A prominent paradigm demonstrates many White Americans respond negatively to information on their declining population share. But this paradigm considers this “racial shift” in a single hierarchy-challenging context that produces similar status threat responses across conceptually distinct outcomes, undercutting the ability to both explain the causes of Whites’ social and political responses and advance theorizing about native majorities’ responses to demographic change. We test whether evidence for Whites’ responses to demographic change varies across three distinct hierarchy-challenging contexts: society at large, culture, and politics. We find little evidence any racial shift information instills status threat or otherwise changes attitudes or behavioral intentions, and do not replicate evidence for reactions diverging by left- versus right-wing political attachments. We conclude with what our well-powered (n = 2100) results suggest about a paradigm and intervention used prominently, with results cited frequently, to understand native majorities’ responses to demographic change and potential challenges to multiracial democracy.

There has been a lively debate about the economic and cultural-based drivers of support for populism. This article argues that economic concerns matter, but that they are realized through the relative gains and losses of social groups. Using new survey items in a large representative survey administered in Britain, it shows that citizens' economic assessments of the ethnic minority out-group – in relation to the group's situation 12 months ago and to assessments of the economic conditions of the white British in-group – are a predictor of support for Brexit. The results, which are robust to prior referendum vote, immigration attitudes and cultural sentiment, extend across income groups and national identity strength. Extending the analysis to a comparison of geographic in- and out-groups between local communities and London lends additional support to the argument. The implications of relative group-based economics are important for understanding Brexit and the economic sources of support for populism more broadly.

Idiosyncratic deals (i-deals) refer to customized work arrangements and employment conditions employees negotiate with employers. Significant scholarly attention has been paid to understand the responses of i-deals' recipients. However, little attention has been paid to coworkers' reactions to the i-deals. This study examines how coworkers react to focal employees' i-deals. We tested our hypotheses with a sample of 253 employee–coworker pairs and found that coworkers are more likely to accept focal employees' flexibility i-deals than development i-deals. Specifically, we found that coworkers view focal employees' development i-deals as more threatening to their status than flexibility i-deals, and status threat mediates the relationship between development i-deals and coworkers' acceptance. In addition, flexibility i-deals increase coworkers' perception of obtaining future i-deals more than development i-deals, and this perception mediates the relationship between flexibility i-deals and coworkers' acceptance. Furthermore, the results show that coworkers' relative leader–member exchange moderates the above relationships.