Outrage at individual bigotry may undermine support for systemic racial justice

Recent psychological research suggests that for some White Americans, expressing anger at individual acts of racism may actually decrease their motivation to support broader systemic change. The study indicates that voicing outrage at a specific bigot can serve as a psychological release that alleviates feelings of guilt associated with racial privilege, thereby reducing the drive to take further reparative action. These findings were published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

The year 2020 saw a global surge in protests following high-profile incidents of police violence against Black individuals. This period introduced many Americans to concepts such as structural racism and White privilege. White privilege refers to the unearned societal advantages that White individuals experience simply due to their racial identity.

Psychological theory posits that acknowledging these unearned advantages can be psychologically threatening to a person’s moral self-image. This awareness often triggers a specific emotion known as White collective guilt. This is not guilt over one’s own personal actions, but rather distress arising from the advantages one receives at the expense of another group.

Psychologists have previously established that this type of guilt can be a powerful motivator. It often drives individuals to support policies or organizations aimed at restoring equity. However, the discomfort of guilt also motivates people to find ways to reduce the negative feeling.

Zachary K. Rothschild, a researcher at Bowdoin College, sought to understand how this dynamic plays out in the age of viral news stories. Rothschild and his colleague, Myles Hugee, investigated whether focusing anger on a specific “bad apple”—an individual acting in a clearly racist manner—might function as a defense mechanism.

The researchers proposed that expressing outrage at a third party could allow individuals to separate themselves from the problem of racism. By condemning a specific bigot, a person reaffirms their own moral standing. This “moral cleansing” might satisfy the internal need to address the threat of racism, leaving the individual with less motivation to contribute to solving systemic issues.

To test this hypothesis, the researchers conducted three separate experiments involving White American adults. The first study involved 896 participants recruited through an online platform. The team first measured the participants’ “justice sensitivity,” which is a personality trait reflecting how strongly a person reacts to unfairness faced by others.

The researchers then manipulated whether the participants felt a sense of racial privilege. Half of the group completed a survey designed to make them think about the unearned advantages they possess as White Americans. The other half completed a control survey about the privileges of being an adult.

Following this, all participants read a news story based on real events. The article described a White woman falsely accusing a Black man of threatening her and then assaulting him. This scenario was chosen to mirror viral incidents that typically spark public anger.

After reading the story, the researchers divided the participants again. One group was asked to write a short paragraph expressing their feelings about the woman in the story. This gave them an opportunity to vent their outrage. The other group was asked to write an objective summary of the events, denying them the chance to express emotion.

Finally, the researchers gave the participants a bonus payment for the study. They offered the participants the option to donate some or all of this money to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). This donation served as a concrete measure of their willingness to address racial inequity.

The results revealed a specific pattern among participants who scored low in justice sensitivity. For these individuals, being reminded of their White privilege increased their feelings of guilt. If they were not given the chance to express outrage, this guilt drove them to donate more money to the NAACP.

However, the dynamic changed for those who were allowed to vent their anger. Among the low justice sensitivity participants, the opportunity to express outrage at the woman in the story completely eliminated the privilege-induced increase in donations. The act of condemning the individual racist appeared to neutralize the motivating power of their collective guilt.

This effect was not present among participants who scored high in justice sensitivity. For those individuals, the motivation to support racial justice appeared to be intrinsic. Their donations were less dependent on momentary feelings of guilt or the opportunity to express outrage.

The second study, involving 1,344 participants, aimed to determine if this effect was specific to racial issues. The researchers followed a similar procedure but introduced a variation in the news story. Half the participants read the original story about a White woman and a Black man. The other half read a modified version where both the perpetrator and the victim were White.

The researchers found that expressing outrage reduced donations only when the injustice was racial in nature. When the story involved white-on-white conflict, expressing anger did not lower the donation amounts. This suggests that the “moral cleansing” function of outrage is specific to the domain where the person feels a moral threat.

The third study was designed to address potential limitations of the first two. The researchers recruited 1,133 participants and used a more controlled method to measure outrage. Instead of an open-ended writing task, participants in the “expression” condition completed a survey explicitly rating their anger at the perpetrator’s racism.

The researchers also changed the outcome measure to something more substantial than a small donation. They presented participants with a campaign by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) focused on systemic equality. Participants could choose to sign a pledge and select specific volunteer activities they would commit to over the coming year.

The findings from the third study replicated the earlier results. For participants with low justice sensitivity, being reminded of White privilege increased their willingness to volunteer for the ACLU. However, if these participants were first given the opportunity to report their outrage at the individual racist, their willingness to volunteer dropped significantly.

The study provides evidence for what the authors call “defensive outrage.” It suggests that for some people, participating in the public condemnation of racist individuals may serve a self-serving psychological function. It allows them to feel that they have handled their moral obligation, thereby reducing their engagement with the more difficult work of addressing systemic inequality.

There are several caveats to consider regarding this research. The participants were recruited online, which may not perfectly represent the general population. Additionally, the third study relied on self-reported intentions to volunteer, which does not always guarantee that the participants would follow through with the actions.

The study focused exclusively on White Americans. The psychological dynamics of guilt and outrage may function differently in other racial or ethnic groups. Future research would need to investigate whether similar patterns exist in different cultural contexts or regarding other types of social inequality.

The authors note that these findings should not be interpreted to mean that all outrage is counterproductive. For many people, anger is a genuine fuel for sustained activism. The study specifically highlights a mechanism where outrage replaces, rather than complements, constructive action among those who are less naturally inclined toward justice concerns.

The study, “Demotivating Justice: White Americans’ Outrage at Individual Bigotry May Reduce Action to Address Systematic Racial Inequity,” was authored by Zachary K. Rothschild and Myles Hugee.