Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The belief among white nationalist, alt-right supporters that white people are being systematically replaced by non-white groups in society (i.e., the conspiracy theory of “great replacement”) is grounded in their broader beliefs in “race realism”—that is, the idea that racial categories are biologically determined. Here, we probe the common psychological biases that may contribute to the alt-right’s racist ideology. Surveying a national sample of Americans (N = 1500), we find that alt-right supporters are significantly more likely to support essentialist beliefs—the notion that biology forms the core of who people are—than other Americans. Moreover, results from a two-wave experiment suggest that the alt-right interprets media narratives around behavioral science research in a way that reinforces belief in fundamental genetic differences between social groups. Consistent with expectations, narratives that emphasize deterministic genetic explanations for behavior lead all participants (regardless of alt-right support) to express increased essentialist beliefs. However, for alt-right supporters, socioenvironmental explanations for human behavior also lead to an increase in essentialist beliefs. Moreover, alt-right supporters are more likely to mistakenly interpret socioenvironmental narratives as direct evidence for the genetic basis of behavior. We suggest that essentialist thinking may provide a cognitive gateway to alt-right ideology.

Keywords

White ethnonationalism racism genetics media survey experiments

“ Race is a biological fact. Does anyone think that the differences between Danes and Pygmies are a sociological illusion? A barely socialized two-year-old can tell races apart at a glance. There are countless race differences in such things as skull structure, twinning rates, and susceptibility to disease. It is even possible to tell a person’s race from the varieties of bacteria that live in his mouth!”¹

Jared Taylor, an American white supremacist and self-described “race realist.”

Introduction

On May 14th, 2022, a mass shooter at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, joined the ranks of other contemporary and historical white supremacists who have targeted lethal, racist violence on non-white individuals—killing 10 other people, the majority of whom were Black. Like many others before him, the Buffalo shooter’s rationalization for mass murder was evident in his prior online activity. In this case, a sprawling white supremacist manifesto that he had posted online primarily cited the conspiracy theory of “great replacement”—an idea that white people are being systematically and deliberately displaced by non-white people in society—and drew on scientific evidence in behavioral genetics research claiming to find heritable differences in IQ and propensity to violence between racial groups. Belief in the genetic bases of racial differences (especially interpretations of scientific findings that denigrate the intelligence and behavioral characteristics of non-white people) appears to be shared widely by members of the alt-right.

Broadly, the alt-right, or “alternative right,” is a collection of approximate extreme nativist and white nationalist ideologies (Hawley, 2017). Whether the alt-right is a disparate association of broadly far-right reactionary thought or composed of a thicker ideological movement which can be mobilized for political action, the alt-right has had increasing influence on the beliefs and behaviors of average Americans (Forscher and Kteily, 2020). Of particular concern has been the alt-right’s ability to organize online to misunderstand, if not intentionally misconstrue, the research of behavioral and population geneticists to establish the “scientific” basis of far-right notions of racial differences, racial hierarchies, and “white purity” (Panofsky et al., 2021). That is, alt-righters rely on genetics and biology to argue for the verity of “race realism” or “human biodiversity,” ideological claims that different racial groups are clearly definable by different biological profiles. Such observations of the alt-right’s enthusiasm for genetic science suggest that alt-right ideologies are characterized by racial essentialism, a belief that different racial groups can be characterized by an innate and biological group “essence” that implies that race itself is an immutable trait of individuals (Gil-White, 2001). Indeed, prior work has focused on the alt-right’s interest in genetic explanations of group differences by analyzing the popularity of genetic ancestry tests among alt-right white nationalists seeking to prove their “pure” white genealogy, as well as analyses of their activity on social media forums sharing and celebrating results that suggest fully European ancestry (Panofsky et al., 2021; Panofsky and Donovan, 2019).²

However, to our knowledge, it has not yet been directly tested whether alt-right supporters exhibit more domain-general genetic essentialist beliefs that motivate their ideology. A wide-ranging examination of the psychological profile of the alt-right suggests that alt-right adherents are characterized by preferences for group-based dominance, blatantly dehumanizing attitudes toward outgroups, and a zest for collective action on behalf of whites (Forscher and Kteily, 2020), but this seminal work does not assess whether essentialism might be a potential mechanism of such intergroup attitudes. We test that possibility here, investigating whether alt-right supporters do in fact espouse stronger beliefs in genetic essentialism than non-alt-right supporters. Using a national sample of Americans, we find that alt-right supporters are more likely to express essentialist genetic viewpoints than other Americans (who do not support the alt-right).

In addition, we probe whether different types of narratives about the sources of human behavior affect essentialist biases among those who support the alt-right and those who do not. Prior work demonstrates that deterministic genetic explanations for group differences can lead to more negative outgroup attitudes among people in general (e.g., Bastian and Haslam, 2006; Haslam et al., 2006; Keller, 2005; Kimel et al., 2016; Nam and Sawyer, 2023). Such findings suggest that the cognitive biases that fuel alt-right ideology are rather commonplace, pointing to a psychological route by which alt-right beliefs about racial hierarchy can seem more legitimate, sensible, and appealing. We therefore experimentally examine responses to genetic versus socioenvironmental explanations for human behavior among alt-right supporters (and non-alt-right), in both racialized and non-racialized contexts to assess whether such effects may be limited to the racial arena. Consistent with expectations, we find that both the alt-right and non-alt-right express increased essentialist beliefs following primarily deterministic genetic explanations for violence. However, somewhat surprisingly, alt-righters also express greater essentialist beliefs following socioenvironmental explanations for violence, which non-alt-righters do not. Using manipulation checks, we are able to probe the results further and find that alt-right supporters are more likely to incorrectly interpret narratives that explicitly emphasize socioenvironmental explanations for violence as evidence for the genetic basis of human behavior. These findings suggest that alt-right supporters are misinterpreting—either unintentionally or purposefully—scientific research in a way that aligns with their heightened essentialist beliefs.

Essentialism: a common cognitive bias and a cognitive feature of the alt-right?

Essentialism is the idea that an object has an underlying nature that cannot be observed directly but which gives the object its true identity (Medin and Ortony, 1989). Essentialist biases are common, and they are even observed readily in young children (Gelman, 2004). Biological essentialism holds that it is biological—and in particular, genetic—traits that provide the basis for an individual’s natural and true identity, or “essence.” For example, we may observe individual differences in physical characteristics, such as height, weight, and hair, and make assumptions about the biological sex of the individual. Biological essentialism extends these cues further to make assumptions about the person’s character, such as the innate masculinity or femininity of the individual (Gaunt, 2006). When people use these simplifying heuristics to categorize entire groups (such as racial or ethnic groups) based on superficial visual cues, they are more likely to view inequalities between groups as “natural” and inevitable (Bem, 1993; Gaunt, 2006). Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that racial essentialism has no basis in biological reality (Graves, 2001; Roberts, 2011; Smedley and Smedley, 2011), the misperception of innate biological differences between racial and ethnic groups has reinforced overtly racist, stereotyped endorsements of marginalized groups (Gil-White, 2001; Haslam et al., 2006; Haslam et al., 2000, 2002; Hong et al., 2001; Nam and Sawyer, 2023).

Alt-right groups can be observed online applying similar essentialist views to construct a scientific definition of racial “whiteness” and to bolster claims about the distinctiveness and superiority of whites as a racial group (Panofsky et al., 2021). Although historically, scientific research has often been misused for political ends, the confluence of the accessibility and volume of genomic research with the interests of violent white ethnonationalist extremists has distinguished new efforts. Public databases in conjunction with consumer genetic tests have been utilized by white supremacists to platform a modernized scientific racism, a first step toward mobilization along white ethnocentric lines and a central component of the alt-right’s “metapolitics” (Panofsky et al., 2021). Byrd and Hughey (2015) note that “the general public is now exposed to more information on genetic and genomic research through various forms of media than ever before” (p. 10), but interpretation is not always obvious and is amenable to political co-optation (see also Hochschild, 2021). Media articles describing genetics research often present overly simplified, if not altogether incorrect, explanations that privilege the causal role of genetics (Conrad, 1997). Thus, media accounts of genetics research may not only reinforce existing prejudices but may also create them in the absence of other information or beliefs. Dealing with the “unknown” regarding genes has been shown to lead to cognitive biases (Dar-Nimrod and Heine, 2011; Shostak et al., 2009). Appealing to (faulty) popular intuition regarding behavior while citing expert research has been shown to reinforce racist attitudes and allow respondents to more freely express them (even explicitly) as they are in line with “expert opinion” (Nam and Sawyer, 2023).

Undoubtedly, there are political reasons to be cautious about the errant publicization—if not politically motivated ideological instrumentation by white nationalist and other far right groups—of genetics research. Here, we examine within-subject changes in essentialist genetic beliefs after exposure to media narratives describing either “nature” or “nurture” explanations for behavioral outcomes. Specifically, we make use of modified news articles that summarize scholarly academic research highlighting either genetic variants associated with violent behavior or socioenvironmental conditions, comparing the responses of those who support the alt-right with those who do not.

Hypotheses

First, we expect that there will be intergroup differences between those who support the alt-right and those who do not support the alt-right in terms of their belief in biological essentialism. Specifically, we hypothesize that alt-right supporters will hold higher essentialist beliefs than non-alt-right supporters (at “baseline” prior to any experimental treatment).

Second, we hypothesize that individuals who are assigned news articles emphasizing a deterministic genetic narrative will be more likely to report essentialist beliefs than those who receive socioenvironmental or unrelated articles. Conversely, individuals who read news articles emphasizing a socioenvironmental narrative about violence will be less likely to report essentialist beliefs (than those who receive genetic or unrelated articles). Specifically, narratives that describe a deterministic genetic basis for violent behavior are more likely to lead to increased essentialist beliefs post-treatment than those that describe a primarily socioenvironmental basis for violence (or unrelated articles).

In an exploratory fashion, we examine the possibility that essentialist beliefs may be magnified in racialized contexts, as biological essentialism often correlates with racial stereotyping (e.g., with perceptions of violent criminality, see Bastian and Haslam, 2006; Haslam et al., 2006). Thus, we vary treatment narratives by racial prime (i.e., prime race or do not prime race) to assess whether highlighting differences between Black and white racial groups may further heighten essentialist beliefs.

Racial attribution for behavior, particularly normatively negative behaviors, such as violent crime, triggers biases in cognition (Bastian and Haslam, 2006). Respondents are likely to utilize racial priming as a device, falsely interpreting the racial prime as evidence of trait immutability, in an effort to organize and distance themselves from the negative behavioral outcome, leading to the observed increase in essentialist beliefs. Therefore, even though the narrative may suggest a socioenvironmental impetus for behavior, priming racial differences may induce similar cognitive processes as narratives that rely primarily on genetic explanations for behavior. Although we expect that racial priming would be particularly salient for alt-right supporters as they are driven by racial resentment (Banda and Cluverius, 2023), a discussion of violent criminality itself is likely associated with ideas of racial immutability in the alt-right, whether or not race is explicitly referenced. Thus, similar to our expectation of the effect of racial priming in the general population, we may anticipate any narrative of violent criminality, whether or not it explicitly mentions race, to particularly motivate essentialist thinking in the alt-right.

Methods and procedures

Data were collected on a national sample of U.S. citizens (N = 1500) via YouGov. Wave 1 of the survey experiment was collected in mid-January of 2022. These same respondents were then asked to complete Wave 2 of the study approximately 2 weeks later. Both waves of the survey were completed by 1500 Americans. Participants were surveyed on our items of interest (i.e., biological essentialism) and other pre-treatment demographic questions in Wave 1 and then were reassessed on these items following the random assignment of five conditions (4 treatments; 1 control) in Wave 2.

In Wave 2, participants were randomly assigned to one of five possible conditions, all of which entailed reading a news article. The experimental conditions varied on dimensions of the research narrative (whether it offered a genetic explanation for the behavioral outcome or an environmental explanation). Additionally, as genetic narratives are often linked explicitly or implicitly with race in the media, and research shows that minoritized groups are often criminalized in their depictions in the press, particularly when describing violent behavior (Dixon and Linz, 2000; Entman, 1994), we varied whether or not attributions were made with explicit reference to race (specifically, whether the explanation varied by race in terms of likelihood). The control condition discussed an unrelated subject that did not mention violence, genetics, or race (see Appendix A for full treatment materials). Following the article, subjects were then reassessed on expressions of essentialism to measure any within-subject differences. In addition, as a manipulation check, subjects were asked to choose a statement that best summarized the article.

Experimental conditions

Genetic condition × no race

Participants assigned to the genetic condition read a news article titled, “‘Warrior gene’ may contribute to violent crime, studies say,” which described genetics research that discovered a link between a particular genetic variant and violent behavior. The text emphasized the genetic variation in the composition of “extremely violent offenders.”

Genetic condition × race

In the racialized genetic treatment, the article contained identical text as in the genetic treatment described above but included two additional sentences noting that the variant of the gene linked to violent crime was found to be “more common among blacks and less common among whites” and that “the prevalence of the ‘warrior gene’ is quite variable across the population.”

Socioenvironmental condition × no race

Participants assigned to the socioenvironmental violence treatment read a news article titled, “Traumatic events may contribute to violent crime, studies say,” which described similarly violent behavior to the genetics treatment. However, the article emphasized “that prior life experience with trauma,” including maltreatment in the childhood environment, significantly predicted behavioral differences with respect to violent crimes.

Socioenvironmental condition × race

In the racialized socioenvironmental condition, the article contained the same text as in the socioenvironmental condition described above but included two additional sentences at the end of the treatment describing differences in the prevalence of childhood maltreatment by race. Specifically, the article noted that the incidence of childhood maltreatment was more common in black than white communities, “helping to explain racial differences in violence in young adulthood.”

Control condition

Participants assigned to the control condition read an article unrelated to research on factors predicting violence. The control condition text was instead about summer homework, titled “Summer homework: Seeing vacation homework from the perspectives of educator and parent.” The article discussed the purpose and procrastination of summer homework, as well as other kinds of learning that can occur over summer vacations without assigned schoolwork. The purpose of this condition was to provide a “baseline” assessment of essentialist attitudes without experimentally priming subjects with behavioral and genetics research, violence, or race.

Alt-right support

We assessed respondents’ support for the alt-right using a dichotomous measure: “I am a supporter of the alt-right movement” (coded as 1) or “I am not a supporter of the alt-right movement” (coded as 0). Alt-right supporters comprised a small but significant minority: approximately 12.15 percent of the respondents in our sample identified themselves as supporting the alt-right.³

Outcome measure

Biological essentialism scale

Essentialist beliefs were measured on a scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree using the average response reported across the eight-item Bastian and Haslam (2006) essentialism scale (e.g., “Whether someone is one kind of person or another is determined by their biological make-up”).⁴ The mean response was approximately 4.00 (s.d. = 0.97).

Manipulation check

Subjects were asked “which of the following statements best summarizes the article you just read?” Response options were as follows: (1) There is a strong genetic component to violent behavior; (2) there is a complex relationship between genes and external factors that can contribute to educational attainment; (3) trauma is an important contributor to violent behavior; (4) summer homework is not the only way for children to continue their education during the summer. We used this to create a dichotomous variable to indicate whether the respondent thought the text demonstrated that there is a strong genetic component to violent behavior (response option 1).

Survey results

First, we assess whether alt-right supporters are more likely to hold essentialist beliefs than other Americans. In Table 1, we report the results of an ordinary least squares regression model where our dependent variable is the average response to the eight-item Bastian and Haslam (2006) essentialism scale. We find that on average, supporters of the alt-right express more essentialist views than those who do not support the alt-right, adjusting for differences in race/ethnic group, sex, party identification, marital status, and education (p < .05).⁵

Table 1.

Alt-right and biological essentialism (wave 1).

Variables	(1)
Variables	Biological essentialism scale
Alt-right	0.161** (0.0716)
Asian^a	−0.140 (0.144)
Black	0.0925 (0.0724)
Latinx	−0.220*** (0.0747)
Native American	−0.592* (0.323)
Female	0.00899 (0.0495)
Republican^b	0.0807 (0.0666)
Democrat	0.0427 (0.0587)
Married	0.0876* (0.0522)
Education	−0.0533*** (0.0183)
Constant	4.109*** (0.0786)
Observations	1498
R-squared	0.023

Reporting robust standard errors in parentheses.

***p < .01; **p < .05; *p < .1.

^aWhite is the reference category.

^bIndependent is the reference category.

Experimental results: treatment effects on biological essentialism

Second, in Figure 1, we report the results of ordinary least squares regression models that assess the effects of the genetic and environmental treatments on within-subject changes in essentialist beliefs (calculated as the difference between Wave 1 and Wave 2 biological essentialism scale scores). Positive scores indicate that essentialist beliefs increased post-treatment in Wave 2. Negative scores indicate that essentialist beliefs decreased post-treatment in Wave 2.⁶ Consistent with our expectations, the treatment conditions that focus on genetic explanations for behavior are associated with increased essentialist views, regardless of support for the alt-right.⁷ However, alt-right supporters also report an increase in essentialist beliefs following the treatments that emphasized socioenvironmental explanations for violent behavior. Non-alt-right supporters did not report a statistically significant change in essentialist beliefs following administration of either socioenvironmental treatment (p > .10). This suggests that for the “average” American (non-alt-right supporter), providing a behavioral science narrative that emphasizes the effects of socialization and environmental influences is not statistically significantly different than the control condition with respect to provoking essentialist beliefs. However, our results also suggest that alt-right supporters are more likely to express essentialist views post-treatment regardless of the nuance of the treatment narrative. Even when the socioenvironmental treatment did not reference race, the data suggests some evidence of within-subject increases in expressions of biological essentialism in alt-right supporters (although statistically significant at the 90% confidence level, p < 0.10).

Figure 1.

Reported changes pre–post treatment in essentialist beliefs by alt-right support. Reporting 90% confidence intervals.

Next, we examine our post-treatment manipulation check to probe how the alt-right interprets messaging about behavioral genetics research. In Table 2, we report the results of a regression comparing the comprehension of alt-right supporters to non-alt-right supporters on the subject matter of the treatment narrative. Specifically, we tested whether or not subjects who received the socioenvironmental treatment incorrectly described the treatment as providing a primarily genetic explanation for behavior (dichotomous dependent variable: the response option “There is a strong genetic component to violent behavior” was coded as 1; all other response options [e.g., “Trauma is an important contributor to violent behavior”] were coded as 0). Among the participants assigned to the “nurture” or socioenvironmental narrative treatment, alt-right supporters were nearly three times more likely to describe the article as emphasizing a “strong genetic component to violent behavior” than non-alt-right supporters; moreover, this result persists while adjusting for differences in race/ethnic group, sex, party identification, marital status, and education (p < .05).⁸ Together, these results suggest that alt-right supporters interpret explanations for violence differently from non-alt-right supporters by claiming a primary role for genetics even when the narrative is primarily about socialization.

Table 2.

Manipulation check—genetic narrative and the alt-right.

Variables	(1)
Variables	Incorrect genetic attribution
Alt-right	0.1035** (0.0481)
Asian^a	−0.0461*** (0.0125)
Black	0.0889** (0.0437)
Latinx	−0.0222 (0.0287)
Native American	−0.0526** (0.0228)
Female	−0.0222 (0.0219)
Republican^b	0.0189 (0.0314)
Democrat	−0.0148 (0.0233)
Married	0.0111 (0.0212)
Education	−0.00792 (0.00779)
Constant	0.0876*** (0.0334)
Observations	606
R-squared	0.047

Reporting robust standard errors in parentheses.

***p < .01; **p < .05; *p < .1.

^aWhite is the reference category.

^bIndependent is the reference category.

Discussion and conclusion

Alt-right supporters are often anecdotally portrayed in popular media as misapplying genetics research in their defense of white ethnonationalism (Panofksy and Donovan, 2019). To our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate that there is a difference between alt-right supporters and other Americans regarding their beliefs in biological essentialism, a key perceived feature of the movement’s ideology (Stern, 2019). Moreover, we find that alt-right supporters report interpreting scientific media reports in a systematically different way from other members of the general public. Although genetic explanations for violence lead to heightened essentialism regardless of alt-right ideology, it is only alt-right supporters who express heightened essentialist beliefs given socioenvironmental explanations for violence. Moreover, results of comprehension tests suggest that alt-righters are more likely to interpret behavioral science research that emphasizes early childhood trauma as a precursor to adult violence as direct evidence of genetic factors. A key future direction for this research is to investigate whether the miscategorization of such reports is an issue of reading comprehension or an intentional misinterpretation by alt-right supporters.

In addition, our results demonstrate the importance of examining heterogeneity in treatment effects between politically relevant groups, such as the alt-right, and the general public. In this way, our work builds on prior observational studies of the alt-right (Forscher and Kteily, 2020) by expanding our understanding of the cognitive underpinnings of alt-right ideology to include essentialist biases. Our experimental results suggest that Americans who support extremist, white ethnonationalist ideologies, such as the alt-right, are not only more essentialist than other Americans on average, but such alt-righters are also more easily nudged into expressing greater essentialist biases. That is, alt-right supporters’ biases are less likely to be moderated by what social scientists would put forward as solutions: more contextualized, socioenvironmental explanations for behavior. Politically relevant groups may be affected by behavioral science research in ways social scientists cannot always fully anticipate. Future work would do well to probe the types of narratives about human behavior and difference that can lead to changes in cognitive biases and intergroup attitudes, among alt-right supporters as well as other Americans.

Apart from undermining scientific contributions to real social issues, the “reinterpretation” of behavioral science research has been used by hate groups to lend legitimacy and credibility to an ideology of racism (Panofksy and Donovan, 2019). As our scientific understanding of the bases of human behavior moves forward, we must also continue to seek to understand the motivations of extremist groups in co-opting scientific research. Otherwise, we risk the consequences of further normalization and legitimation of “race realism”—greater acceptance of intolerance and inequality.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - The genetic essentialism of the alt-right

Supplemental Material for The genetic essentialism of the alt-right by Katherine Sawyer and H Hannah Nam in Journal of Research & Politics.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Katherine Sawyer

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Banda

Cluverius

(2023) White Americans’ evaluations of the alt-right. American Politics Research 51 (1): 1532673X231157398.

Bastian

Haslam

(2006) Psychological essentialism and stereotype endorsement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42 (2): 228–235.

Bem

(1993) The Lenses of Gender: Transforming the Debate on Sexual Inequality. Hartford, CN: Yale University Press.

Byrd

Hughey

(2015) Biological determinism and racial essentialism: the ideological double helix of racial inequality. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 661 (1): 8–22.

Conrad

(1997) Public eyes and private genes: historical frames, news constructions, and social problems. Social Problems 44 (2): 139–154.

Dar-Nimrod

Heine

(2011) Genetic essentialism: on the deceptive determinism of DNA. Psychological Bulletin 137 (5): 800–818.

Dixon

Linz

(2000) Overrepresentation and underrepresentation of African Americans and Latinos as lawbreakers on television news. Journal of Communication 50 (2): 131–154.

Entman

(1994) Representation and reality in the portrayal of blacks on network television news. Journalism Quarterly 71 (3): 509–520.

Forscher

Kteily

(2020) A psychological profile of the alt-right. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science 15 (1): 90–116.

10.

Gaunt

(2006) Biological essentialism, gender ideologies, and role attitudes: what determines parents’ involvement in child care. Sex Roles 55: 523–533.

11.

Gelman

(2004) Psychological essentialism in children. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8 (9): 404–409.

12.

Gil-White

(2001) Are ethnic groups biological “species” to the human brain? Essentialism in our cognition of some social categories. Current Anthropology 42 (4): 515–553.

13.

Graves

(2001) The Emperor’s New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

14.

Haslam

Rothschild

Ernst

(2000) Essentialist beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology 39 (Pt 1): 113–127.

15.

Haslam

Rothschild

Ernst

(2002) Are essentialist beliefs associated with prejudice? British Journal of Social Psychology 41: 87–100.

16.

Haslam

Bastian

Bain

, et al. (2006) Psychological essentialism, implicit theories, and intergroup relations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9 (1): 63–76.

17.

Hawley

(2017) Making Sense of the Alt-Right. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

18.

Hochschild

(2021) Genomic Politics: How the Revolution in Genomic Science Is Shaping American Society. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

19.

Hong

Levy

Chiu

(2001) The contribution of the lay theories approach to the study of groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review 5: 98–106.

20.

Keller

(2005) In genes we trust: the biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88 (4): 686–702.

21.

Kimel

Huesmann

Kunst

, et al. (2016) Living in a genetic world: how learning about interethnic genetic similarities and differences affects peace and conflict. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 42 (5): 688–700.

22.

Medin

Ortony

(1989) Psychological essentialism. In: Vosniadou

Ortony

(eds). Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. Cambridge, UK: University Press, pp. 179–195.

23.

Nam

Sawyer

(2023) Scientific supremacy: how do genetic narratives relate to racism? Politics and the Life Sciences 43: 99–131.

24.

Panofsky

Donovan

(2019) Genetic ancestry testing among white nationalists: from identity repair to citizen science. Social Studies of Science 49 (5): 653–681.

25.

Panofsky

Dasgupta

Iturriaga

(2021) How white nationalists mobilize genetics: from genetic ancestry and human biodiversity to counter science and metapolitics. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 175 (2): 387–398.

26.

Roberts

(2011) Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, and Big Business Re-create Race in the Twenty-First Century. New York, NY: The Free Press.

27.

Shostak

Freese

Link

, et al. (2009) The politics of the gene: social status and beliefs about genetics for individual outcomes. Social Psychology Quarterly 72 (1): 77–93.

28.

Smedley

(2011) Race in North America: Origin and Evolution of a Worldwide View. 4th edition. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

29.

Stern

(2019) Proud Boys and the White Ethnostate: How the Alt-Right Is Warping the American Imagination. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.36 MB