Previous research demonstrates that individuals are more open to persuasion from people who share their race. However, it is not known whether this relationship holds for Asian Americans. We address this shortcoming by exploring how the race of an author influences support for, and perceptions of, the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. Drawing from literature on opinion formation and social identity theory, we expect that whites will be most persuaded by whites, while Asian Americans will not be particularly persuaded by co-ethnic messengers due to relatively low levels of group identity. To test our hypotheses, we use two online surveys that oversample Asian American respondents who are randomly assigned letters in support of BLM written by either an Asian American author or a white author. Similar to previous research, we find that whites are more likely to respond to appeals from co-racial individuals. However, we find that Asian Americans respond positively to co-ethnic and white messengers. Further analysis reveals that Asian Americans’ lower levels of in-group preferences compared with whites explains why they do not respond to co-racial individuals similarly to other groups.

Objective. This study explores the effect of Donald Trump's candidacy, and first year in office, on Asian-American linked fate. We argue that the use of anti-Asian and anti-immigrant messaging during the 2016 election, and the enactment of discriminatory policies once elected, increased feelings of panethnic linked fate among Asian Americans. Method. To test our hypotheses, we assess Asian Americans' levels of linked fate before the 2016 election, immediately after the 2016 election, and one year after the 2016 election with several time-series surveys. Results. We find that Asian-American linked fate is higher after the election and remains high one year later. Qualitative data collected through open-ended survey responses suggest that the increase in panethnic linked fate can be at least partially attributed to Trump's discriminatory rhetoric. Conclusion. The results have implications for Asian-American political behavior, particularly mobilization, by invoking collective action through panethnic linked fate.

No abstract

nities for people of color (Richeson 2015). More recent examples inlcude opposing police brutality and supporting the Black Lives Matter movement (Arora, Stout, and Kretschmer 2020). As Jennifer Richeson (2015) succinctly puts it, "it is when groups come together that real change becomes possible."Although a significant number of studies have considered the prospects for coalition building between African Americans and Latinos (Jones-Correa 2011; Kaufman 2003; Mc-Unpacking Identity: Opportunities and Constraints for Cross-Racial Collaboration m a neesh a ror a, sa r a sa dh Wa ni, a nd sono sh a hWe argue that two factors are important for cross-racial coalition building: policy convergence in key issue arenas and perceived interest alignment with other racial groups. Drawing on the 2016 National Asian American Survey, we examine two of the most salient issues Asian Americans consistently rate as among the most important: immigration and economic policy. Using principal component analysis, we plot mean scores by group to analyze national-origin clustering along these two dimensions. Next, we analyze national-origin differences in perceived interest alignment with Blacks and Latinos. Combining these two factors, we identify clusters of groups that have a strong potential for cross-racial coalition building and that face greater constraints. In sum, we propose a theoretical framework for understanding cross-racial coalition building that includes disaggregating Asian Americans by national origin, and then identify which national-origin groups have the greater opportunity to form such coalitions.

This article advances the argument that the effects of demographic change on individual-level immigration policy preferences is dependent on the level of segregation in the individuals’ local context. Increases in the immigrant population in highly segregated counties should increase opposition to immigration because opportunities for contact and exposure are missing and group differences are emphasized. Meanwhile, population increases in more integrated counties should lead to an alleviation of interethnic tensions due to more frequent opportunities for contact. Furthermore, whites may react differently to changes in racial/ethnic composition of a local context depending on the particular group moving into the area because some groups are closer to fulfilling Allport’s equal status contact condition than others. The empirical analysis finds strong support for the first assertion that population growth of Latina/os and Asian Americans in highly segregated areas results in support for restrictive immigration policy, while population growth in more integrated areas results in support for permissive immigration policy. The results are inconclusive for the second assertion as the effects of Asian American and Latina/o population growth are so highly dependent on segregation levels.