying violent actions to protect perceived social and cultural dominance.
Political violence is a growing concern in the United States, with incidents occurring at levels unseen in decades. Such violence not only disrupts political systems but also harms communities, creating long-lasting emotional and social impacts. The researchers sought to better understand the motivations behind support for political violence, particularly among white Americans. They focused on how the perception of diminishing white privilege and feelings of social or economic disadvantage might influence such attitudes.
The study centers on the concept of “replacement thinking,” which refers to the belief that demographic changes threaten the cultural and societal dominance of white Americans. This belief has been associated with high-profile violent incidents, such as the 2022 mass shooting in Buffalo, New York. The researchers hypothesized that individuals experiencing status threat—economic or social insecurity—might be more susceptible to these beliefs and, in turn, more likely to support political violence.
“I was interested in this topic because I wanted to know the motivators as to why people would want to commit political violence in the United States. Specifically, I was curious to what the motivators were for the insurrections who stormed the capital on January 6th,” said study author Paul. M Reeping, who conducted the research while a postdoctoral fellow at University of California, Davis.
The researchers analyzed data from the 2022 Life in America Survey, a nationally representative online survey conducted in English and Spanish between May and June 2022. The study focused on 5,976 non-Hispanic white participants. Participants were asked about their agreement with statements related to replacement thinking, their demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, and their support for political violence in various scenarios.
Replacement thinking was assessed by participants’ agreement with the statement, “In America, native-born white people are being replaced by immigrants,” with strong agreement categorized as endorsing this belief. Markers of status threat were identified through indicators such as relatively low income (household income at least one standard deviation below the median for their census tract), lack of a high school diploma, and racial composition of the respondents’ neighborhoods. Neighborhoods were classified as predominantly white (91–100% white), predominantly non-white (0–10% white), or racially diverse (11–90% white).
To measure support for political violence, participants were asked whether violence was justified in specific scenarios, including to preserve the “American way of life,” stop illegal immigration, and stop people who do not share the same beliefs from voting. Responses endorsing violence in any scenario were classified as support for political violence.
The analysis revealed significant relationships between replacement thinking, status threat, and support for political violence. Strong agreement with replacement thinking was associated with more than double the likelihood of endorsing political violence compared to those who did not hold this belief. This link persisted even when researchers adjusted for demographic factors, underscoring the powerful role of replacement thinking in shaping attitudes toward violence.
“I was not expecting that the belief in replacement thinking would have such a large magnitude on endorsement of political violence,” Reeping told PsyPost.
Markers of status threat also independently contributed to violence endorsement. For instance, respondents with relatively low income were 24% more likely to support political violence, even in the absence of replacement thinking. Similarly, those without a high school diploma were 29% more likely to justify violence.
The study also highlighted the influence of neighborhood racial composition on attitudes toward political violence. A U-shaped relationship emerged, with white respondents in predominantly white (91–100%) or predominantly non-white (0–10%) neighborhoods more likely to support political violence than those in racially diverse areas. This finding suggests that neighborhood diversity may mitigate feelings of threat and hostility.
Respondents living in more diverse neighborhoods (11–90% white) were the least likely to endorse political violence, aligning with theories of intergroup contact, which propose that exposure to diverse groups can reduce prejudice and stereotyping. The U-shaped pattern further indicates that both extreme homogeneity and perceived minority status can exacerbate perceptions of threat, fueling support for violence.
An interaction between replacement thinking and economic status provided additional insight into how these factors interact. While replacement thinking increased the likelihood of endorsing political violence, respondents with both replacement thinking and relatively low income showed a slightly reduced association compared to those with replacement thinking alone. This suggests some overlap in the mechanisms through which economic insecurity and replacement thinking influence attitudes, potentially moderating their combined effect.
“I was not expecting that there would be a U-shaped curve in endorsement of political violence by racial composition of census tract,” Reeping said. “In other words, white people who lived in census tracts that were 90%+ white, and those who live in census tracts that were 90% non-white, where most likely to endorse political violence. White individuals who lived in a census tract that was 60% non-white were the least likely to endorse political violence.
The study also revealed gender differences. Men with relatively low income were more likely to endorse political violence, while this association was not observed among women. Conversely, women living in predominantly non-white neighborhoods were more likely to support political violence, whereas this pattern was absent for men. These differences highlight the nuanced ways in which gender shapes the relationship between perceived threats and attitudes toward violence, suggesting that men and women may respond differently to similar social and economic pressures.
The study’s findings highlight that “diversity is generally a good thing: people who live in more diverse neighborhoods are less likely to endorse political violence than those who do not,” Reeping told PsyPost. “Additionally, when people feel left behind, especially compared to their peers, they are much more likely to endorse political violence—likely because they feel like the government is not working for them.”
The data is cross-sectional, meaning it provides a snapshot of attitudes at one point in time and cannot establish causation. While the study identifies strong associations between replacement thinking, status threat, and support for political violence, it cannot determine whether these beliefs directly lead to violent behaviors or whether other factors might influence both attitudes and beliefs.
“Just because someone endorses political violence, does not mean that they themselves will commit it,” Reeping noted.
To address these limitations, future research could adopt a longitudinal design to track changes in beliefs and attitudes over time. Such an approach would help clarify whether replacement thinking and status threat precede or result from shifts in political violence endorsements. Reeping hopes “to eventually get to a point where we can come up with some interventions to prevent political violence, especially in these tumultuous times.”
The study, “Replacement thinking, status threat, and the endorsement of political violence among non-Hispanic white individuals in the US: A cross-sectional study,” was authored by Paul M. Reeping, Garen J. Wintemute, Sonia L. Robinson, Andrew Crawford, Elizabeth A. Tomsich, and Veronica A. Pear.
