Black Lives Matter

A Politico-Psychological Analysis

Author

The Psychology of Political Behavior Studies (PPBS)

Report generated

February 25, 2026

1 Study Characteristics

1.1 Items: Black Lives Matter

How positive or negative do you feel concerning the following (social) movements? Black Lives Matter

Possible response values: Extremely positive (1) - Moderately positive - Neither positive nor negative (5) - Slightly negative - Extremely negative (9)

1.2 Samples

N=1500

To conduct a exploratory and a confirmatory large surveys during the general election, we hired a professional survey firm (SSI, a US-based market research company that recruits participants from a panel of 7,139,027 American citizens; more information can be found at www.surveysampling.com (now https://www.dynata.com/) to recruit a nationally representative sample of 1,500 Americans (50.7% women) who completed study materials during the general election from August 16-September 9, 2016. (Information about sampling and exclusion criteria is included in the Supplement). The age distribution was as follows: 18-24 (12.9%), 25-34 (17.6%), 35-44 (17.5%), 45-54 (19.5%), 55-65 (15.6%) and older than 65 (16.9%). The ethnic breakdown was: White/European American (82.5%), Black/African American (7.7%), Latino (5.9%) and “Other” (4.0%). Concerning religion, 67.6% identified as Christian, 17.1% as religiously affiliated but not Christian, and 15.3% as Atheist/Agnostic. With respect to education 35.1% indicated “high school only or lower,” 31.4 % indicated “some college,” and 33.6% indicated having received a “Bachelor” or “Graduate” degree. 2424 participants were directed to the survey,1885 of which finished the survey (attrition rate 22%).

We followed recommendations to minimize the problem of careless responding in online studies. Specifically, we employed 10 random attention questions and time controls to check for data quality. There were 385 participants who failed more than one attention check or finished the survey in under ~22 minutes and were therefore excluded from the sample. For the 1500 participants who successfully finished the survey, completion time was 67 minutes on average (MD: 51min).

N=2119

Also through SSI we also recruited 2,119 American adults (21.5% women), who completed study materials from August 20-September 13, 2016. (Information about sampling and exclusion criteria is included in the Supplement). Age was distributed as follows: 18-24 (9.1%), 25-34 (13.8%), 35-44 (11.4%), 45-54 (2.7%), 55-65(3.6%), 65 and older (59.3%). The ethnic breakdown was: White/European American (85.9%), Black/African American (5.1%), Latino (4.1%), and “Other” (5.0%). In terms of religion, 70.7% identified as Christian, 15.7% as religiously affiliated but not Christian, and 13.7% as Atheist/Agnostic. With respect to educational status, 16.2% chose “high school or lower,” 40.4% reported “some college” and 43.4% had attained a “Bachelor” or “Graduate” degree. The median income category was $50,000-$74,999. 3425 participants were directed to the survey, 2,262 of which finished the survey (attrition rate 22 %).

We followed recommendations to minimize the problem of careless responding in online studies (Meade & Craig, 2012). Specifically, we employed 10 random attention questions and time controls to check for data quality. There were 543 participants who failed more than one attention check or finished the survey in under ~22 minutes and were therefore excluded from the sample. For the 2,119 participants who successfully finished the survey, completion time was 92 minutes on average (MD: 57min).

2 Descriptives

2.1 Means, SD, Range, & SE

Table 1: Descriptives
Descriptives for Black Lives Matter
vars n mean sd median min max range se
Soc_mov_2 1 1500 5.59 2.81 5 1 9 8 0.07

2.2 Proportions

Figure 1: Proportion of each response categories for Black Lives Matter Items

2.3 Distributions

Figure 2: Distribution of reponses for Black Lives Matter Items

3 Demographics

3.1 Social Class

Figure 3: Black Lives Matteras grouped by SES


Figure 4: Raincloud Plots showing Black Lives Matter grouped by Social Class


Note on the Raincloud Plots

  • Statistical summary (top): Welch’s t-test (or ANOVA) results, effect size, confidence intervals, p-values, and sample sizes are shown above each plot.
  • Bayesian analysis (bottom): Log Bayes factor and credible intervals are reported below each plot.


Table 2: Black Lives Matter as grouped by SES
Black Lives Matter as grouped by SES
SES N Mean SD
Poor 38 0.11 1.09
Lower Middle Class 298 0.17 1.03
Middle Middle Class 679 -0.04 1.01
Upper Middle Class 395 -0.04 0.95
Rich 90 -0.11 0.96


3.2 Gender

Figure 5: Black Lives Matteras grouped by Gender


Figure 6: Raincloud Plots showing Black Lives Matter grouped by Gender


Table 3: Black Lives Matter as grouped by Gender
Black Lives Matter as grouped by Gender
Gender N Mean SD
Male 740 -0.18 0.97
Female 760 0.18 0.99

3.3 Age

Figure 7: Black Lives Matter as grouped by Age


Figure 8: Raincloud Plots showing Black Lives Matter grouped by Age


Table 4: Black Lives Matter as grouped by Age
Black Lives Matter as grouped by Age
Age N Mean SD
18-24 years 193 0.34 1.03
25-34 years 264 0.27 0.96
35-44 years 263 0.03 1.00
45-54 years 292 -0.12 0.96
55-64 years 234 -0.04 0.98
65+ 254 -0.40 0.92

3.4 Education

Table 5: Black Lives Matter as grouped by Education


Figure 9: Raincloud Plots showing Black Lives Matter grouped by Education


Table 6: Black Lives Matter as grouped by Education
Education N Mean SD
Less than High School 51 0.24 1.06
High School 475 0.01 1.01
Some College 471 -0.01 1.03
Bachelor 310 -0.02 0.96
Graduate 193 -0.03 0.96


3.5 Income Levels

Figure 10: Black Lives Matter as grouped by Income Levels


Figure 11: Raincloud Plots showing Black Lives Matter grouped by Income Levels


Table 7: Black Lives Matter as grouped by Income Levels
Black Lives Matter as grouped by Income Levels
Income Levels N Mean SD
Less than $15,000 178 0.20 1.00
$15,000-$24,999 180 0.16 1.07
$25,000-$34,999 176 0.00 1.03
$35,000-$49,999 227 -0.03 0.99
$50,000-$74,999 292 -0.01 0.98
$75,000-$99,999 192 -0.05 0.97
$100,000-$149,999 160 -0.11 0.99
$150,000 + 95 -0.29 0.90

3.6 Ethnicity

Figure 12: Black Lives Matter as grouped by Ethnicity

Note on the Okabe-Ito color palette The Okabe-Ito color palette (seen above) is a set of colorblind-friendly categorical colors available in R. We are using this palette for graphs with non-ordered variables (e.g., groups, categories) for accessibility.

Figure 13: Raincloud Plots showing Black Lives Matter grouped by Ethnicity


Table 8: Black Lives Matter as grouped by Ethnicity
Black Lives Matter as grouped by Ethnicity
Ethnicity N Mean SD
Caucasian/European origin 1237 -0.14 0.96
Black/African American 115 1.00 0.69
Latino 88 0.42 1.01
Asian/Pacific Islander 29 0.36 0.85
Native American 13 0.02 1.07
Other 18 0.45 0.88

3.7 Occupation

Figure 14: Black Lives Matter as grouped by Occupation


Figure 15: Raincloud Plots showing Black Lives Matter grouped by Occupation


Table 9: Black Lives Matter as grouped by Occupation
Black Lives Matter as grouped by Occupation
Occupation N Mean SD
Employed 768 0.02 0.98
Retired 268 -0.22 0.96
Unemployed 146 0.13 1.00
Parent 104 -0.07 1.03
Disabled 98 -0.16 1.01
Student 85 0.54 1.01
Full-time caregiver 31 0.11 0.97

3.8 Area

Figure 16: Black Lives Matter as grouped by Area


Figure 17: Raincloud Plots showing Black Lives Matter grouped by Area


Table 10: Black Lives Matter as grouped by Area
Black Lives Matter as grouped by Area
Area N Mean SD
Urban 955 0.14 1.00
Rural 545 -0.24 0.95


3.9 Religious Affiliation

Figure 18: Black Lives Matter as grouped by Religious Affiliation


Figure 19: Raincloud Plots showing Black Lives Matter grouped by Religious Affiliation


Table 11: Black Lives Matter as grouped by Religion
Black Lives Matter as grouped by Religious Affiliation
Religious Affiliation N Mean SD
Christian 1014 -0.16 0.97
Jewish 52 0.31 0.91
Muslim 9 0.41 0.87
Atheist/Agnostic 230 0.35 0.99
No religion 195 0.32 1.00



4 Political Behavior

4.1 Political Orientation

Figure 20: Correlation Matrix - Political Orientation



Figure 21: Political Orientation



Table 12: Models of Political Orientation (SPRI) & Black Lives Matter
  Political Orientation Social Political Orientation Economic Political Orientation Composite Political Orientation
Predictors Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 5.31 5.20 – 5.41 <0.001 4.93 4.81 – 5.05 <0.001 5.48 5.37 – 5.59 <0.001 5.24 5.14 – 5.34 <0.001
Black Lives Matter -1.33 -1.44 – -1.23 <0.001 -1.40 -1.52 – -1.28 <0.001 -1.43 -1.54 – -1.32 <0.001 -1.39 -1.49 – -1.29 <0.001
Observations 1500 1500 1500 1500
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.294 / 0.294 0.258 / 0.258 0.296 / 0.296 0.328 / 0.328



Table 13: Models of Ideo_SP_JJ and SRPI_CM, and Black Lives Matter Age + Inc + Religiosity + Edu
  Political Orientation Social Political Orientation Economic Political Orientation Composite Political Orientation
Predictors Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 5.12 4.68 – 5.55 <0.001 4.67 4.19 – 5.14 <0.001 5.29 4.80 – 5.78 <0.001 5.03 4.61 – 5.44 <0.001
SM_BLM -0.39 -0.42 – -0.35 <0.001 -0.39 -0.43 – -0.35 <0.001 -0.44 -0.48 – -0.40 <0.001 -0.40 -0.44 – -0.37 <0.001
Age 0.12 0.05 – 0.18 <0.001 0.12 0.05 – 0.18 0.001 0.11 0.04 – 0.18 0.002 0.11 0.06 – 0.17 <0.001
Income 0.04 -0.01 – 0.10 0.124 -0.05 -0.10 – 0.01 0.126 0.08 0.02 – 0.14 0.007 0.03 -0.02 – 0.08 0.314
Religiosity 0.30 0.27 – 0.34 <0.001 0.42 0.38 – 0.46 <0.001 0.22 0.18 – 0.26 <0.001 0.31 0.28 – 0.35 <0.001
Education -0.09 -0.19 – 0.01 0.092 -0.13 -0.24 – -0.02 0.025 0.08 -0.03 – 0.19 0.173 -0.05 -0.14 – 0.05 0.355
Observations 1500 1500 1500 1500
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.419 / 0.417 0.444 / 0.442 0.363 / 0.361 0.463 / 0.462

4.2 Religiosity



Figure 22: Religiosity



4.3 Religiosity & Political Orientation

Figure 23: Religiosity - Correlation Matrix



4.4 Candidate Preferences



Figure 24: Candidate Preferences



Table 14: Candidate Preferences (centered)
Candidate Preferences and Black Lives Matter [centered]
Candidate Preference N Mean SD
Donald Trump 444 -0.67 0.76
Hillary Clinton 371 0.58 0.81
Bernie Sanders 362 0.60 0.87
Ted Cruz 122 -0.64 0.78
Jeb Bush 83 -0.35 0.77
Gary Johnson 68 -0.09 0.84
Rand Paul 44 -0.52 0.73



Table 15: Candidate Preferences (raw means)
Candidate Preferences and Black Lives Matter [raw means]
Candidate Preferences N Mean SD
Donald Trump 444 -0.67 0.76
Hillary Clinton 371 0.58 0.81
Bernie Sanders 362 0.60 0.87
Ted Cruz 122 -0.64 0.78
Jeb Bush 83 -0.35 0.77
Gary Johnson 68 -0.09 0.84
Rand Paul 44 -0.52 0.73



4.5 Party Preferences


Figure 25: Party Preferences



Table 16: Party Preferences (centered)
Party Preferences and Black Lives Matter [centered]
Party Preference N Mean SD
Tea Party 68 -1.00 0.42
Constitution Party 14 -0.63 0.82
Republican Party 508 -0.57 0.81
Libertarian Party 100 -0.12 0.94
None 120 -0.12 0.91
Don't know 90 0.12 0.87
Green Party 40 0.57 0.85
Democratic Party 560 0.64 0.83



Table 17: Party Preferences (raw means)
Party Preferences and Black Lives Matter [raw means]
Party Preferences N Mean SD
Tea Party 68 -1.00 0.42
Constitution Party 14 -0.63 0.82
Republican Party 508 -0.57 0.81
Libertarian Party 100 -0.12 0.94
None 120 -0.12 0.91
Don't know 90 0.12 0.87
Green Party 40 0.57 0.85
Democratic Party 560 0.64 0.83



4.6 Voting Preferences

Table 18: Voting Preferences
  2016 [Trump vs. Clinton] 2016 [Trump vs. Clinton] + Supporters 2012 [Romney vs. Obama] 2008 [McCain vs. Obama]
Predictors Odds Ratios CI p Odds Ratios CI p Odds Ratios CI p Odds Ratios CI p
(Intercept) 0.08 0.05 – 0.10 <0.001 0.07 0.05 – 0.10 <0.001 0.12 0.09 – 0.16 <0.001 0.16 0.12 – 0.20 <0.001
Black Lives Matter 1.85 1.73 – 1.98 <0.001 1.84 1.73 – 1.97 <0.001 1.74 1.64 – 1.85 <0.001 1.64 1.55 – 1.74 <0.001
Observations 1103 1148 1236 1206
R2 Tjur 0.426 0.425 0.359 0.305



Figure 26: Logistic Regression, Black Lives Matter & Voting Preferences

4.7 Party Identity



Figure 27: Party Identity



Figure 28: Party Identity and Voting



Table 19: Party Identity & Voting
Donald Trump Hilary Clinton
Strong Republican 282 7
Republican 166 24
Leaning Republican 58 7
Independent 17 16
Leaning Democrat 10 65
Democrat 27 129
Strong Democrat 4 323

4.8 Voting & Party Identity

Figure 29: Predicted, Voting & Party Identity



Table 20: Supporters
  2016 [Clinton vs. Trump] 2016 [Trump vs. Clinton] + Supporters
Predictors Odds Ratios CI p Odds Ratios CI p
(Intercept) 1.79 1.06 – 3.08 0.032 1.43 0.88 – 2.37 0.156
Party Identity (dichotomous) 0.01 0.01 – 0.02 <0.001
Party Identity (dichotomous) 1.49 1.36 – 1.64 <0.001 1.50 1.38 – 1.65 <0.001
Black Lives Matter 0.01 0.01 – 0.02 <0.001
Observations 1103 1148
R2 Tjur 0.766 0.746



4.9 Likeability

4.10 Trump’s Likebility


Figure 30: Trump’s Likeability



4.11 Clinton’s Likebility


Figure 31: Clinton’s Likeability



4.12 Johnson’s Likeability


Figure 32: Johnson’s Likeability


5 Politico-Psychological correlates of Black Lives Matter



5.1 Ideologies and Partisanship


Figure 33: Correlates of Black Lives Matter



5.2 Populism, Nationalism, Nativism, and Patriotism


Figure 34: Correlates - Populism



5.3 Political Psychology


Figure 35: Correlates - Political Psychology



5.4 Social Justice Concerns, Empathy, and Prejudice


Figure 36: Correlates - Social Concerns



5.5 Values


Figure 37: Correlates - Values



5.6 Pot-Pourri


Figure 38: Correlates - Constructs



5.7 Positive and Negative correlates of Black Lives Matter


Figure 39: Correlates - Positive & significant associations



Figure 40: Correlates - Negative & significant associations

5.8 Section Summary


Table 21: Table of models 1
  Black Lives Matter Black Lives Matter Black Lives Matter Black Lives Matter Black Lives Matter
Predictors Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 7.58 7.22 – 7.93 <0.001 9.49 9.04 – 9.94 <0.001 5.31 4.74 – 5.87 <0.001 10.60 10.01 – 11.20 <0.001 9.10 8.56 – 9.63 <0.001
Social Dominance Orientation -0.85 -0.94 – -0.76 <0.001
Right-Wing Authoritarianism -0.98 -1.06 – -0.89 <0.001
System Justification -0.18 -0.29 – -0.07 0.001
Economic System Justification -1.28 -1.40 – -1.16 <0.001
Gender-specific System Justification -0.86 -0.96 – -0.77 <0.001
Observations 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.187 / 0.187 0.261 / 0.260 0.007 / 0.006 0.224 / 0.224 0.175 / 0.175


Table 22: Table of models 2
  Black Lives Matter Black Lives Matter Black Lives Matter Black Lives Matter Black Lives Matter
Predictors Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 7.99 7.37 – 8.61 <0.001 8.76 6.83 – 10.69 <0.001 5.31 4.74 – 5.87 <0.001 10.60 10.01 – 11.20 <0.001 9.10 8.56 – 9.63 <0.001
SDO7_Dominance -0.15 -0.36 – 0.06 0.154
SDO7_AntiEgal -0.96 -1.13 – -0.79 <0.001
SDO7_Dominance:SDO7_AntiEgal 0.05 0.00 – 0.10 0.039
RWA_Agression -0.30 -0.75 – 0.14 0.181
RWA_Conventionalism -0.44 -0.96 – 0.07 0.088
RWA_Submission 0.30 -0.27 – 0.88 0.296
RWA_Agression:RWA_Conventionalism -0.02 -0.11 – 0.07 0.696
RWA_Agression:RWA_Submission -0.08 -0.18 – 0.03 0.169
RWA_Conventionalism:RWA_Submission -0.01 -0.12 – 0.10 0.867
RWA_Agression:RWA_Conventionalism:RWA_Submission 0.01 -0.01 – 0.02 0.452
SJ_Gen -0.18 -0.29 – -0.07 0.001
SJ_Eco -1.28 -1.40 – -1.16 <0.001
SJ_Gender -0.86 -0.96 – -0.77 <0.001
Observations 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.239 / 0.238 0.289 / 0.286 0.007 / 0.006 0.224 / 0.224 0.175 / 0.175


Figure 41: Interaction with facets of SDO


Table 23: Linear Regression
Observations 1500
Dependent variable Black Lives Matter
Type OLS linear regression
F(1,1498) 344.89
R² 0.19
Adj. R² 0.19
Est. S.E. t val. p
(Intercept) 7.58 0.18 41.43 0.00
SDO -0.85 0.05 -18.57 0.00
Standard errors: OLS