
==== Front
Sci Rep
Sci Rep
Scientific Reports
2045-2322
Nature Publishing Group UK London

39289433
72753
10.1038/s41598-024-72753-w
Article
Jewish Americans’ identity salience and effects on attitudes toward diversity
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4844-8405
Rios Kimberly kmrios@illinois.edu

1
Finkelshteyn Sheyla 2
Markman Keith D. 2
Cohen Adam B. 3
1 https://ror.org/047426m28 grid.35403.31 0000 0004 1936 9991 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, 61820 USA
2 https://ror.org/01jr3y717 grid.20627.31 0000 0001 0668 7841 Ohio University, Athens, 45701 USA
3 https://ror.org/03efmqc40 grid.215654.1 0000 0001 2151 2636 Arizona State University, Tempe, 85287 USA
17 9 2024
17 9 2024
2024
14 2167619 5 2024
6 9 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Although Jewish people in the US are often racialized (i.e., perceived by others) as White, Jewish Americans vary in the extent to which they consider themselves White, and in how strongly they identify with being Jewish. Based on prior findings that identifying with a White ethnic subgroup (e.g., Irish, Italian) can reduce prejudice toward racial and ethnic minorities, we predicted that strongly identified Jewish Americans would exhibit less intergroup bias than weakly identified Jewish Americans. For the present research, we recruited participants whose religious affiliation was Jewish but who self-identified as racially White. In a preregistered correlational study, Jewish identification was associated with lower bias, whereas White identification was associated with greater bias, toward Whites relative to racial/ethnic minorities. The relationship between Jewish identification and intergroup bias was accounted for by high Jewish identifiers’ perceptions that they could personally contribute to diversity in groups and organizations. Across three meta-analyzed experiments, participants whose religious minority (Jewish) identity was made salient exhibited less intergroup bias than did control participants, and in one preregistered experiment, perceived personal contributions to diversity mediated the effect of condition on intergroup bias. Implications for the forms of ethnic identity that predict more versus less intergroup bias in an increasingly multicultural society are discussed.

Keywords

Jewish identity
White identity
Attitudes toward diversity
Minority identity
Religious identity
Ethnic identity
Subject terms

Human behaviour
Social behaviour
issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature Limited 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

“You can tell me I’m fly, but it’s not for a White guy. I’m not White, I’m Jewish!”

– Matt Bar (2007), “I’m not White, I’m Jewish.”

This song lyric underscores the complexity of Jewish racial and ethnic identity in the US. Although Jewish people have been perceived and categorized as White by most Americans since the mid-twentieth century1, Jewish Americans do not necessarily self-identify as such.2 A recent study showed that over 90% of Jewish Americans mark their race/ethnicity as “White” on a demographic question when “Jewish” is not included as an option, but the proportion who mark “White” drops to 54% when a “Jewish” option is included.3 Jewish Americans are thus one example of a group that continues to occupy a middle ground between White and non-White.1

A growing body of research examines how various aspects of White identity relate to intergroup outcomes, such as prejudice.4–8 For instance, being proud of one’s Whiteness or viewing one’s Whiteness as central to the self-concept predicts more negative attitudes toward diversity5,9, greater prejudice against racial/ethnic minorities10, and avoidance of contact with racial outgroup members11. By contrast, being chronically aware of one’s White privilege predicts more positive attitudes toward diversity12 and lower anti-Black attitudes13. Furthermore, White children who identify with an ethnic or cultural label such as “Italian American” or “German” show reduced tendencies to see themselves as more similar to Whites than to racial/ethnic minorities, compared to those who identify as “White” or “American”.4 Relatedly, White adults who are induced to self-identify as “White” are less supportive of diversity and more prejudiced against racial/ethnic minorities than are those induced to self-identify as “European American” 6,7, possibly because the “European American” label connotes a more specific heritage and history of immigration.14.

The above findings suggest that White Americans whose membership in an ethnic subgroup is important to their sense of self exhibit more positive intergroup attitudes4,6,7. Although the study of Whiteness–beyond the notion of White as the “default” racial category in the US15–is still new10,16, research on Jewish identity is even more scant. Throughout history and across contexts, Judaism in the US has alternately been considered a religion, an ethnicity, a culture, and (before the mid-twentieth century) a race.1,17,18 It is thus unclear whether, among Jewish Americans who are categorized as racially White, having a strong Jewish identity predicts intergroup attitudes that are more similar to those of White Americans with a strong racial identity or White Americans with a strong ethnic subgroup identity. Given the rise in anti-Semitic incidents within the US following Hamas’ attack on Israel in October 202319, as well as increased political polarization in attitudes toward both Israel and (by extension) Jewish Americans20, Jewish identity is likely more salient now than in prior years. Understanding how the centrality of Jewish identity relates to attitudes toward racial and ethnic minority groups, who are projected to outnumber White Americans by 204221is therefore critical.

As noted earlier, Jewish Americans are often racialized (i.e., perceived by others) as White.1 Most ethnic groups originating in Northern or Western Europe (e.g., German, Irish, Italian) have come to consider themselves White over time.14,16 However, Jewish Americans may or may not self-identify as White.3 Judaism is frequently construed as an ethnic or cultural group as well as a religious group, and there is considerable heterogeneity within the Jewish American population.17,22,23 For example, many Ashkenazic Jews trace their ancestry to Eastern Europe and have paler skin than Jews who trace their ancestry to Spain, Northern Africa, and other regions of the world.17 Despite such heterogeneity, the experiences of Jewish Americans are largely omitted from discussions about diversity and multiculturalism in higher education and organizations.2,24 In fact, Jewish identity in the US has consistently been treated as synonymous with Ashkenazic Jewish identity in the media and research.25–27 Our studies focus on Jewish Americans who are racialized as White, but we acknowledge that many members of the Jewish community (approximately eight percent according to Pew Research) neither identify as nor are perceived to be White.28 Additionally, although Ashkenazic Jews–due to their paler skin on average17–are perhaps more likely to be racialized as White than Sephardic Jews, Mizrahi Jews, and Jews of color, some non-Ashkenazic Jews may self-identify or be viewed as White. In fact, the crowdsourcing site Prolific Academic includes both “White/Caucasian” and “White/Sephardic Jew” as options for participants asked to indicate their race/ethnicity.3

In the present research, we predict that Jewish Americans who identify racially as White but whose Jewish identity is central to their self-definition (or whose membership in a religious minority group is made salient) will exhibit greater positivity toward racial/ethnic minorities in the US. One potential reason is that both White people and racial/ethnic minorities in the US consider diversity more applicable to minorities than to Whites.12,29 Groups that straddle the line between White and non-White, such as Jewish Americans, may therefore be more likely to perceive diversity as self-relevant, and feel a stronger kinship with minority groups, when they define their race/ethnicity as something beyond simply “White.” In a recent, illustrative study, White Americans who were induced to self-identify as “European American” (versus “White”) believed they had more to personally contribute to diversity; for example, they perceived themselves as adding more to diversity-related discussions in groups and organizations. Beliefs that one could personally contribute to diversity in turn predicted greater support for multiculturalism, or acknowledgment and celebration of differences between groups.7 In other words, thinking of one’s cultural background caused White Americans, who are often thought to lack a meaningful heritage15,16, to feel more connected to and invested in diversity.8

We argue that a similar process may operate among Jewish Americans, a group that has increasingly been racialized as White in the US1 but whose members may construe Judaism as a distinct ethnic and cultural category.17 If Jewish Americans are reminded that they hold a minority identity, or if their Jewish identity is central to their sense of who they are, this could prompt them to think of the ways diversity in the US is relevant to themselves and their group’s lived experiences. These perceptions of personal contributions to diversity could involve feeling able to share stories about one’s cultural traditions, the origins of one’s ancestors, or the obstacles one has faced due to membership in a marginalized group. As a result of their greater perceived personal contributions to diversity, Jewish Americans whose minority identity is salient or chronically important may exhibit more positivity toward US racial and ethnic minority groups, relative to Whites. Indirectly supporting this possibility, Jewish American adolescents in one study rated their Jewish identity as less central to their self-concept than racial/ethnic minority adolescents rated their race/ethnicity, but as more central to their self-concept than did non-Jewish White Americans.18 Thus, even if Jewish Americans generally see diversity as less applicable to them compared to racial/ethnic minorities, the strength of their Jewish identity may mean that they consider diversity more self-relevant than do non-Jewish White Americans.

Alternatively, Jewish Americans who are reminded of their status as a religious minority or who strongly identify with being Jewish might be less aware of their White privilege, which could be associated with less rather than more positive evaluations of racial/ethnic outgroups. Indeed, some scholars argue that being perceived as White in society–as are many Jewish Americans– is associated with denial of structural racism, as well as denial of the advantages White skin confers.30 We test this idea in the present research by assessing participants’ awareness of White privilege, in addition to their perceptions that they personally contribute to diversity, as a possible mediator of the relationship between Jewish identification and racial/ethnic prejudice. We also test whether the relationship between Jewish identification and outgroup attitudes extends beyond racial/ethnic outgroups (e.g., to evaluations of LGBTQ + individuals), though our primary interest is in Jewish Americans’ evaluations of racial/ethnic minorities.

Results

To investigate whether Jewish identification is associated with less intergroup bias over and above White identification, and whether this association is accounted for by greater perceived personal contributions to diversity (rather than awareness of White privilege), we conducted a preregistered correlational study on Prolific Academic with 310 White, Jewish US American participants (https://osf.io/wpvhc). Participants first completed two separate measures assessing Jewish and White identification, followed by measures of intergroup bias (the difference between feelings of warmth toward White Americans and feelings of warmth toward several racial/ethnic minority groups), White privilege awareness, and perceived personal contributions to diversity. We focused our analyses on Jewish identity centrality (i.e., importance of being Jewish to one’s self-definition), both to directly compare the relationships of Jewish and White identity centrality to intergroup bias and to be consistent with prior research on ethnic identification.9,11,31 However, for comparison purposes, we also measured strength of religiosity and religious service attendance.

We conducted a series of multiple regressions in which Jewish and White identification were parallel predictor variables (see Tables 1, 2, 3 for full statistics, including effect sizes). In these analyses, Jewish identification predicted lower intergroup bias (p = 0.008), greater awareness of White privilege (p = 0.041), and greater perceived personal contributions to diversity (p < 0.001). By contrast, White identification predicted greater intergroup bias (p < 0.001) and somewhat (albeit non–significantly) lower awareness of White privilege (p = 0.062); White identification was unrelated to perceived personal contributions to diversity (p = 0.813). Furthermore, the relationship between Jewish identification and lower intergroup bias was accounted for by high Jewish identifiers’ greater perceived personal contributions to diversity, but not by their greater awareness of White privilege (see Fig. 1). None of these results changed when participants’ political views were included as a covariate, except that the relationship between Jewish identification and greater White privilege awareness became slightly weaker (from p = 0.041 to p = 0.077).Table 1 Multiple regression analysis with intergroup bias as outcome, correlational study.

	B	SE	Beta	t	p	95% CI	
Constant	–15.00	6.12		–2.45	0.015	–27.05, 2.95	
Jewish identification	–2.87	1.08	–0.138	–2.67	0.008	–4.98, –0.752	
White identification	8.58	1.05	0.425	8.20	 <0.001	6.52, 10.64	
Outcome variable: intergroup bias.

Table 2 Multiple regression analysis with White privilege awareness as outcome, correlational study.

	B	SE	Beta	t	p	95% CI	
Constant	4.64	0.372		12.47	 < 0.001	3.91, 5.37	
Jewish identification	0.134	0.065	0.116	2.05	0.041	0.006, 0.262	
White identification	–0.119	0.063	–0.106	–1.87	0.062	–.244, 0.006	
Outcome variable: White privilege awareness.

Table 3 Multiple regression analysis with perceived personal contributions to diversity as outcome, correlational study.

	B	SE	Beta	t	p	95% CI	
Constant	3.74	0.327		11.44	 < 0.001	3.09, 4.38	
Jewish identification	0.199	0.057	0.195	3.47	 < 0.001	0.086, 0.312	
White identification	0.013	0.056	0.013	0.237	0.813	–0.096, 0.123	
Outcome variable: perceived personal contributions to diversity.

Fig. 1 Mediation analysis, correlational study.

In additional analyses (not preregistered), we repeated the above regressions after replacing Jewish identification with either strength of religiosity or religious service attendance. Each predictor, like Jewish identification, was positively correlated with perceived personal contributions to diversity (ps < 0.001) but not with White privilege awareness (ps ≥ 0.406). Although neither predictor was significantly associated with intergroup bias (ps ≥ 0.320), they each indirectly predicted lower intergroup bias through perceived personal contributions to diversity.

Controlling for White identification, Jewish identification was unrelated to evaluations of LGBT individuals (p = 0.217). However, a test of indirect effects revealed that Jewish identification predicted greater perceived personal contributions to diversity, which in turn predicted more positive evaluations of LGBT individuals (B = 0.83, SE = 0.41, 95% CI [0.14, 1.72]).

For exploratory purposes, we also asked participants whether they personally identified as White (n = 34), Jewish (n = 45), or both White and Jewish (n = 231); and if both, which identity was more important to them (White: n = 94; Jewish: n = 136). Participants who identified as Jewish (M = –5.18, SE = 3.60, 95% CI [–12.27, 1.91]), or as both White and Jewish (M = 3.39, SE = 1.59; 95% CI [0.26, 6.52]), reported lower intergroup bias than did participants who identified as White (M = 16.35, SE = 4.14, 95% CI [8.19, 24.50]) (ps ≤ 0.011), and did not differ from one another (p = 0.091; all comparisons were conducted with Bonferroni adjustments), overall F(1, 307) = 7.71, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.05. Among participants identifying as both White and Jewish, those who indicated that their Jewish identity was more important to them (M = 0.46, SE = 1.74, 95% CI [–2.97, 3.88]) reported lower intergroup bias than did those who indicated that their White identity was more important to them (M = 7.72, SE = 2.09, 95% CI [3.61, 11.84]), F(1, 228) = 7.15, p = 0.008, η2p = 0.030. There was no relationship between either question and White privilege awareness or perceived personal contributions to diversity (ps ≥ 0.139).

Next, we conducted three experiments with White, Jewish US American participants recruited from either Prolific Academic or Qualtrics Panels (total N = 485). On Prolific Academic, potential participants can be pre-screened for studies based on their demographic characteristics. Only those individuals who reported their nationality as US, their religion as Jewish, and their race/ethnicity as either White/Caucasian or White/Sephardic Jew on this pre-screening survey were eligible for our studies. On Qualtrics, potential participants were eligible if they reported their nationality as US, their religion as Jewish, and their race/ethnicity as White/European American on a short demographic survey at the beginning of our study. (Those who did not meet the criteria were redirected to a page indicating their ineligibility.)

In each experiment, we either made participants’ Jewish identity salient (by asking whether they belong to a racial, ethnic, or religious minority group and if so, which group) or not (by not administering the question about belonging to a minority group). Participants then completed an intergroup bias measure (see Table 4 for descriptive statistics). Because the experimental manipulation was identical and the intergroup bias measures were nearly identical across studies, we conducted a single–paper meta-analysis to maximize statistical power. This analysis revealed a small but statistically significant overall effect of condition on prejudice (B = –4.92, SE = 2.22, z = –2.22, p = 0.026). Specifically, participants whose Jewish identity had been made salient reported lower intergroup bias (B = –4.24, SE = 4.09) than did participants in the control condition (B = 0.67, SE = 4.10). I2 was estimated at 86.37% (95% confidence interval: 70.31, 93.75), which suggests very high heterogeneity across studies. In other words, differences between studies beyond those due to the experimental manipulation explained about 86% of the variation in the observations.Table 4 Descriptive statistics from each experiment by condition.

	Intergroup bias (Exp 1)	Intergroup bias (Exp 2)	Intergroup bias (Exp 3)	Personal diversity (Exp 3 only)	White privilege (Exp 3 only)	
Jewish identity condition	–11.46 (24.82) [–18.79, –4.13]	3.59 (22.23) [–0.80, 7.99]	–7.66 (21.21) [–14.39, –0.94]	4.38 (1.18) [4.06, 4.70]	5.65 (1.55) [5.21, 6.09]	
Control condition	0.80 (24.82) [–6.25, 7.86]	7.62 (25.26) [3.86, 11.39]	–6.80 (27.26) [–13.47, –0.14]	3.91 (1.14) [3.60, 4.23]	5.41 (1.66) [4.97, 5.85]	
Note: M (SD) [95% CI].

In the last of the three experiments (N = 105; preregistered at https://osf.io/gh3nx), we measured perceived personal contributions to diversity and White privilege awareness as possible mediators of the effect of condition on intergroup bias. (We did not administer these mediators in the first two experiments.) The Jewish identity salient condition–relative to the control condition – led to greater perceived personal contributions to diversity, F(1, 103) = 4.25, p = 0.042, η2p = 0.040, but did not impact White privilege awareness, F(1, 103) = 0.561, p = 0.455, η2p = 0.005, or intergroup bias, F(1, 103) = 0.032, p = 0.858, η2p = 0.0003. Nevertheless, as preregistered, we conducted a test of indirect effects to determine whether the relationship between condition and intergroup bias was mediated by perceived personal contributions to diversity, using PROCESS model 4 with 5000 bootstrapping estimates.32 This analysis revealed that participants whose Jewish identity had been made salient perceived themselves to make greater personal contributions to diversity, which in turn predicted lower intergroup bias (overall indirect effect: B = –2.86, SE = 1.75, 95% CI [–6.85, –0.09]). We did not include White privilege awareness in the mediation analyses in this experiment because it was not associated with either condition or Jewish identification.

We also preregistered our predictions that the findings from the correlational study would replicate (see Tables 5, 6, 7 for statistics). There was no direct relationship between Jewish identification and either intergroup bias (p = 0.775) or White privilege awareness (p = 0.953), controlling for White identification. However, Jewish identification predicted greater perceived personal contributions to diversity (p = 0.036). Furthermore, consistent with the correlational study, a test of indirect effects indicated that perceived personal contributions to diversity mediated the relationship between Jewish identification and intergroup bias (overall indirect effect: B = –1.00, SE = 0.56, 95% CI [–2.16, –0.003]). As in the correlational study, we conducted exploratory analyses replacing the Jewish identification measure with either strength of religiosity or religious service attendance in the regressions. Neither variable predicted perceived personal contributions to diversity; these variables also did not predict intergroup bias or White privilege awareness (all ps ≥ 0.608).Table 5 Multiple regression analysis with intergroup bias as outcome, Experiment 3.

	B	SE	Beta	t	p	95% CI	
Constant	–26.6	10.57		–2.51	0.013	–47.56, –5.64	
Jewish identification	–0.498	1.74	–0.026	–0.286	0.775	–3.94, 2.95	
White identification	6.69	1.66	0.363	4.03	 < 0.001	3.40, 9.99	
Outcome variable: intergroup bias.

Table 6 Multiple regression analysis with White privilege awareness as outcome, Experiment 3.

	B	SE	Beta	t	p	95% CI	
Constant	5.7	0.748		7.62	 < 0.001	4.22, 7.19	
Jewish identification	–0.007	0.123	–0.006	–0.059	0.953	–0.251, 0.236	
White identification	–0.030	0.118	–0.024	–0.253	0.801	–0.263, 0.203	
Outcome variable: White privilege awareness.

In the regression models, White identification predicted greater intergroup bias (p < 0.001), but not perceived personal contributions to diversity (p = 0.360) or White privilege awareness (p = 0.801). Additionally, there were no significant direct or indirect effects of experimental condition on evaluations of LGBT individuals, and neither Jewish nor White identification predicted evaluations of LGBT individuals.Table 7 Multiple regression analysis with perceived personal contributions to diversity as outcome, Experiment 3.

	B	SE	Beta	t	p	95% CI	
Constant	3.31	0.607		5.46	 < 0.001	2.11, 4.51	
Jewish identification	0.211	0.100	0.200	2.12	0.036	0.014, 0.409	
White identification	–0.088	0.095	–0.087	–0.919	0.360	–0.277, 0.101	
Outcome variable: perceived personal contributions to diversity.

Discussion

Our correlational and experimental findings demonstrate that, like White Americans who identify with a particular ethnic subgroup,4,6,7 Jewish Americans whose Jewish identity is chronically important to the self-concept or made salient exhibit less intergroup bias (i.e., more positive evaluations of racial/ethnic minority groups relative to Whites). Our findings also suggest that this lower intergroup bias is accounted for by strongly identified Jewish Americans’ sense that they can make personal contributions to diversity–for example, that they can add to diversity-related discussions in everyday life and social institutions. Given that Jewish Americans are often not explicitly included in discourse about multiculturalism and group differences in institutions and organizations2,24,30, the results of our studies underscore the potential implications for Jewish Americans’ perceptions that diversity is relevant to their group.

In our experimental manipulation, we increased the accessibility of participants’ membership in a racial/ethnic or religious minority group, rather than their Jewish identity per se. We did so to highlight the aspect of Jewish identity (i.e., membership in a disadvantaged group) that we expected would be most likely to bolster perceived personal contributions to diversity. If we had simply made Jewish identity salient by asking participants to indicate their religious affiliation, it would have been less clear what component(s) of Jewish identity were driving the observed relationships, as Judaism heavily emphasizes cultural traditions and practices as well as religious beliefs.17,33 Focusing Jewish American participants on their religious minority status may have prompted them to feel a greater kinship with people of color, compared to considering the beliefs or practices involved in Judaism. Indeed, exploratory correlational analyses revealed that religiosity and religious service attendance had less consistent relationships with perceived personal contributions to diversity than did centrality of one’s Jewish identity to the self-concept.

It is somewhat surprising that our experimental manipulation did not heighten Jewish Americans’ inclusive victim beliefs (i.e., perceptions that other groups have experienced similar levels of oppression as the ingroup),34 a relationship we tested in one of the three experiments. Initially, we predicted that Jewish Americans who were induced to think of themselves as belonging to a minority group would be more prone to recognize shared disadvantages across intergroup lines. One possibility is that the items about inclusive victim beliefs did not capture the types of disadvantages that Jewish Americans sometimes share with people of color in the US (e.g., prejudice and discrimination). Instead, the items largely pertained to historical instances of victimhood outside the US, such as the Holocaust. In future research, it would be fruitful to investigate whether our manipulation makes Jewish Americans aware of the parallels between anti-Semitism and racism against people of color, using a more targeted measure of inclusive victim beliefs.

We also did not find a consistent relationship between Jewish identification and awareness of White privilege. If anything, having a strong Jewish identity was correlated with greater acknowledgment of the privileges of Whiteness, although this effect did not emerge in the experiments. Our results could thus suggest that Jewish Americans do not see their membership in a religious minority group as an opportunity to deny or deflect attention from White privilege. Alternatively, Jewish Americans may recognize that White people are privileged but do not see themselves as benefiting from said privileges, insofar as they do not identify strongly as White. Existing measures of White privilege awareness tend to either ask about both White people and one’s own experiences,35 or to reference White people generally without asking about one’s own experiences.36 Especially for groups that may or may not consider themselves White (e.g., Jewish Americans), it will be critical moving forward to disentangle awareness of White privilege from awareness of how one’s skin color can be a source of personal advantage (or disadvantage).

In some of our studies, we tested whether Jewish identification would relate to attitudes toward non-ethnic minority groups, such as sexual and gender minorities. Although in our correlational study we found an indirect association between strong Jewish identification and positivity toward LGBT individuals via perceived personal contributions to diversity, we did not replicate this relationship experimentally. The correlational study employed the largest sample, which is one potential explanation. That is, perhaps Jewish people whose minority identity is made salient do exhibit reduced anti-LGBT bias, but the effect is too small to detect in the current experiments (which had sufficient power to detect medium-sized or small-to-medium effects). It also may be that the experimental manipulation–which involved indicating membership in a racial/ethnic or religious minority group–impacts attitudes toward racial/ethnic and perhaps other religious minorities but does not impact attitudes toward minority groups not directly mentioned in the manipulation.

One limitation of our research is the relatively small sample sizes, particularly in our Prolific experiments. In these cases, we used the heuristic within social psychology of at least 50 participants per cell37 to determine the sample sizes because, as of July 2024, there were only 660 US Americans who report their race/ethnicity as White/Caucasian or White/Sephardic Jew, and who reported their religion as Jewish, on Prolific. Nevertheless, our single-paper meta-analysis of the relationship between experimental condition and intergroup bias enabled us to maximize statistical power and demonstrated a small, but significant, effect of making one’s religious minority (Jewish) identity salient.

Another limitation, particularly of the correlational data, is that our measure of Jewish identification did not fully capture the complexity of Judaism, which may include beliefs, practices, and traditions associated with one’s religion, ethnicity, or culture.17 However, using Jewish identity centrality as the primary predictor enabled us to make closer comparisons between our findings and prior research on the centrality of both White identity5,9,10 and racial/ethnic minority identity11,31. Notably, unlike having a strong White racial identity which generally predicts more negative outgroup attitudes (e.g., racial/ethnic prejudice)5,9,10, having a strong Jewish identity predicts more positive outgroup attitudes. In addition, although our focus on Jewish Americans who self-identify as White means that our findings may be most applicable to Ashkenazic Jews (who have paler skin than many other Jews)17, a minority of participants in each of our samples indicated either that they were White/Sephardic Jewish or that their ancestors originated from outside Europe.

In future research, it would be informative to examine how the centrality or salience of one’s Jewish identity predicts the intergroup attitudes of Jewish Americans who do not self-identify and are not racialized as White. Furthermore, it remains to be seen whether non-Jewish people of color in the US would exhibit lower anti-Semitism after reflecting on their racial/ethnic minority identity, parallelling the effects of our experimental manipulation on Jewish Americans in the present studies. In both cases, the effects of the minority identity salience manipulation would likely be driven by perceptions of common experiences of prejudice and discrimination in the US, rather than by personal contributions to diversity, which are generally high among people of color12,29. But among non-Jewish Americans of color, such a manipulation could either reduce anti-Semitism (if it causes participants to see Jews as possible coalition partners in fighting prejudice and discrimination)38 or increase anti-Semitism (if participants are skeptical that Jews have had similar lived experiences to their group and therefore of their potential for being sincere allies)39. Somewhat consistent with the latter possibility, a recent study demonstrated that young Black and Hispanic/Latino(a) American adults exhibit greater anti-Semitism than do young non-Jewish White American adults40. In general, given the growing diversity in the US21, it is critical moving forward to further examine the factors that influence both Jewish Americans’ attitudes toward people of color and people of color’s attitudes toward Jewish Americans. Doing so could shed light on when alliances between these groups may be more versus less likely38,39,41. Ideally, such research would incorporate behavioral measures of actual or intended coalition-building – for example, donations to or signing a petition on behalf of outgroup-relevant causes (e.g., #BlackLivesMatter for non-Black Jewish Americans, Jewish community organizations for non-Jewish people of color).

In conclusion, the song lyric from the beginning of our paper may reflect the way some (but not all) White Jewish Americans construe their identity. However, statements like “I may be White but I’m also Jewish” or “I’m both White and Jewish” may encapsulate the complexity of Jewish American identity in ways more likely to facilitate intergroup harmony, given the well documented association between White privilege awareness and lower prejudice against racial and ethnic minorities.13 We argue that better understanding Jewish Americans’ intergroup attitudes is crucial, particularly because groups that straddle the line between White and non-White (e.g., those reporting more than one race or ethnicity) are growing in prominence and prevalence within the US.21 As an example of a group that straddles this line, Jewish Americans racialized as White may offer unique contributions to discussions of multiculturalism and diversity–and ultimately, efforts at coalition-building – in institutions and organizations.

Methods

All materials and experimental protocols for the following studies were approved by the Ohio University Institutional Review Board. We obtained informed consent from all participants, and the research was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Correlational study

Participants

Our targeted sample size in the preregistration was 300. Three hundred and twenty-six individuals, recruited from Qualtrics Panels, participated in exchange for $5. To be eligible, participants needed to be at least 18 years old and self-identify as White, Jewish US Americans. Five participants who indicated that they were neither White nor Jewish (based on responses to the question “Do you personally identify as White, Jewish, both, or neither?”) and six participants who failed a basic attention check (i.e., “What is your favorite color? Please select Yellow as your response”) were omitted from analyses. The remaining 315 individuals were retained in the final sample (182 women, 130 men, 1 transgender man, 1 non-binary person, 1 other gender identity; Mage = 58.77, SD = 17.07). The sample leaned politically liberal on average (M = 3.23, SD = 1.65 in response to “How would you describe your political views?”; 1 = very liberal and 7 = very conservative). A sensitivity analysis conducted with G*Power 3.142 indicated that 315 participants in a linear multiple regression analysis with two predictors, an alpha of 0.05, and 80% power was sufficient to detect a small-to-medium effect (f = 0.16). Although we did not ask participants whether they identified as Ashkenazic, Sephardic, or other Jewish, we administered an open-ended question asking from which country or countries their parents originated. In response, 225 participants reported European (excluding Spanish and Portuguese) ancestry, 12 reported non-European (i.e., Latin American, African, and/or Middle Eastern) ancestry, and three reported a mix of European and non-European (i.e., Latin American, African, and/or Middle Eastern) ancestry. An additional 75 participants either did not specify their ancestry or responded with “USA” or “Israel”; thus, it is unclear whether these participants were more likely to identify as Ashkenazic or Sephardic Jewish.

Procedure and materials

Participants completed informed consent and a prescreening survey (which contained questions about race/ethnicity, age, and religious affiliation), followed by two separate eight-item measures of Jewish identification and White identification. Both measures were adapted from a scale originally created to assess the centrality of one’s race to the self-concept among Black Americans31, but were reworded to pertain to being Jewish or White (e.g., “In general, being Jewish [White] is an important part of my self-image”; Jewish identification: M = 4.69, SD = 1.18, α = 0.86; White identification: M = 3.74, SD = 1.22, α = 0.86). All items were administered on seven-point scales (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

Participants then responded to several “feeling thermometers” assessing evaluations toward different groups in the US (0 = no warmth at all, 100 = complete warmth). Of primary interest were participants’ evaluations of racial/ethnic minority groups–specifically, Black/African Americans, Hispanics/Latinos, Asian Americans, Middle Eastern Americans, and Native Americans–as well as White Americans. Consistent with previous research9,43, we computed the difference between participants’ average evaluations of White Americans and participants’ average evaluations of racial/ethnic minority groups to form an intergroup bias composite (M = 3.57, SD = 24.68). Higher scores reflected greater bias in favor of White Americans relative to racial/ethnic minority groups. In this study, we preregistered predictions only for evaluations of racial/ethnic minorities rather than the difference score, due to an oversight. However, analyzing the average evaluation of racial/ethnic minority groups did not change the pattern or significance of results.

For exploratory analyses, we also computed the average of participants’ evaluations of lesbian women, gay men, bisexual individuals, and transgender individuals (M = 61.09, SD = 29.34; α = 0.96).

Next, participants completed a five-item measure of White privilege awareness (e.g., “My status as a White person grants me unearned advantages in today’s society”; M = 4.82, SD = 1.37, α = 0.87),35 as well as a five-item measure of perceived personal contributions to diversity (e.g., “I add a lot of diversity to the groups and organizations I am a part of”; M = 4.72, SD = 1.21, α = 0.89.7

Finally, participants responded to additional demographic questions and were debriefed. The demographic survey included the question about whether participants identified as White, Jewish, both, or neither, as well as the attention check. It also included an item about strength of religiosity (i.e., “To what extent do you consider yourself a religious person?” measured on a scale from 1 = not at all to 7 = extremely; M = 3.10, SD = 1.82) and an item about religious service attendance (i.e., “How often do you attend religious services?” measured on a scale from 1 = never to 10 = every day; M = 3.52, SD = 2.53).

Experiments

Experiment 1

One hundred and nine individuals, recruited from Prolific Academic, participated in exchange for $1. Our targeted sample size was 100 given the small number of Jewish Americans on Prolific. To be eligible, participants needed to be at least 18 years old and self-identify as White, Jewish US Americans. Five participants in the Jewish identity salient condition were excluded from analyses because they indicated that they did not belong to a racial, ethnic, or religious minority group. The remaining 104 individuals were retained in the final sample (66 women, 35 men, 2 non-binary individuals, 1 another gender identity; Mage = 40.88, SD = 17.15). The sample was politically liberal on average (M = 2.48, SD = 1.44 in response to the seven-point question from the correlational study). A sensitivity power analysis conducted using G*Power 3.142 revealed that 104 participants in a two-condition design with 80% power and an alpha of 0.05 was sufficient to detect a medium-sized effect (f = 0.28). In response to the open-ended question about ancestral origins from the correlational study, 85 participants reported European (excluding Spanish and Portuguese) ancestry, and three reported a mix of European and non-European (i.e., Latin American, African, and/or Middle Eastern) ancestry. An additional 16 participants either did not specify their ancestry or responded with “USA” or “Israel”.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions. In the Jewish identity salient condition, participants responded to the question “Do you personally identify as a member of a racial/ethnic minority group (e.g., American Indian, Black, Asian American, Hispanic/Latino) or religious minority group (e.g., Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist?)” Participants who checked “yes” were then prompted to “Please specify which group(s)” in a text box. Participants who checked “no” were omitted from the final sample. In the control condition, participants proceeded to the next set of items without seeing that question.

After the experimental manipulation, all participants responded to “feeling thermometer” items like those used in the correlational study. We were primarily interested in evaluations of the following groups: Asian American people, Black people, Hispanic/Latino people, Middle Eastern people, and White people. As in the correlational study, we computed the difference between participants’ evaluations of White people (M = 67.99, SD = 21.65) and racial/ethnic minority groups (M = 73.08, SD = 20.64; α = 0.95) to create a measure of intergroup bias (M = –5.09, SD = 26.73), with higher scored reflecting more positive evaluations of White people relative to racial/ethnic minorities. We did not measure evaluations of LGBT individuals.

Experiment 2

Our preregistered (https://osf.io/bhqu5) target sample size was 300. Three hundred and sixty-three individuals, recruited from both Qualtrics Panels and Moishe Houses (residences for young Jewish Americans) throughout the US, participated in this study. Participants from Qualtrics Panels received $5 as compensation, and Moishe House residents participated on a volunteer basis. To be eligible, participants needed to be at least 18 years old and self-identify as White, Jewish US Americans. Three participants who did not indicate that their religion was Jewish on a prescreening survey, 30 participants who indicated they identified as neither White nor Jewish (on a question about whether they personally identified as White, Jewish, both, or neither), four participants who failed the same attention check item from the correlational study, and 51 participants in the Jewish identity salient condition who indicated that they did not personally identify as a racial/ethnic or religious minority group member were excluded from analyses.

We suspect that a relatively high proportion of participants in the Jewish identity salient condition responded “no” to the question about belonging to a racial/ethnic or religious minority group because they had previously indicated their religious affiliation as part of the Qualtrics prescreen. Thus, participants may have responded “no” because they interpreted the question as asking about something besides their Jewish identity (i.e., it might otherwise seem redundant with the prescreen item). Although we included the PANAS as a filler to offset this issue, it is nevertheless likely that not enough time had elapsed between the prescreen and the manipulation.

After exclusions, 275 individuals (259 Qualtrics panelists and 16 Moishe House residents) remained in the final sample (157 women, 99 men, 2 non-binary, 1 another gender identity; Mage = 55.28, SD = 18.09). The sample was politically liberal on average (M = 3.21, SD = 1.76 on the seven-point question used in previous studies). In response to the question about ancestral origins, 183 participants reported European (excluding Spanish and Portuguese) ancestry, nine reported non-European (i.e., Latin American, African, and/or Middle Eastern) ancestry, and six reported a mix of European and non-European ancestry. An additional 77 participants either did not specify their ancestry or responded with “USA” or “Israel”. A sensitivity power analysis, conducted using G*Power 3.142, indicated that 275 participants in a one-way ANOVA with two conditions, 80% power, and an alpha of 0.05 was sufficient to detect a small-to-medium effect (f = 0.17).

Participants first indicated their age, country of residence, and religious affiliation on a prescreening survey; those who were under 18, non-US residents, or non-Jewish were routed to the end of the study because they did not meet the eligibility criteria. Participants then completed the 20-item Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS)44 as a filler measure, given that the question about religious affiliation may have prompted them to think about their Jewish identity. Next, participants were randomly assigned to either the Jewish identity salient condition or the control condition, as in Experiment 1, and completed the experimental manipulation.

Following the manipulation, participants completed eight-item measures of inclusive victim consciousness (e.g., “Other groups in the world have been victimized in similar ways as Jewish people”; M = 4.39, SD = 1.39; α = 0.92) and exclusive victim consciousness (e.g., “It is simply wrong to say that other groups in the world have suffered as much as Jewish people”; M = 4.98, SD = 1.24; α = 0.90), adapted from prior research.34 We preregistered the prediction that participants in the Jewish identity salient condition would report greater inclusive victim consciousness (i.e., a sense of shared oppression with other groups), but we did not find any effects of the manipulation on either inclusive or exclusive victim beliefs (see Discussion for possible explanations).

Afterward, participants responded to several feeling thermometer items. We were particularly interested in evaluations of the following groups: White Americans, Black/African Americans, Hispanics/Latinos, Asian Americans, Middle Eastern Americans, and Native Americans. As in prior studies, we created an intergroup bias composite by taking the difference between evaluations of White Americans (M = 74.66, SD = 23.03) and the average evaluation of racial/ethnic minority groups (M = 68.86, SD = 23.64; α = 0.93). Higher scored reflected more positive evaluations of White Americans relative to racial/ethnic minorities (M = 5.92, SD = 24.06). We also computed the average evaluation of LGBT individuals as in the correlational study (M = 60.84, SD = 28.98; α = 0.95).

Experiment 3

As noted in the Results section, this experiment was preregistered. Our targeted sample size was 100 given the small number of Jewish Americans on Prolific Academic. One hundred and twenty-four individuals, recruited from Prolific, participated in exchange for $1. To be eligible, participants needed to be at least 18 years old and self-identify as White, Jewish US Americans. Nine participants who listed their religious affiliation as something other than Jewish, two participants who failed the attention check question used in previous studies, three participants in the Jewish identity salient condition who indicated that they did not belong to a racial/ethnic or religious minority group, and five statistical outliers whose Cook’s D scores on the personal contributions to diversity measure (> 0.045) were more than 3 SD above the sample mean were omitted from analyses. The remaining 105 individuals were retained in the final sample (53 women, 49 men, 1 transgender woman, 2 non-binary individuals; Mage = 42.70, SD = 16.51). The sample was politically liberal on average (M = 2.53, SD = 1.57 on the seven-point scale from previous studies). On the race/ethnicity question administered by Prolific Academic, 87 identified as White/Caucasian, 17 as White/Sephardic Jewish, and one participant did not specify their race/ethnicity. A sensitivity power analysis, conducted using G*Power 3.142, revealed that 105 participants in a two-condition design with 80% power and an alpha of 0.05 was sufficient to detect a medium-sized effect (f = 0.28).

Participants were randomly assigned to either the Jewish identity salient condition or control condition and completed the experimental manipulation, followed by the measure of perceived personal contributions to diversity from the correlational study (M = 4.14, SD = 1.18; α = 0.82) and the feeling thermometer items from Experiment 2 (evaluations of White Americans: M = 66.93, SD = 24.16; average evaluation of racial/ethnic minorities: M = 74.16, SD = 19.45, α = 0.94; intergroup bias composite: M = -7.23, SD = 24.34; LGBT composite: M = 70.62, SD = 24.13, α = 0.93). Next, participants completed the measures of White privilege awareness (M = 5.53, SD = 1.60; α = 0.96), Jewish identification (M = 5.24, SD = 1.19; α = 0.91), and White identification (M = 3.26, SD = 1.29; α = 0.89) from the correlational study.

Author contributions

K.R. conceptualized the study designs and drafted the initial manuscript. S.F. assisted with writing the manuscript and collecting data from Moishe House residents. K.D.M. and A.B.C. provided feedback on the manuscript and assisted with conceptualizing the study designs.

Data Availability

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current studies are available in the Open Science Framework repository, at the following links: https://osf.io/rmx7f/ (Correlational Study, Experiment 1, Experiment 3), https://osf.io/b7n8z/ (Experiment 2).

Declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Brodkin K How Jews Became White Folks and What That Says about Race in America 2010 Rutgers University Press
Brodkin, K. How Jews Became White Folks and What That Says about Race in America (Rutgers University Press, 2010).
2. Rubin, D. I. The Jewish Struggle in the 21st Century: Conflict, Positionality, and Multiculturalism. (BRILL, 2021). 10.1163/9789004464087.
3. Rios, K., Cohen, A. & Markman, K. D. Implications of Including “Jewish” and “Middle Eastern” as Categories on U.S. Racial/Ethnic Demographic Surveys. (SAGE Publications Ltd, 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road, London EC1Y 1SP United Kingdom, 2024). 10.4135/9781529683356.
4. Brown CS Spatzier A Tobin M Variability in the Inter-group Attitudes of White Children: What We Can Learn from Their Ethnic Identity Labels Soc. Dev. 2010 19 758 778
Brown, C. S., Spatzier, A. & Tobin, M. Variability in the Inter-group Attitudes of White Children: What We Can Learn from Their Ethnic Identity Labels. Soc. Dev. 19, 758–778 (2010).
5. Goren MJ Plaut VC Identity Form Matters: White Racial Identity and Attitudes Toward Diversity Self Identity 2012 11 237 254
Goren, M. J. & Plaut, V. C. Identity Form Matters: White Racial Identity and Attitudes Toward Diversity. Self Identity 11, 237–254 (2012).
6. Morrison KR Chung AH “White” or “European American”? Self-identifying labels influence majority group members’ interethnic attitudes J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2011 47 165 170
Morrison, K. R. & Chung, A. H. “White” or “European American”? Self-identifying labels influence majority group members’ interethnic attitudes. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 47, 165–170 (2011).
7. Rios K Mackey CD “White” Self-Identification: A Source of Uniqueness Threat Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2022 13 416 424
Rios, K. & Mackey, C. D. “White” Self-Identification: A Source of Uniqueness Threat. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 13, 416–424 (2022).
8. Rios, K. Harnessing the many facets of White identity to reduce feelings of threat and improve intergroup relations. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 13684302241240688 (2024) 10.1177/13684302241240688.
9. Morrison KR Plaut VC Ybarra O Predicting Whether Multiculturalism Positively or Negatively Influences White Americans’ Intergroup Attitudes: The Role of Ethnic Identification Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2010 36 1648 1661 21041522
Morrison, K. R., Plaut, V. C. & Ybarra, O. Predicting Whether Multiculturalism Positively or Negatively Influences White Americans’ Intergroup Attitudes: The Role of Ethnic Identification. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 36, 1648–1661 (2010).21041522
10. Knowles ED Peng K White Selves: Conceptualizing and Measuring a Dominant-Group Identity J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2005 89 223 241 16162055
Knowles, E. D. & Peng, K. White Selves: Conceptualizing and Measuring a Dominant-Group Identity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 89, 223–241 (2005).16162055
11. Wantchekon KA Comparing relations of ethnic-racial public regard, centrality, and intergroup contact attitudes among ethno-racially diverse adolescents Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 2022 25 833 852
Wantchekon, K. A. et al. Comparing relations of ethnic-racial public regard, centrality, and intergroup contact attitudes among ethno-racially diverse adolescents. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 25, 833–852 (2022).
12. Plaut VC Garnett FG Buffardi LE Sanchez-Burks J “What about me?” Perceptions of exclusion and Whites’ reactions to multiculturalism J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2011 101 337 353 21534702
Plaut, V. C., Garnett, F. G., Buffardi, L. E. & Sanchez-Burks, J. “What about me?” Perceptions of exclusion and Whites’ reactions to multiculturalism. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101, 337–353 (2011).21534702
13. Yi J Neville HA Todd NR Mekawi Y Ignoring race and denying racism: A meta-analysis of the associations between colorblind racial ideology, anti-Blackness, and other variables antithetical to racial justice J. Couns. Psychol. 2023 70 258 275 35604716
Yi, J., Neville, H. A., Todd, N. R. & Mekawi, Y. Ignoring race and denying racism: A meta-analysis of the associations between colorblind racial ideology, anti-Blackness, and other variables antithetical to racial justice. J. Couns. Psychol. 70, 258–275 (2023).35604716
14. Martin JN Krizek RL Nakayama TK Bradford L Exploring whiteness: A study of self labels for white Americans Commun. Q. 1996 44 125 144
Martin, J. N., Krizek, R. L., Nakayama, T. K. & Bradford, L. Exploring whiteness: A study of self labels for white Americans. Commun. Q. 44, 125–144 (1996).
15. Bonilla-Silva, E. The invisible weight of whiteness: the racial grammar of everyday life in contemporary America. Ethn. Racial Stud. 1–22 (2011) 10.1080/01419870.2011.613997.
16. McDermott M Ferguson A Sociology of Whiteness Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2022 48 257 276
McDermott, M. & Ferguson, A. Sociology of Whiteness. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 48, 257–276 (2022).
17. Cohen, A. B., Gorvine, B. J. & Gorvine, H. The religion, spirituality, and psychology of Jews. in APA handbook of psychology, religion, and spirituality (Vol 1): Context, theory, and research. (eds. Pargament, K. I., Exline, J. J. & Jones, J. W.) 665–679 (American Psychological Association, Washington, 2013). 10.1037/14045-037.
18. Weisskirch RS Kim SY Schwartz SJ Whitbourne SK The Complexity of Ethnic Identity Among Jewish American Emerging Adults Identity 2016 16 127 141 33574734
Weisskirch, R. S., Kim, S. Y., Schwartz, S. J. & Whitbourne, S. K. The Complexity of Ethnic Identity Among Jewish American Emerging Adults. Identity 16, 127–141 (2016).33574734
19. Howard, A. Anti-Defamation League director: 388 percent increase in antisemitism. (2023).
20. Beinart, P. The great rupture in American Jewish life. (2024).
21. Alba R What Majority-minority Society? A Critical Analysis of the Census Bureau’s Projections of America’s Demographic Future Socius Sociol. Res. Dyn. World 2018 4 237802311879693
Alba, R. What Majority-minority Society? A Critical Analysis of the Census Bureau’s Projections of America’s Demographic Future. Socius Sociol. Res. Dyn. World 4, 237802311879693 (2018).
22. Cohen AB Many forms of culture Am. Psychol. 2009 64 194 204 19348520
Cohen, A. B. Many forms of culture. Am. Psychol. 64, 194–204 (2009).19348520
23. Persky I Birman D Ethnic Identity in Acculturation Research: A Study of Multiple Identities of Jewish Refugees From the Former Soviet Union J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2005 36 557 572
Persky, I. & Birman, D. Ethnic Identity in Acculturation Research: A Study of Multiple Identities of Jewish Refugees From the Former Soviet Union. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 36, 557–572 (2005).
24. Rubin DI Navigating the ‘space between’ the Black/White binary: a call for Jewish multicultural inclusion Cult. Relig. 2019 20 192 206
Rubin, D. I. Navigating the ‘space between’ the Black/White binary: a call for Jewish multicultural inclusion. Cult. Relig. 20, 192–206 (2019).
25. Faulkner SL Hecht ML The negotiation of closetable identities: A narrative analysis of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered queer Jewish identity J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 2011 28 829 847
Faulkner, S. L. & Hecht, M. L. The negotiation of closetable identities: A narrative analysis of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered queer Jewish identity. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 28, 829–847 (2011).
26. Hecht ML Faulkner SL Sometimes Jewish, sometimes not: The closeting of Jewish American identity Commun. Stud. 2000 51 372 387
Hecht, M. L. & Faulkner, S. L. Sometimes Jewish, sometimes not: The closeting of Jewish American identity. Commun. Stud. 51, 372–387 (2000).
27. Hecht ML Looking through Northern Exposure at Jewish American Identity and the Communication Theory of Identity J. Commun. 2002 52 852 869
Hecht, M. L. et al. Looking through Northern Exposure at Jewish American Identity and the Communication Theory of Identity. J. Commun. 52, 852–869 (2002).
28. Pew Research Center. Race, ethnicity, heritage and immigration among U.S. Jews. (2021).
29. Unzueta MM Binning KR Which racial groups are associated with diversity? Cultur. Divers. Ethnic Minor. Psychol. 2010 16 443 446 20658889
Unzueta, M. M. & Binning, K. R. Which racial groups are associated with diversity?. Cultur. Divers. Ethnic Minor. Psychol. 16, 443–446 (2010).20658889
30. Stein, A. Jewish fragility. https://www.publicbooks.org/jewish-fragility/ (2019).
31. Sellers RM Rowley SAJ Chavous TM Shelton JN Smith MA Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity: A preliminary investigation of reliability and constuct validity J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1997 73 805 815
Sellers, R. M., Rowley, S. A. J., Chavous, T. M., Shelton, J. N. & Smith, M. A. Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity: A preliminary investigation of reliability and constuct validity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 73, 805–815 (1997).
32. Hayes AF Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach 2022 The Guilford Press
Hayes, A. F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach (The Guilford Press, 2022).
33. Cohen AB Hill PC Religion as Culture: Religious Individualism and Collectivism Among American Catholics, Jews, and Protestants J. Pers. 2007 75 709 742 17576356
Cohen, A. B. & Hill, P. C. Religion as Culture: Religious Individualism and Collectivism Among American Catholics, Jews, and Protestants. J. Pers. 75, 709–742 (2007).17576356
34. Vollhardt JR The role of comparative victim beliefs in predicting support for hostile versus prosocial intergroup outcomes Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2021 51 505 524
Vollhardt, J. R. et al. The role of comparative victim beliefs in predicting support for hostile versus prosocial intergroup outcomes. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 51, 505–524 (2021).
35. Swim JK Miller DL White Guilt: Its Antecedents and Consequences for Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1999 25 500 514
Swim, J. K. & Miller, D. L. White Guilt: Its Antecedents and Consequences for Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 25, 500–514 (1999).
36. Neville HA Lilly RL Duran G Lee RM Browne L Construction and initial validation of the Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS) J. Couns. Psychol. 2000 47 59 70
Neville, H. A., Lilly, R. L., Duran, G., Lee, R. M. & Browne, L. Construction and initial validation of the Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS). J. Couns. Psychol. 47, 59–70 (2000).
37. Fraley RC Vazire S The N-Pact Factor: Evaluating the Quality of Empirical Journals with Respect to Sample Size and Statistical Power PLoS ONE 2014 9 e109019 25296159
Fraley, R. C. & Vazire, S. The N-Pact Factor: Evaluating the Quality of Empirical Journals with Respect to Sample Size and Statistical Power. PLoS ONE 9, e109019 (2014).25296159
38. Craig MA Badaan V Brown RM Acting for whom, against what? Group membership and multiple paths to engagement in social change Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2020 35 41 48 32305036
Craig, M. A., Badaan, V. & Brown, R. M. Acting for whom, against what? Group membership and multiple paths to engagement in social change. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 35, 41–48 (2020).32305036
39. Chaney KE Cipollina R Sanchez DT Perceptions of White Women’s Stigma-Based Solidarity Claims and Disingenuous Allyship Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2024 15 509 518
Chaney, K. E., Cipollina, R. & Sanchez, D. T. Perceptions of White Women’s Stigma-Based Solidarity Claims and Disingenuous Allyship. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 15, 509–518 (2024).
40. Hersh E Royden L Antisemitic Attitudes among Young Black and Hispanic Americans J. Race Ethn. Polit. 2023 8 105 123
Hersh, E. & Royden, L. Antisemitic Attitudes among Young Black and Hispanic Americans. J. Race Ethn. Polit. 8, 105–123 (2023).
41. Cortland CI Solidarity through shared disadvantage: Highlighting shared experiences of discrimination improves relations between stigmatized groups J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2017 113 547 567 28581301
Cortland, C. I. et al. Solidarity through shared disadvantage: Highlighting shared experiences of discrimination improves relations between stigmatized groups. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 113, 547–567 (2017).28581301
42. Tests for correlation and regression analyses Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A. & Lang, A.-G. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1 Behav. Res. Methods 2009 41 1149 1160 19897823
Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A. & Lang, A.-G. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1. Behav. Res. Methods 41, 1149–1160 (2009).19897823
43. Rios K Wynn AN Engaging with diversity: Framing multiculturalism as a learning opportunity reduces prejudice among high White American identifiers Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2016 46 854 865
Rios, K. & Wynn, A. N. Engaging with diversity: Framing multiculturalism as a learning opportunity reduces prejudice among high White American identifiers. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 46, 854–865 (2016).
44. Watson D Clark LA Tellegen A Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1988 54 1063 1070 3397865
Watson, D., Clark, L. A. & Tellegen, A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 54, 1063–1070 (1988).3397865
