America's racial sands are quickly shifting, with parallel growth in theories to explain how varied groups respond, politically, to demographic changes. This Element develops a unified framework to predict when, why, and how racial groups react defensively toward others. America's racial groups can be arrayed along two dimensions: how American and how superior are they considered? This Element claims that location along these axes motivates political reactions to outgroups. Using original survey data and experiments, this Element reveals the acute sensitivity that people of color have to their social station and how it animates political responses to racial diversity.

Introduction : Marable's forecast -- The elusive quest for people of color -- People of color, unite! -- The many faces of people of color -- New wine in new bottles -- I feel your pain, brother -- Galvanizing people of color -- Falling apart -- Conclusion : people of color in a diversifying world.

Politics in the United States has become increasingly polarized in recent decades. Both political elites and everyday citizens are divided into rival and mutually antagonistic partisan camps, with each camp questioning the political legitimacy and democratic commitments of the other side. Does this polarization pose threats to democracy itself? What can make some democratic institutions resilient in the face of such challenges? Democratic Resilience brings together a distinguished group of specialists to examine how polarization affects the performance of institutional checks and balances as well as the political behavior of voters, civil society actors, and political elites. The volume bridges the conventional divide between institutional and behavioral approaches to the study of American politics and incorporates historical and comparative insights to explain the nature of contemporary challenges to democracy. It also breaks new ground to identify the institutional and societal sources of democratic resilience.

This Element attributes this pattern to the fact that mobilization around officer-involved killings is shaped by anti-Black discrimination, rather than general sentiments about police violence. It also finds that the local density of social justice organizations increases political mobilization.

This book explores the racial rules that are often hidden but perpetuate vast racial inequities in the United States.

Political psychology applies what is known about human psychology to the study of politics. It examines how people reach political decisions on topics such as voting, party identification, and political attitudes as well as how leaders mediate political conflicts and make foreign policy decisions. In this updated third edition of The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, Leonie Huddy, David O. Sears, Jack S. Levy, and Jennifer Jerit have gathered together an international group of distinguished scholars to provide an up-to-date account of key topics and areas of research in the field. Chapter authors draw on theory and research on biopsychology, neuroscience, personality, psychopathology, evolutionary psychology, social psychology, developmental psychology, cognitive psychology, and intergroup relations. Some chapters address the political psychology of political elites, while other chapters deal with the dynamics of mass political behavior. Focusing first on political psychology at the individual level (attitudes, values, decision-making, ideology, personality) and then moving to the collective (group identity, mass mobilization, political violence), this fully interdisciplinary volume covers models of the mass public and political elites and addresses both domestic issues and foreign policy. Now with new chapters on authoritarianism, nationalism, status hierarchies, minority political identities, and several other topics along with substantially updated material to account for the recent cutting-edge research within both psychology and political science, this is an essential reference for scholars and students interested in the intersection of the two fields.

Muslim Americans are grossly marginalized in US democracy and mainstream politics. The situation developed rapidly and is getting worse.

This book brings together internationally known scholars from a wide range of disciplines and theoretical traditions, all of whom have made significant contributions to the field of race and ethnic relations. As well as identifying important and persistent points of controversy, the collection reveals a complementary and multifaceted approach to theorisation. The theories represented include contributions from the perspective of sociology. These range from the established perspectives of Marx and Weber through to the more recent interventions of rational choice theory, symbolic interactionism and identity structure analysis.

This Element examines just how much the public knows about some of America's most stigmatized social groups, who comprise 40.3% of the population, and evaluates whether misinformation matters for shaping policy attitudes and candidate support. The authors design and field an original survey containing large national samples of Black, Latino, Asian, Muslim, and White Americans, and include measures of misinformation designed to assess the amount of factual information that individuals possess about these groups. They find that Republicans, Whites, the most racially resentful, and consumers of conservative news outlets are the most likely to be misinformed about socially marginalized groups. Their analysis also indicates that misinformation predicts hostile policy support on racialized issues; it is also positively correlated with support for Trump. They then conducted three studies aimed at correcting misinformation. Their research speaks to the prospects of a well-functioning democracy, and its ramifications on the most marginalized.

An examination of escalating conflicts between Blacks and Koreans in American cities, focusing on the Flatbush Boycott of 1990. Claire Jean Kim rejects the idea that Black-Korean conflict constitutes racial scapegoating and argues instead that it is a response to white dominance in society.