Civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once observed that “people fail to get along because they fear each other; they fear each other because they don’t know each other; they don’t know each other because they have not communicated with each other”. In an increasingly polarized America, conversations about race remain difficult to navigate.

Recent research from scholars at The Ohio State University suggests that the barriers to these crucial conversations are more complex than previously understood. Two studies reveal that, when White Americans consider discussing race-related topics, their potential conversation partner’s political affiliation influences their expectations and willingness to engage more powerfully than the person’s race itself.

The first study by Osei Appiah, William Eveland, Jr., and Christina Henry examined how race and political partisanship interact to shape White Americans’ attitudes toward cross-group political conversations. Using data from over 800 White respondents recruited through online panels, the research employed an experimental approach where participants imagined having conversations about race-specific topics with discussion partners who varied by both race (Black or White) and political party (Republican or Democrat). Participants were randomly assigned to consider conversations about police treatment of Black people, the Black Lives Matter movement, or displays of Confederate flags and monuments.

This experimental design allowed researchers to isolate the effects of race and partisanship independently and examine how they interact. The approach, known as “imagined interactions,” has been used effectively in previous research to study situations that many people have never experienced or might choose to avoid entirely. Participants were asked to imagine conversations with friends, neighbors, or coworkers of different racial and political backgrounds, providing a controlled way to examine preferences and expectations.

The researchers measured three key outcomes: perceived shared values between participants and their imagined conversation partners, expectations of negative outcomes during the discussion, and intention to avoid such conversations.

The findings revealed a striking pattern that challenges conventional assumptions about racial identity. White participants consistently expected more negative outcomes and showed greater intention to avoid conversations when imagining discussions with fellow White people from different political parties than when considering conversations with Black people from different parties. This pattern held regardless of whether the Black discussion partner shared their political affiliation or not.

White participants also reported perceiving significantly fewer shared values with White out-party members than with any Black discussant or White co-partisans. They expected conversations with White out-party members to result in more negative outcomes, including feeling vulnerable, embarrassed, angry, or experiencing interpersonal conflict. Most importantly, they expressed greater desire to avoid conversations with White people from different political parties than with Black people regardless of party affiliation.

Professor Appiah and his colleagues interpret this finding through the lens of the “black sheep effect,” which occurs when people evaluate ingroup members who deviate from group norms more harshly than outgroup members who exhibit the same behavior. The theory suggests that, when ingroup members are perceived as threatening the group’s positive image through their different values or behaviors, they face harsher judgment than comparable outgroup members. In this context, White participants may view White people with different political values as more threatening to their social identity than Black people with different political values.

Discussing their findings, the researchers wondered whether Black people would show the same patterns as White people. Previous research suggests that Black people don’t show the ‘black sheep effect’ that White people do. Instead, Black participants actually rate unlikable Black people more favorably than unlikable White people. Researchers explain this happens because Black people, as a smaller group in America, tend to stick together and protect members of their group rather than criticize them.

The researchers suggest that future studies should test the research findings using imagined conversations with other racial groups, like Hispanic people and Asian Americans. They speculate that White people might feel more threatened by Mexican Americans since their population is growing rapidly. Similarly, Asian Americans are often younger, wealthier, and better educated than White Americans, which could make White people see them as a bigger threat. Conversations about immigration or anti-Asian hate might produce very different results than conversations about Black-related issues.

An earlier study used a national sample of 800 participants equally divided among Black Democrats, Black Republicans, White Democrats, and White Republicans. This research examined similar dynamics but focused specifically on how both race and partisanship influence expectations about interracial conversations on race-specific political issues including police treatment of Black people, Confederate flag displays, and Black NFL players kneeling during the national anthem.

The study also used an “imagined interactions” methodology, asking participants to envision conversations about these sensitive topics with people of different racial and political backgrounds. Participants rated their expectations for negative outcomes during such conversations and their likelihood of avoiding these discussions entirely. The research measured negative outcomes through items assessing whether participants expected to feel upset, defensive, misunderstood, or forced to act as representatives of their race.

The results demonstrated significant interactions between race and partisanship in shaping conversation expectations. Among the key findings, Black participants generally expected more negative outcomes from cross-race conversations about race than White participants did. However, this main effect was qualified by important partisan differences. Black Democrats anticipated the highest levels of negative outcomes from cross-race conversations about race, expecting significantly more problems than Black Republicans, White Republicans, and White Democrats.

White Democrats emerged as the most optimistic group about cross-race conversations, expecting fewer negative outcomes than all other racial and partisan combinations. This finding suggests that White Democrats may be more willing to engage in discussions about race with people of different backgrounds, possibly reflecting their greater support for addressing racial issues and their more egalitarian values regarding race relations.

When it came to conversation avoidance, White Republicans showed the strongest desire to avoid cross-race discussions about race, rating significantly higher in avoidance intentions than Black Republicans and White Democrats. Black Democrats fell between these groups, showing moderate levels of avoidance that did not differ significantly from other groups except White Republicans.

The research revealed that these patterns were particularly pronounced among individuals with stronger racial or partisan identities. White people who felt strongly connected to being White showed the clearest signs of judging White people from different political parties more harshly than Black people from different parties. Similarly, people who felt strongly connected to their political party were most likely to want to avoid conversations with people of their same race but different political views.

These findings have important implications for understanding contemporary American political discourse and race relations. They suggest that partisan divisions have become so pronounced that they can override racial group loyalties in shaping social interactions. For White Americans, political affiliation appears to serve as a stronger predictor of perceived similarity and willingness to engage in difficult conversations than racial identity.

Interestingly, while the research found that White Democrats might be more willing than White Republicans to talk about race with Black people, they might struggle to find Black partners who actually want to have these conversations. However, Professor Appiah says that there may still be ways to make these difficult conversations work better. Studies show that when people focus on what they have in common rather than their differences, they feel less threatened by each other and are more willing to talk. People often think they disagree with those from other political parties more than they actually do. Research suggests that if people can see how similar they are to others, even those from different racial or political groups, they become more open to having conversations about sensitive topics like race

Professor Appiah and colleagues suggest that future research should test whether the race or political party of conversation partners matters more by studying each factor separately. The researchers suspect that Black Democrats would still want to avoid talking about race with White people regardless of whether those White people are Democrats or Republicans. Even though Black Democrats and White Democrats share similar political views, Black people often distrust White liberals, believing they may hide racist attitudes behind their supportive words. Black people may worry that even well-meaning White people will unconsciously show racial bias during conversations, making productive discussions difficult even when both people belong to the same political party.

The findings of these studies contribute to broader understanding of how Americans navigate political and racial divisions. They suggest that efforts to bridge racial divides through political conversation may need to account for partisan differences and the complex ways that multiple identities interact to shape social preferences and expectations.

These studies reveal that the landscape of American identity and social interaction has evolved in ways that challenge traditional assumptions about racial solidarity and group loyalty. In an era of increasing political polarization, partisan affiliation appears to have gained influence relative to racial identity in shaping how White Americans approach conversations about race. Understanding these dynamics may be crucial for developing more effective approaches to improving intergroup relations and fostering productive dialogue across lines of difference in contemporary America.