Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
How the term “white privilege” affects
participation, polarization, and content in
online communication
Christopher L. QuarlesID*, Lia Bozarth
School of Information, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
*cquarles@umich.edu
Abstract
The language used in online discussions affects who participates in them and how they
respond, which can influence perceptions of public opinion. This study examines how the
term white privilege affects these dimensions of online communication. In two lab experi-
ments, US residents were given a chance to respond to a post asking their opinions about
renaming college buildings. Using the term white privilege in the question decreased the
percentage of whites who supported renaming. In addition, those whites who remained sup-
portive when white privilege was mentioned were less likely to create an online post, while
opposing whites and non-whites showed no significant difference. The term also led to more
low-quality posts among both whites and non-whites. The relationship between question
language and the way participants framed their responses was mediated by their support or
opposition for renaming buildings. This suggests that the effects of the term white privilege
on the content of people’s responses is primarily affective. Overall, mention of white privi-
lege seems to create internet discussions that are less constructive, more polarized, and
less supportive of racially progressive policies. The findings have the potential to support
meaningful online conversation and reduce online polarization.
Introduction
Billions of people use the internet and social media as a window to the world. Rather than
being made of glass, this window is manufactured and shaped by the collective choices and
language of billions of people. Online behavior is shaped by a community’s language [1],
norms [2], moderation policies [3], initial posts [4], and the perceived demographic and social
status of the participants [5].
This study aims to understand how the content that is posted online is affected by one par-
ticular piece of controversial language: the term white privilege. While the term white privilege
existed in academic writings as early as the 1980s [6], the general public has become increas-
ingly aware of it amid the heightened racial tension of the past decade [7]. At the same time,
social media has increased the availability of extreme, and often vitriolic, views online. A
PLOS ONE
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267048 May 4, 2022 1 / 21
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Quarles CL, Bozarth L (2022) How the
term “white privilege” affects participation,
polarization, and content in online communication.
PLoS ONE 17(5): e0267048. https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0267048
Editor: Ali B. Mahmoud, St John’s University,
UNITED KINGDOM
Received: September 9, 2021
Accepted: March 31, 2022
Published: May 4, 2022
Copyright: ©2022 Quarles, Bozarth. This is an
open access article distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are
within the paper and its Supporting Information
files.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific
funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.
search for “white privilege” on any major social media platform will show a range of posts rep-
resenting strong feelings from multiple ideological angles.
Social media has given people more options than ever for how to spend their time. Individ-
uals today can scroll through a near-infinite stream of cat videos or talk about their favorite
video game instead of engaging in uncomfortable discussions of race. Small changes in initial
language have the potential to create large effects in both the content that gets posted and the
traits of those engaged. To understand the effects of the term white privilege on social media
discussions, we ran two experiments in a simulated online environment. Respondents were
asked, “Should colleges rename buildings that were named after people who actively supported
X?” where X is either racial inequality or white privilege. We studied how people responded by
looking at stance (pro/con), the frames (arguments, topics, and ideas) used in the response,
and response quality. We also examined who would respond to the post by looking at both
stated and actual likelihood of response. In addition, we use the posts to simulate the composi-
tion of responses in a real online forum.
How people respond to white privilege
Privilege is “unearned advantage derived from one’s group membership” [8]. In the present
study, white privilege refers to racial privilege in the American context. The concept of white
privilege is central in areas such as contemporary diversity training [9] and whiteness studies
scholarship [10]. However, in public discussion, the term is more controversial. Popular media
has variously talked about white privilege as a topic to be taught to children [11], a racist term
[12], and a distraction from the root causes of racial inequality [13]. To be clear, this study
does not directly examine the concept of white privilege itself, or whether whites think they
have advantages due to their race. Instead, our goal here is to look at behavior: How individu-
als respond to the term in the context of an online forum. We expect that whites will respond
differently to the term white privilege than other groups for two reasons.
Social identity theory suggests that we often define ourselves, and others, in terms of the
groups that we are members of [14]. A person’s behavior or perception of their social status
might change based on which group membership is most salient at the time [14]. The term
white privilege evokes images of whites as a coherent group with representative traits. So we
expect that the term will lead to increased salience of racial identity among whites, which will
affect their responses.
In addition, whites have different views, on average, than members of other races about the
advantages that whites have. In a recent Pew study, 47% of whites said that whites benefit
either a great deal, or a fair amount, from advantages that Blacks don’t have [15]. In contrast,
89% of Blacks and 74% of Hispanics said that whites benefited from these advantages. While
this difference in perception may come from motivated reasoning [16] or from genuinely dif-
ferent life experiences [6], by itself it is likely to affect how whites respond to the term white
privilege.
Some individuals identify more strongly with their race than others. The strength of this
pre-existing identification can give a differential effect on responses to racial priming, which
has been shown in a variety of contexts with a variety of identities [17–19]. American whites
have repeatedly shown less identification with their race, on average, than other groups [20],
likely because being in the minority reinforces category differences and increases the salience
of racial identity [21,22]. However, whites vary in the strength of their racial identity, and this
affects their thoughts, feelings, and behavior [23]. While the current study does not include a
measure of strength of racial identification, it is reasonable to expect that different groups of
whites may respond differently to the term white privilege.
PLOS ONE
How the term "white privilege" affects online communication
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267048 May 4, 2022 2 / 21
Responses to the term white privilege do not come purely from a place of reasoned disagree-
ment. One meta-study found that emotions were twice as important as beliefs in predicting
discrimination [24]. Just like we can define ourselves using group stereotypes [25], the theory
of intergroup emotions describes how group membership can cause us to feel emotions [26].
Anger has been shown to mediate the effects of perceived injustice on retributive action [27].
And guilt has been shown to mediate framing effects on support for Dutch-Indonesian repara-
tions [18] and on perceptions of American racial inequality [28] among members of the domi-
nant group. Those emotions do not stop when people go on social media [29]. Since
discussions of white privilege create uncomfortable feelings among some people, these height-
ened race group-based emotions may cause individuals to avoid engaging in online
discussions.
Online conversations
Online information plays a significant role in shaping twenty-first century society. From the
24-hour clickbait-based news cycle, to discussion forums with infinite scrollers, to group-
based conversations with friends on messaging apps, online media affects how we think about
current events [30], who our friends are [31], and how we feel about ourselves [32]. However,
our perceptions built using the online world don’t always represent reality [33,34]. The artifi-
cial reality we see online is sensitive to affordances and moderation policies of individual plat-
forms [3,35] and is highly dependent on initial conditions [4]. In addition, media consumers
interpret what they read based on pre-existing beliefs and biases [36]. Ultimately, online media
enables different groups of people to have very different perceptions of truth. Race is especially
problematic in this respect, since differences in offline lived experiences have the potential to
create barriers to a shared reality. We look at that online reality by examining four individual-
level dimensions: avoidance,conversation quality,stance (support or opposition towards a
topic under discussion), and the frames that are used in responses. To understand the system-
level impressions of public opinion on a real discussion forum, we also examine the overall
composition of posts.
Avoidance. Individuals’ decisions about whether to participate in discussions play a cen-
tral role in the social media landscape. Individuals avoid posting for a variety of reasons,
including lack of time or interest, concern about offending someone or giving a bad represen-
tation of themselves [37]. Individuals are also less likely to share negative and emotion-laden
content [38], and are less likely to post in general if they are female, afraid of isolation, didn’t
feel strongly, or felt like their opinion didn’t match the way the country was moving [39].
While avoidance has the potential to be protective of social relationships, it can also lead to
adverse personal effects from stifling expression [40]. More systemically, avoidance is a key
component of the “spiral of silence” [41], which leads to perceived minority opinions being
underrepresented on social media [42]. Of course, the vast majority of social media consumers
are lurkers–people who consume content without contributing [43]. And even regular posters
read more than they post. In the context of race, people have been shown to distance them-
selves from sources of identity threat [44]. So we expect that whites will be more likely to avoid
responding to the white privilege question, particularly those whites who might feel like their
ideas are in the minority or who experience identity threat.
Conversation quality. Incivility and toxicity are important metrics for online spaces, and
race-related topics are more likely to draw uncivil comments [45]. Even if posts can be catego-
rized as civil, they may be confusing or add little to the conversation. So we operationalized a
low-quality response as one that attacked people, challenged the question itself, contained little
content, or was hard to understand. Given the toxic nature of some online conversations
PLOS ONE
How the term "white privilege" affects online communication
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267048 May 4, 2022 3 / 21
around race [46] and the discomfort many whites have with the concept of white privilege [15,
16], we expect that the term will lead to lower average conversation quality among whites.
Stance & frames. We measure the content of a post in two ways. Stance describes whether
an individual supports or opposes the proposed topic. We also look at the topics, or arguments,
mentioned in each response. These could be described as the ideas that the writers have about
the topic. Alternatively, if we think of social media consumption, those same ideas become a
way of framing the conversation. In this paper, we will use the term frames to describe this
concept.
In the current context, we know that many whites do not believe they have race-based
advantages [15]. The idea of white privilege is not consistent with their understanding of the
world. Consequently, we hypothesize that fewer whites will be supportive of renaming build-
ing when white privilege is brought up.
Note that stance and frames are separate, but highly related. Supporters of a proposition
typically find certain frames more salient than opponents do. For instance, abortion opponents
often frame the procedure as ending a life, which puts the fetus at the center of attention.
While pro-choice advocates tend to frame the issue around the needs and rights of the mother.
Speakers and writers will influence support for a topic by framing the issue in different terms
[47]. In our experiments, we expect treatment condition to influence both stance and frames.
Previous work suggests that that white privilege will have a primarily affective effect on individ-
uals [24,48]. We expect this blunt mechanism to influence stance, instead of the frames used
in complex reasoning. In this case, frame use would arise from motivated reasoning, as indi-
viduals tried to explain the stance that they had already chosen. So we hypothesize that there
will be no significant difference in frames after controlling for stance.
Composition of posts. Social media is used by individuals [49], researchers [50], journal-
ists [51] and policy makers [52] to understand public opinion. However, responses on social
media are not usually representative of the population as a whole [53]. Online behavior
depends on the community members, the affordances of the forum, and framing. To under-
stand how the term white privilege affects this perception, we summarize the composition of
responses in each treatment condition. By this we mean the set of responses, taken as a whole,
as a reader might perceive them. Unlike the other four dimensions, which focus on individual
behavior, this variable describes the system’s behavior. For instance, does an online commu-
nity seem supportive of renaming buildings? Or does the community seem to oppose it? This
composition can also create higher-order effects on the community, as individuals make deci-
sions about what to post [37,54]. Given the relatively strong responses to the term white privi-
lege online, and the lack of debate about whether racial equality is an important social value in
the U.S., we expect that white privilege and racial inequality will create simulated communities
with different compositions.
In summary, the literature suggests the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 (Avoidance): Whites will be less likely to respond when asked about white
privilege.
Hypothesis 2 (Stance): Whites will, on average, be less supportive of renaming buildings
when asked about white privilege.
Hypothesis 3 (Conversation Quality): Whites will, on average, have lower quality
responses when asked about white privilege.
Hypothesis 4 (Frames): Supporters and opponents of renaming buildings will bring up dif-
ferent sets of frames. And, after controlling for support, asking about white privilege will not
affect the frames used.
PLOS ONE
How the term "white privilege" affects online communication
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267048 May 4, 2022 4 / 21
While not a formal hypothesis, prior work suggests non-whites will either show no mean
difference between treatment conditions in these first four dimensions, or show a trend in the
opposite direction from whites. Overall, the first four hypotheses should lead to:
Hypothesis 5 (Composition of responses): In an online conversation, the use of the terms
racial inequality and white privilege will result in a different composition of posts.
Study design
We explored these hypotheses through two experiments. Experiment A enabled us to gather
responses from both individuals who would have posted online and those who would have
self-censored. Because Experiment A asked people to self-rate their likelihood of responding,
Experiment B examined revealed preferences by giving respondents a choice of questions to
answer. A lab experiment was chosen to isolate the effects of language, avoid higher-order net-
work effects on peoples’ responses, and ensure that we could gather data about people who
would otherwise avoid responding.
Respondents
Participants were US residents, drawn from Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), who had
completed 1000 tasks with 98% or higher acceptance rate. Both experiments were listed as the
same task in the MTurk system. US resident MTurkers have been shown to be generally repre-
sentative of the national population [55]. Participants were randomly assigned to experiment
(A or B) and to treatment condition (racial inequality or white privilege). After excluding
respondents who did not respond to the prompt, we were left with 478 people in Experiment
A and 446 in Experiment B. Descriptive statistics about the sample are in Table 1.
We expected that people who identified only as white (74%) would tend to respond differ-
ently to the term white privilege than those who identified, at least in part, as a member of
another race. To describe this latter group, we use the term non-white to signify that we don’t
expect them to have the same white identity as those who identify as only white. Four respon-
dents did not provide a race. They are included in any analyses which don’t involve race.
Table 1. Demographics of respondents.
Experiment A Experiment B
Racial Inequality White Privilege Racial Inequality White Privilege
Number of Respondents 250 228 233 213
Male 51% 53% 56% 50%
Female 48% 46% 43% 49%
White 82% 78% 81% 84%
Black 11% 8% 6% 8%
Asian 6% 13% 9% 6%
Hispanic/Latino 6% 6% 5% 5%
Other 2% 2% 3% 3%
Multiracial 7% 7% 6% 7%
Bachelor’s Degree 59% 57% 67% 65%
Politics
Mean -0.42 -0.35 -0.37 -0.44
Standard Deviation 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
Politics was rated on a scale from -2 = strongly liberal to 2 = strongly conservative. Race percentages add to more than 100% because some people identified as
multiracial.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267048.t001
PLOS ONE
How the term "white privilege" affects online communication
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267048 May 4, 2022 5 / 21
Instrument
Respondents in both studies received an online survey broken into two parts. After giving
informed consent, respondents were sent to the Part 1 that corresponded to their experiment.
In Part 1, each respondent was randomly assigned one of the two questions: “Should colleges
rename buildings that were named after people who actively supported racial inequality?” or
“Should colleges rename buildings that were named after people who actively supported white
privilege?” The question language was chosen based on conversations with colleagues and vet-
ting interviews during the study design phase. We purposely tried to use general language that
might evoke a broad, identity-based response. Racial inequality was chosen as a counterpoint
to white privilege because it seemed less likely to increase the salience of racial identity. Equality
is an American ideal that we thought most respondents would support. And the topic of
renaming college buildings seemed to give enough opinion diversity to see meaningful differ-
ences in the data.
In Part 1 of Experiment A, each respondent was randomly shown either the racial inequal-
ity or white privilege question. They were then asked: (a) “How likely would you be to respond
to this question if you saw it in an online community?” and (b) “If you did reply to this ques-
tion, what would you post in the online forum? Write the reply exactly as you might post it
online.” Responses to (a) were on a 5-point Likert scale from very likely (2) to very unlikely
(-2). Responses to (b) were free-written into a text box. After submitting Part 1, respondents
were sent to Part 2.
Each participant in Experiment B was also randomly assigned to either the racial inequality
or the white privilege condition. However in this case, for Part 1 participants were given the
choice of two questions in a randomly chosen order. They were told that they could respond
to either question, but only one. The questions were the renaming-buildings question (which
depended on their treatment condition): “Should colleges rename buildings that were named
after people who actively supported racial inequality/white privilege?” and the college-loans
question: “Should college tuition loans be forgiven for people who choose to go into public ser-
vice, such as social workers and teachers?” The college-loans question was chosen to avoid
race and provoke a similarly diverse range of opinions. Text responses to the college-loans
questions were not coded or used. After responding to their chosen question in a text box,
respondents were sent to the same Part 2 as in Experiment A.
The benefit of the design of Experiment B is that it elicits behavior in a way that better
approximates a real social media site. Attention is a precious commodity online. Ads and posts
vie for time on consumers’ screens. The option of an alternative question simulates that envi-
ronment. Unlike in Experiment A, however, we do not get the censored responses from indi-
viduals who chose not to respond to the renaming-buildings question. These data are sensitive
to the attractiveness of the other question. If the college-loans question is something that many
or few of the sample would reply to, this will affect the effect size. The results are also sensitive
to the college-loans question being differentially attractive to special groups, which has the
potential to bias the sample in a way unrelated to our hypotheses.
Part 2 was a survey which asked primarily multiple-choice demographic questions. These
included gender, age, race/ethnicity, preferred political party, and highest level of education.
Part 2 was the same for both experiments.
Coding for stance and frames
The survey gave text responses for the renaming-buildings question from participants in
Experiment A and from those who chose this question in Experiment B. We manually coded
text responses to the renaming-buildings question for both stance and for the frames used in
PLOS ONE
How the term "white privilege" affects online communication
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267048 May 4, 2022 6 / 21
the response. Based on its written content, every text response was assigned to one of five
stance categories: pro (supported renaming buildings), con (opposed renaming buildings),
neutral, conditional (it depends on the person/situation), and unclear (when we could not dis-
cern support). For the purposes of analysis, we focused mainly on the pro and con categories.
To create the framing codebook, each member of the research team initially independently
coded 100 responses according to labels from Moral Foundations Theory [56], the Media
Frames codebook [57], and with frames generated by the responses themselves. We then col-
lectively tried to synthesize our frames into a set of consistent, reasonable codes. Ultimately,
neither Moral Foundations nor the Media Frames Codebook aligned with our sample’s
responses on renaming college buildings. So we developed and used our own set of codes
through an iterative process: We coded a new set of responses using the previously created
labels and with frames found in the new data. We then met and synthesized the codebook.
This process repeated until the set of codes stabilized. Our codebook was informed by the
other two sets of frames, but definitions are different. For instance, our definition of harm
does not exactly match the one used in Moral Foundations.
Once the codebook was created, each author independently coded every response in sets of
about 100 responses. After each set, we met to discuss our codes until a consensus was reached
on every response. Coders were blinded, so we did not know the treatment condition or
respondents’ demographics. Many responses had multiple frame codes. In the rare cases
where there were more than three frames used in a response, we chose the three frame codes
that were repeated the most often. In the case of ties, we chose the frames that were used earlier
in the response. To calculate test-retest reliability, we performed this process again on a ran-
domly chosen subset of 100 responses. This led to a test-retest reliability, using fuzzy kappa
[58], of κ= .817.
Frames. Here is the list of frame codes and the criteria used:
Erasing history–Any reference to erasing history or rewriting the past.
History as lesson–Mentions how we can learn from history and/or historical building
names.
College’s role–Refers to the college’s image, relationship between the college and the com-
munity, or the values of the college. Must explicitly mention the college.
Cost–Mentions a scarcity of resources, or the amount of work required to take an action.
Progress–Reference to moving on from a problematic past, making progress on social
issues, or solving problems today that we had in the past. Includes metaphors of motion or
growth from a past state.
History is past–History is in the past, and is therefore not important or less important than
contemporary issues.
Fairness–Equal treatment or preferential treatment. Interpreted narrowly. For example, a
reference to equality doesn’t automatically fall into this category.
Same people, different times–People are the same as they always have been. Or different
times have different standards.
Individuals’ contributions–The specific contributions of the individuals who the buildings
were named after should be considered. Includes references to relative contributions of differ-
ent people, looking up to them as role-models, not honoring people who have done bad things,
and references to worthiness due to monetary contributions.
Unintended consequences–There will be an unintended or surprising effect if buildings
are renamed (or not renamed).
Inconsistency–There are inconsistencies in the present/future that would be created by
renaming/not renaming. Typically referred to hypocrisy arising from some things being
renamed when others aren’t.
PLOS ONE
How the term "white privilege" affects online communication
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267048 May 4, 2022 7 / 21
Different action–Suggests a different action, besides renaming buildings.
Harm–Someone will be harmed in the present or future. Includes people taking offense,
disrespect, damage to social well-being, and supporting students. Both increasing harm and
reducing harm fall in this category.
Authority–Any reference to the individuals who have the right to make the decision.
Doesn’t matter–The decision to rename buildings will not have a practical impact. Or the
discussion about renaming doesn’t matter.
Ad hominem�–Attacks the parties involved in the debate, rather than focusing on the mer-
its of renaming. Includes criticizing their character, calling names, suggesting they are hypo-
crites, or implying they have the wrong mentality.
Challenges question�–Attacks the language used in the question or challenges the question
itself.
Other�–Response unrelated to the question, using a frame not listed above, or no clear
frame. Includes simple answers like “yes”. Originally coded as three categories: off topic,other
frame, and no frame. However, it was hard to separate these categories, since these responses
were often not clearly written.
�Any response that included either the ad hominem,challenges question, or other frame was
coded as a low-quality response.
To test for differences in proportions, we used Boschloo’s test [59] using the Exact library
[60] in R [61]. The Fisher exact test is inappropriate to analyze contingency tables if column
sums are not fixed by design. Boschloo’s test adapts Fisher’s approach by comparing p-values
across different column sums. It is uniformly more powerful than Fisher’s design. All Bos-
chloo’s tests were one-tailed. The Plotrix library [62] was also used for visualization.
Comparing frames
We were interested in inferring whether two groups C and D, such as whites and non-whites,
were likely to use a different set of frames in their responses. This statistical analysis is chal-
lenging, since each response may have used 0, 1, 2, or 3 frames. In addition, there is no obvious
statistical model which might explain how the groups use different frames.
So we used a random assignment Monte Carlo approach to infer whether two groups had
similar frame use. We assumed as a null hypothesis that membership in Group C and Group
D was independent of the probability of using each frame. We created a sampling distribution
under the null by first tossing out the original group labels. We then randomly assigned every
response to either Group C or Group D, ensuring that simulated groups had the same size as
the actual groups. We calculated the test statistic under this simulated division. This process
was repeated until we had 10,000 simulated test statistics. Our p-value is the percentage of
these simulated test statistics which are larger than the test statistic for the actual sample.
For a test statistic, we used a variant of the Kullback-Liebler (KL) divergence [63]. Let pC
fbe
the observed proportion of responses from Group C that use frame f. Set pD
fin a similar fash-
ion. For the null hypothesis, let q
f
be the proportion of responses in the complete sample C[D
that used frame f. Then, the test statistic is:
X
f
pC
flog pC
f
qf
!þX
f
pD
flog pD
f
qf
!
Note that this is not a true KL divergence, which is typically defined on a probability space
where probabilities sum to one. In our case, each response can have multiple frames, so
∑
f
q
f
>1. However, like KL divergence, this test statistic does measure how different the
PLOS ONE
How the term "white privilege" affects online communication
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267048 May 4, 2022 8 / 21
observed group probabilities pC
f;pD
fare from the reference distribution q
f
corresponding to
the null hypothesis.
All respondents gave informed consent through a digital interface. The University of Michi-
gan institutional review board approved this study.
Experiment A results
Experiment A was designed to understand both the responses of people who would respond in
an online forum, as well as responses from people who would avoid posting online. So we
asked everyone in the sample to respond to the prompt, and then self-rate how likely they
would be to respond to it in an online community.
For the purposes of this analysis, we defined someone as a likely responder if they said they
would be somewhat likely or very likely to respond to the question. We used this group to
understand what might actually be posted online.
Table 2 gives some results from Experiment A.
Avoidance
Based on their self-reported likelihood of responding, whites were less likely to respond to the
white privilege question than the racial inequality question (t(344) = 2.73, p = .003). In contrast,
non-whites were not significantly more likely to respond to the white privilege question (t(121)
= -0.33, p = .372).
Stance
Because we had coded multiple categories for stance, we separately report the percentages of
people who supported (pro) and opposed (con) renaming buildings. The other stance catego-
ries did not have enough responders to draw reliable conclusions.
Whites in Experiment A were less likely to support (p <.001) and more likely to oppose
(p = .008) renaming buildings when the question was phrased in terms of white privilege. This
overall shift in stance among whites was surprising. When asked about racial inequality, whites
were 67% more likely to be supportive than opposing. However, when white privilege was men-
tioned, 74% more whites opposed renaming college buildings than supported it.
As with avoidance, the choice of racial inequality versus white privilege did not affect aver-
age support (p = .505) or opposition (p = 0.667) among non- whites. This reinforces previous
Table 2. Experiment A—likelihood of responding, stance, and response quality by treatment group and race.
Whites Non-Whites Likely Responders
Racial
Inequality
White
Privilege
Racial
Inequality
White
Privilege
Racial
Inequality
White
Privilege
Count 189 161 59 66 133 97
Average self-reported likelihood of
responding
0.169 (.11) -0.255 (.11) �� 0.203 (.19) 0.288 (.18)
% Supported renaming 48 24 ��� 42 42 64 38 ���
% Opposed renaming 29 41 �� 27 30 18 38 ���
Low quality response 22 37 �� 24 36 + 20 36 ��
+ p <.1, �p<.05, �� p<.01, ��� p<.001
Respondents rated their likelihood of responding on a scale from 2 = very likely to respond to -2 = very unlikely to respond. Values in parentheses are standard errors. P-
values represent differences between treatment groups. Three individuals did not provide a race.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267048.t002
PLOS ONE
How the term "white privilege" affects online communication
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267048 May 4, 2022 9 / 21
work that shows individuals have different responses when primed to think about their own
group compared with another group.
Among likely responders, the term white privilege significantly decreased support for
renaming buildings. In the white privilege condition, support dropped by 26 percentage points
(p <.001), and opposition increased by 20 percentage points (p <.001). Unlike the results for
whites and non- whites, these differences are caused by differences in who would respond in
addition to stance changes.
Response quality
Framing the question in terms of white privilege increased the percentage of low-quality
responses. This was true among whites (p = .001), non-whites (p = .069), and likely responders
(p = .003). The percentages for all groups were similar, so the decreased significance among
non-whites is likely due to a smaller sample size.
Frames
As predicted, the biggest difference in frame use was between supporters and opposers of
renaming buildings (p <.001). The frequency of frame use for supporters and opposers is
shown in Fig 1. We did not find a difference between the frames that whites and non-whites
Fig 1. Percentage of responses in Experiment A that used each frame.Squares give the proportion of responses that
used a given frame, among all responses that supported renaming buildings. Diamonds represent frame use among all
responses that opposed renaming buildings. Starred frames were categorized as low-quality.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267048.g001
PLOS ONE
How the term "white privilege" affects online communication
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267048 May 4, 2022 10 / 21
used in their responses (p = 0.768). This result held when we restricted the analysis to only
those who received the racial inequality (p = 0.912) and white privilege (p = 0.649) questions.
Treatment condition did affect the frames that people used in their responses in both the
complete sample (p = 0.018) and among likely responders (p = 0.029). Was this because the
terms racial inequality and white privilege bring up different ideas in peoples’ minds? Or was it
due to the fact that there are more supporters in the racial inequality condition, and supporting
arguments generally use different frames?
To answer this, we performed a mediation analysis. We ran a logistic regression predicting
the use of each frame based on treatment condition, controlling for support and opposition:
logitðFiÞ ¼ aþbðtreatmentiÞ þ gðproiÞ þ dðconiÞ þ �i
Here Findicates whether individual iused the chosen frame, treatment tells whether the
individual received the racial inequality or white privilege question, and pro/con are binary var-
iables that describe whether the individual supported or opposed renaming buildings. We ran
this regression on every frame except the low-quality frames, which as described above did
seem to show a difference between treatment conditions, and the consistency frame, which was
used so rarely that the regression was not valid.
If the frames that people use in each treatment condition can be explained by their stance,
then we would expect the coefficient of treatment to be uniformly distributed and mostly sta-
tistically insignificant. Though we do expect statistical significance (α= .05) to occur by ran-
dom chance around 5% of the time. This is what we found. Of the 17 regressions only one
frame, erasing history, had a p-value less than .05 (p = .014). The p-values seemed uniformly
distributed, with the largest p-value for authority (p = .862). The effect of the term white privi-
lege on framing was explained by individuals’ stances.
Composition of responses
How does the question language affect the overall composition of responses that get posted
online? We turn to the set of likely responders to analyze this question. Fig 2 gives a snapshot
of what an online conversation might look like in each condition. The racial inequality ques-
tion led to a set of likely responses that was overwhelmingly supportive of renaming buildings,
with 7 supporters for every 2 opponents. In contrast, the white privilege framing led to a more
divided set of responses, with roughly equal numbers of supporters and opponents. Different
frames were brought up in the two conditions as well. Though, as mentioned, this seemed
completely driven by differences in support. The white privilege question brought 80% more
low-quality responses than the racial inequality question.
Avoidance differences between whites
The effect of using the term white privilege did not affect all whites equally, as shown in Fig 3.
Supportive whites were less likely to respond to the white privilege question than the racial
inequality question (t(62) = 3.03, p = .004). However, whites who opposed renaming buildings
were approximately equally likely to respond in both conditions (t(114) = -0.48, p = .635). Lan-
guage choice did not affect the likelihood of responding among either supportive or opposing
non-whites.
Overall, the results show that the shift from a set of overwhelmingly supportive responses
under racial inequality to the divided responses under white privilege comes from two factors:
(a) whites were, on average, less supportive of the white privilege question, and (b) supportive
whites were less likely to respond to the white privilege question.
PLOS ONE
How the term "white privilege" affects online communication
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267048 May 4, 2022 11 / 21
Experiment B results
As a counterpoint to Experiment A, where people self-rated their likelihood of responding,
Experiment B was designed to examine revealed behavior and see how people might respond
in a simulated online environment. Respondents were given (a) the renaming-buildings ques-
tion that corresponded to their randomly assigned treatment group and (b) the college-loans
question. They were told to respond to only one of the questions.
37 respondents filled in the text boxes under both questions. This meant they provided a
response for the college loans question, but that it was unclear whether they preferred to
answer that question. Since our analysis focused on people who chose to respond to the
renaming-buildings question over the college loans question, we excluded those 37 data points
from the analysis in this section. For completeness, we performed a robustness check with
those individuals included. The results were qualitatively similar to the results below but with
smaller effect sizes.
The results in Table 3 tell a story consistent with the results from Experiment A. However,
these results have generally weaker statistical significance. In particular, some of the effect sizes
Fig 2. Composition of posts in a hypothetical online conversation among 100 responders who are representative
of our sample. For Experiment A, the figure represents likely responders. For Experiment B, the figure represents
those who responded to the renaming-buildings question. Shape corresponds to the race of each responder. Points are
colored based on support for renaming buildings. The Other category includes responses that were neutral, unclear, or
said that it should depend on the situation.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267048.g002
PLOS ONE
How the term "white privilege" affects online communication
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267048 May 4, 2022 12 / 21
Fig 3. Average self-reported likelihood of responding in Experiment.A. Respondents rated their likelihood of
responding on a scale from 2 = very likely to respond to -2 = very unlikely to respond. Error bars represent standard
errors.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267048.g003
Table 3. Experiment B—probability of responding, stance, and response quality by treatment group and race.
Whites Non-Whites All Combined
Racial Inequality White Privilege Racial Inequality White Privilege Racial Inequality White Privilege
Count 163 152 49 44 213 196
% Responding to Renaming
Buildings Question
37 28 �33 43 36 31
Among those. . .
% Supported Renaming 54 38 + 62 47 56 41 �
% Opposed Renaming 31 50 �25 21 30 41 +
% Low Quality Response 32 40 �0 25 �� 19 38 ��
+ p <.1
�p<.05
�� p<.01
��� p<.001
P-values represent differences between treatment groups. One individual did not provide a race.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267048.t003
PLOS ONE
How the term "white privilege" affects online communication
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267048 May 4, 2022 13 / 21
for non-whites seem to be similar to whites’ effect sizes, but without sufficiently small p-values.
This is likely due to a smaller sample size. The alternate question about college loans seems to
have been too attractive, with only about 1/3 of respondents answering the renaming-buildings
question. This preference for the financial question over the race-related question held regard-
less of race or treatment condition, and warrants investigation in future studies.
Avoidance
As in Experiment A, whites were less likely to respond to the white privilege question by nine
percentage points (p = .035). Non-whites in the sample were 10 percentage points more likely
to respond to the white privilege question (p = .160), but this did not rise to the level of statisti-
cal significance. So the effect for non-whites could be due to sampling variation. These results
support Hypothesis 1.
Stance
Whites who responded to the racial inequality question were, on average, more positive about
renaming college buildings than those who responded to the white privilege question. They
were 16 percentage points more likely to be supportive (p = .058) and 19 percentage points
more likely to oppose (p = .030). Interestingly, non-white responders also seemed more posi-
tive about the racial inequality question. Though the sample size was small enough that neither
the difference in support (p = .202) nor opposition (p = .427) were significant. When we con-
sider the set of people who responded to the renaming buildings as a whole, the people who
received the racial inequality question were more likely to be supportive (p = .043) and less
likely to oppose (p = .091).
Response quality
Responses to the white privilege question garnered a higher percentage of low-quality
responses among whites (p = .047), non-whites (p = .010), and all responders (p =. 010).
Frames
As in Experiment A, there was a large difference in frame use between supporters and oppo-
nents of renaming buildings (p <.001). There also was a significant difference in the frames
between treatment conditions (p <.001). To analyze the effect of stance on frame use, we ran
a logistic regression for each frame as described in Experiment A. The frames unintended con-
sequences and cost were omitted from this analysis due to low use. The low-quality frames were
also omitted. After controlling for stance, there was no effect of treatment condition on frame
use beyond what we would expect by chance. The p-values were distributed fairly uniformly
with the smallest p-value corresponding to the consistency frame (p = .040) and the largest cor-
responding to erasing history (p = .076). Again, the effect of question (racial inequality/white
privilege) on frame use was completely explained by stance. These results support Hypothesis
4.
Composition of responses
Fig 2 shows the overall composition of responses. As before, racial inequality led to more sup-
portive responses and fewer low-quality responses than when the question was framed in
terms of white privilege. As in Experiment A, there were equal numbers of supporters and
opponents when asked about white privilege, and responders were generally supportive when
asked about racial inequality. There were 1.9 supporters for every opposer in the racial
PLOS ONE
How the term "white privilege" affects online communication
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267048 May 4, 2022 14 / 21
inequality condition. This was weaker than in Experiment A, where the support/opposition
ratio was 3.5. It is unclear whether this weaker support is caused by the attractiveness of the
college-loans question, a difference between stated preferences (Experiment A) and revealed
preferences (Experiment B), or random chance.
Summary of results
These results shed light on our hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 are both confirmed
by the data. Whites who received the white privilege questions were less likely to respond and
less supportive of renaming buildings. We also found support for Hypothesis 3. Use of the
term white privilege led to more low-quality responses. This result was not only true among
whites, but also among non-whites. The results also support Hypothesis 4, which focused on
motivated reasoning. Supporters and opponents of renaming college buildings used different
arguments. However, differences in framing between people who received the white privilege
and racial inequality question disappeared after taking into account their stance. These experi-
ments also provided evidence for Hypothesis 5. The term racial inequality created a set of
responses that supported renaming college buildings. White privilege led to a more divided,
polarized set of posts. While the effects of the term white privilege on whites was unambiguous,
the effect on non-whites was less clear due to a combination of smaller sample sizes and seem-
ingly weaker effects. The only reliable result among non-whites was that white privilege led to
more low-quality responses.
Discussion
Using two experiments, we studied how individuals respond to the term white privilege in an
online environment. Mentioning white privilege was enough to flip white support for renam-
ing college buildings from primarily supportive to primarily opposing. Furthermore, the term
white privilege deters some supportive whites from engaging in the conversation. Surprisingly,
we did not see this avoidance effect among opposing whites. In addition, the term white privi-
lege led to less constructive responses among both whites and non-whites.
If these were posts on a real online discussion board, asking about racial inequality would
give the impression of general support for renaming college buildings. Asking about white
privilege would lead to a seemingly less supportive, more divided public opinion with lower-
quality online debate. This decreased support is driven by two factors: (a) whites were, on aver-
age, less supportive when white privilege was brought up, and (b) supportive whites were more
likely to avoid talking about white privilege.
Responses to white privilege tended to use different arguments from arguments about racial
inequality. However, that difference was completely explained by differences in stance toward
renaming buildings. This lends credence to the claim that the term white privilege leads first to
a change in stance, followed by motivated reasoning to support that stance. If the causality
went the other way, where the choice of language first affects the ideas people have, which
leads to them changing their support, then we might expect at least some of the frames to be
unexplained by stance.
Prior literature suggests that both emotion [28,64] and the strength of racial identity [18]
play a significant role in our results. We hypothesize that the increased tendency of supportive
whites to avoid discussing white privilege is mediated by both these factors. It could be that the
term made racial identity more salient for all whites, but was more likely to generate guilt and
therefore avoidance in supportive whites. Another possibility is that opposing whites tended to
identify highly with their race already, so that mentions of white privilege had a greater average
PLOS ONE
How the term "white privilege" affects online communication
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267048 May 4, 2022 15 / 21
effect on both racial identity salience and emotion on lower-identifying whites. Future
research might test these hypotheses.
In writing about this study, we had to refer to groups, such as “non-whites” and “supportive
whites”. There is a lot of variation among the individuals in any group, especially racially-
defined groups with millions of members. However, humans have an unfortunate tendency to
generalize a statement about a group of people to each individual member [25]. This overgen-
eralization can cause harm, for instance through stereotyping [65]. Our study, like many
research studies, is about averages. So we have been careful to use language that minimizes
overgeneralization to individuals. For instance, instead of writing, “Whites were less support-
ive of the white privilege question”, we wrote “Whites were, on average, less supportive of the
white privilege question.” Our results should be interpreted as describing how language affects
large-scale social dynamics, not as a way to understand traits or behaviors of individuals.
Limitations
In a real online site, social desirability bias, the design of the forum, and back-and-forth
between posters may magnify or dampen the effects we saw here. Another limitation comes
from the fact that most social media users post very rarely. Online, the desires for information
and entertainment are major drivers of behavior. Indeed, some researchers emphasize the
value of active listening [66], which can bring a more diverse set of perspectives. All partici-
pants in our study were motivated to respond. It is unclear how the desire to read others’
points of view might affect these results. In addition, Experiment A and Experiment B had
quantitatively different but qualitatively similar results. So in a true online environment, we
might expect a similar effect, but with potentially different effect sizes.
The present study does not capture long-term attitude changes. Further research is required
to understand the circumstances under which long-term exposure to the term white privilege
affects support for racially progressive policies, whether it increases animosity and polariza-
tion, and how this effect might differ between demographic groups.
While we chose the language in the study to broadly evoke group-based identity, the terms
racial inequality and white privilege do have different literal meanings. The survey prompt
asked individuals to think about buildings named after people who supported these two sepa-
rate concepts. It’s not clear whether that difference in meaning affected their responses. Con-
cerns about building names have cited a variety reasons, from the honoree being a
Confederate to supporting eugenics. Perhaps white privilege and racial inequality suggest dif-
ferent reasons, which led to different responses by treatment group.
Implications
Our study has several practical implications. The first is already known, but often ignored:
Opinions on social media do not represent public opinion. Social media posts are highly
dependent on how a question is phrased, as well as the norms, community members, and
moderation practices of the site. Individual and system-level forces, such as self-categorization
[25], the spiral of silence [54], and algorithmic filters [67] affect what shows up on our feeds.
In our study, which did not include the moderation found on social media platforms, a two-
word change in language was sufficient to shift a community from appearing divided to
appearing supportive. This result will not be surprising to survey researchers, who need to be
very attentive to choice of language [68]. However, policy-makers [52], journalists [51], and
others who use social media to understand the opinions of others may want to turn to more
valid sources.
PLOS ONE
How the term "white privilege" affects online communication
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267048 May 4, 2022 16 / 21
Those who want inclusive online conversations around race and/or support for racially sen-
sitive policies should think carefully about the use of language like white privilege that targets
the racial identity of specific groups. This language can deter the targeted group from partici-
pating. It has the potential to increase affective polarization by creating the image of a politi-
cally divided online space. Using slightly different language, such as racial inequality, that has
more of a shared meaning across cultures can lead to conversations with broader participation
and greater shared support.
In discussing this study with academic colleagues, a common response was, “Even if the
term white privilege makes whites feel uncomfortable, they still need to hear it. It’s part of
learning about race.” Indeed, numerous scholars have argued for raising awareness of race-
based privilege [9]. Spending time thinking about racial advantages and disadvantages can
affect individuals’ perceptions of systemic discrimination [23,69]. However, these effects vary
significantly depending on the details of the intervention and the individuals involved [9,23,
69]. Our results, which focused on a simple change of language in an impersonal context,
show that mention of white privilege can decrease engagement and lead to opinion shifts oppo-
site to what was intended. It’s reasonable to expect that this identity-based disengagement
decreases learning for some whites–an effect which has been documented in other settings
[70–72]. Humanity has an evolutionarily useful, but usually incorrect, tendency to treat all
members of a group as being the same [25,73]. As commonly used, the phrase white privilege
draws on this tendency to conflate individual traits with group averages, in a way that creates
unpleasant emotions. A more effective approach might be to distinguish between individuals’
experiences and group averages through a combination of personal storytelling and large-scale
data in a way that is consciously inclusive of whites [74].
Conclusion
With online political polarization on the rise [75] and race in the forefront of today’s news, it is
important to make cross-cultural online communication effective and inclusive. The present
work adds to what we know about communication on racially challenging topics. This study
has shown that the term white privilege in online conversations tends to decrease support for
racially ameliorative policies among whites, cause some supportive whites to avoid participat-
ing in discussions, decrease overall online conversation quality, and lead online forums to
seem more polarized. Other, more inclusive, ways of speaking about race online, such as the
term racial inequality are more likely to create a sense of shared purpose. There are very real
racial inequities in society today. Choosing language that promotes constructive conversation
will not solve those problems. But it is an important step towards collectively understanding
their dimensions and working together towards a solution.
Supporting information
S1 File. R code for replication of results.
(R)
S1 Data. Data for use with the replication code. To ensure participants’ privacy, data for
Table 1: Demographics of respondents has been omitted.
(CSV)
S2 Data. Names and descriptions of the variables found in the data.
(TXT)
PLOS ONE
How the term "white privilege" affects online communication
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267048 May 4, 2022 17 / 21
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Ceren Budak, Paul Resnick, and our anonymous reviewers
for their advice.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Christopher L. Quarles, Lia Bozarth.
Data curation: Christopher L. Quarles.
Formal analysis: Christopher L. Quarles.
Investigation: Christopher L. Quarles.
Methodology: Christopher L. Quarles.
Project administration: Christopher L. Quarles.
Software: Christopher L. Quarles.
Validation: Christopher L. Quarles, Lia Bozarth.
Visualization: Christopher L. Quarles, Lia Bozarth.
Writing – original draft: Christopher L. Quarles.
Writing – review & editing: Christopher L. Quarles, Lia Bozarth.
References
1. Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil C, West R, Jurafsky D, Potts C. No Country for Old Members: User Lifecycle
and Linguistic Change in Online Communities. Proc 22nd Int Conf World Wide Web. 2013;307–17.
2. Rajadesingan A, Resnick P, Budak C. Quick, community-specific learning: How distinctive toxicity
norms are maintained in political subreddits. Proc Int AAAI Conf Web Soc Media. 2020; 14(1):557–68.
3. Gillespie T. Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that
shape social media. Yale University Press; 2018.
4. Salganik MJ, Dodds PS, Watts DJ. Experimental Study of Inequality and Unpredictability in an Artificial
Cultural Market. Science (80-). 2006 Feb 10; 311(5762):854–6.
5. Munger K. Tweetment Effects on the Tweeted: Experimentally Reducing Racist Harassment. Polit
Behav. 2017 Sep 11; 39(3):629–49.
6. McIntosh P. White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Indep Sch. 1990;(Winter):31–6.
7. Saad L. U.S. Perceptions of White-Black Relations Sink to New Low [Internet]. 2020. Available from:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/318851/perceptions-white-black-relations-sink-new-low.aspx
8. Phillips LT, Lowery BS. Herd Invisibility: The Psychology of Racial Privilege. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2018
Jun 1; 27(3):156–62.
9. Case KA, Rios D. Educational interventions to raise awareness of white privilege. J Excell Coll Teach.
2017; 28(1):137–56.
10. Doane W. Rethinking Whiteness Studies. In: Doane AW, Bonilla-Silva E, editors. White Out: The Con-
tinuing Significance of Racism. New York: Routledge; 2003. p. 3–18.
11. Brown M. How to explain white privilege in term simple enough for a child. Parents [Internet]. 2020 Aug;
Available from: https://www.parents.com/kids/responsibility/racism/how-to-explain-white-privilege-in-
term-simple-enough-for-a-child/
12. Adams S [ScottAdamsSays]. I’ve decided to reclaim some of the free speech I have been losing lately.
Here’s my free speech opinion for today [Tweet]. 2020 Jun 25; Available from: https://twitter.com/
scottadamssays/status/1276130129970753538
13. Malik K. “White privilege” is a distraction, leaving racism and power untouched. The Guardian [Internet].
2020 Jun 14; Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/14/white-privilege-
is-a-lazy-distraction-leaving-racism-and-power-untouched
14. Tajfel H, Turner JC. An integrative theory of intergoup conflict. In: Austin WG, Worchel S, editors. The
Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey: Brooks-Cole; 1979.
PLOS ONE
How the term "white privilege" affects online communication
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267048 May 4, 2022 18 / 21
15. Pew Research Center. In a Politically Polarized Era, Sharp Divides in Both Partisan Coalitions. 2019.
16. Lowery BS, Knowles ED, Unzueta MM. Framing Inequity Safely: Whites’ Motivated Perceptions of
Racial Privilege. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 2007 Sep 7; 33(9):1237–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0146167207303016 PMID: 17556675
17. Brown RP, Wohl MJA, Exline JJ. Taking up offenses: Secondhand forgiveness and group identification.
Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 2008; 34(10):1406–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208321538 PMID:
18768746
18. Doosje B, Branscombe NR, Spears R, Manstead ASR. Guilty by association: When one’s group has a
negative history. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998; 75(4):872–86.
19. Lowery BS, Wout DA. When inequality matters: The effect of inequality frames on academic engage-
ment. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010; 98(6):956–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017926 PMID: 20515251
20. Pew Research Center. Race in America 2019. 2019.
21. Steck LW, Heckert DM, Heckert DA. The salience of racial identity among African-American and white
students. Race Soc. 2003; 6(1):57–73.
22. Yang H, Liao Q, Huang X. Minorities remember more: The effect of social identity salience on group-ref-
erent memory. Memory. 2008; 16(8):910–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210802360629 PMID:
18785055
23. Branscombe NR, Schmitt MT, Schiffhauer K. Racial attitudes in response to thoughts of white privilege.
Eur J Soc Psychol. 2007; 37(2):203–15.
24. Talaska CA, Fiske ST, Chaiken S. Legitimating racial discrimination: Emotions, not beliefs, best predict
discrimination in a meta-analysis. Soc Justice Res. 2008; 21:263–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-
008-0071-2 PMID: 24052687
25. Abrams D, Hogg M. Social identity and self-categorization. In: Dovidio JF, Hewstone M, Glick P, Esses
VM, editors. The SAGE Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination. London: SAGE Pub-
lications; 2010. p. 179–93.
26. Mackie DM, Devos T, Smith ER. Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an
intergroup context. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000; 79(4):602–16. PMID: 11045741
27. Seip EC, Van Dijk WW, Rotteveel M. Anger motivates costly punishment of unfair behavior. Motiv
Emot. 2014; 38:578–88.
28. Powell AA, Branscombe NR, Schmitt MT. Inequality as ingroup privilege or outgroup disadvantage: The
impact of group focus on collective guilt and interracial attitudes. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 2005; 31
(4):508–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271713 PMID: 15743985
29. Duncombe C. The Politics of Twitter: Emotions and the Power of Social Media. Int Polit Sociol. 2019
Dec 1; 13(4):409–29.
30. Diehl T, Weeks BE, Gil de Zu
´ñiga H. Political persuasion on social media: Tracing direct and indirect
effects of news use and social interaction. New Media Soc. 2016; 18(9):1875–95.
31. John NA, Dvir-Gvirsman S. I Don’t Like You Any More: Facebook Unfriending by Israelis During the
Israel-Gaza Conflict of 2014. J Commun. 2015; 65(6):953–74.
32. Woods HC, Scott H. #Sleepyteens: Social media use in adolescence is associated with poor sleep qual-
ity, anxiety, depression and low self-esteem. J Adolesc. 2016; 51:41–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
adolescence.2016.05.008 PMID: 27294324
33. Lerman K, Yan X, Wu X-Z. The “majority illusion” in social networks. PLoS One. 2016; 11(2).
34. Bunker CJ, Varnum MEW. How strong is the association between social media use and false consen-
sus? Comput Human Behav. 2021 Dec; 125(December):106947.
35. Budak C, Garrett RK, Resnick P, Kamin J. Threading is Sticky: How Threaded Conversations Promote
Comment System User Retention. Proc ACM Hum-Comput Interact Artic. 2017; 1(20)
36. Taber CS, Cann D, Kucsova S. The motivated processing of political arguments. Polit Behav. 2009; 31
(2):137–55.
37. Sleeper M, Balebako R, Das S, McConahy AL, Wiese J, Cranor LF. The post that wasn’t: Exploring
self-censorship on Facebook. Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Coopera-
tive Work—CSCW ‘13. 2013;793–802.
38. Bazarova NN, Choi YH, Sosik VS, Cosley D, Whitlock J. Social sharing of emotions on Facebook:
Channel differences, satisfaction, and replies. Proc 2015 ACM Int Conf Comput Coop Work Soc Com-
put. 2015;154–64.
39. Fox J, Holt LF. Fear of Isolation and Perceived Affordances: The Spiral of Silence on Social Networking
Sites Regarding Police Discrimination. Mass Commun Soc. 2018; 21(5):533–54.
PLOS ONE
How the term "white privilege" affects online communication
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267048 May 4, 2022 19 / 21
40. Butler EA, Egloff B, Wilhelm FH, Smith NC, Erickson EA, Gross JJ. The Social Consequences of
Expressive Suppression. Emotion. 2003; 3(1):48–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.3.1.48 PMID:
12899316
41. Noelle-Neumann E. The spiral of silence: A theory of public opinion. J Commun. 1974;(Spring):43–51.
42. Lee NY, Kim Y. The spiral of silence and journalists’ outspokenness on Twitter. Asian J Commun. 2014;
24(3):262–78.
43. Sun N, Rau PP-L, Ma L. Understanding lurkers in online communities: A literature review. Comput
Human Behav. 2014; 38:110–7.
44. Goff PA, Steele CM, Davies PG. The Space Between Us: Stereotype Threat and Distance in Interracial
Contexts. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008; 94(1):91–107. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.91 PMID:
18179320
45. Salminen J, Sengu¨n S, Corporan J, Jung S, Jansen BJ. Topic-driven toxicity: Exploring the relationship
between online toxicity and news topics. PLoS One. 2020; 15(2):1–24. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0228723 PMID: 32084164
46. Mittos A, Zannettou S, Blackburn J, De Cristofaro E. “And we will fight for our race!” A measurement
study of genetic testing conversations on Reddit and 4chan. Proc 14th Int AAAI Conf Web Soc Media,
ICWSM 2020. 2020; 14(1):452–63.
47. Jacoby WG. Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending. Am J Pol Sci [Internet].
2000; 44(4):750–67. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2669279
48. Lieberman MD, Hariri A, Jarcho JM, Eisenberger NI, Bookheimer SY. An fMRI investigation of race-
related amygdala activity in African-American and Caucasian-American individuals. Nat Neurosci. 2005
Jun 8; 8(6):720–2. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1465 PMID: 15880106
49. Neubaum G, Kra
¨mer NC. Monitoring the Opinion of the Crowd: Psychological Mechanisms Underlying
Public Opinion Perceptions on Social Media. Media Psychol. 2017; 20(3):502–31.
50. Prichard J, Watters P, Krone T, Spiranovic C, Cockburn H. Social Media Sentiment Analysis: A New
Empirical Tool for Assessing Public Opinion on Crime? Curr Issues Crim Justice. 2015; 27(2):217–36.
51. McGregor SC. Social media as public opinion: How journalists use social media to represent public
opinion. Journalism. 2019; 20(8):1070–86.
52. McGregor SC. “Taking the Temperature of the Room”: How Political Campaigns Use Social Media to
Understand and Represent Public Opinion. Public Opin Q. 2020; 84(S1):236–56.
53. Hargittai E. Potential Biases in Big Data: Omitted Voices on Social Media. Soc Sci Comput Rev.
2018;1–15.
54. Matthes J, Knoll J, von Sikorski C. The “Spiral of Silence” Revisited: A Meta-Analysis on the Relation-
ship Between Perceptions of Opinion Support and Political Opinion Expression. Communic Res. 2018;
45(1):3–33.
55. Coppock A. Generalizing from Survey Experiments Conducted on Mechanical Turk: A Replication
Approach. Polit Sci Res Methods. 2019 Jul 27; 7(3):613–28.
56. Graham J, Haidt J, Nosek BA. Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009; 96(5):1029–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015141 PMID: 19379034
57. Card D, Boydstun AE, Gross JH, Resnik P, Smith NA. The Media Frames Corpus: Annotations of
Frames Across Issues. In: Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computa-
tional Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume
2: Short Papers). Stroudsburg, PA, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2015. p. 438–44.
58. Kirilenko AP, Stepchenkova S. Inter-coder agreement in one-to-many classification: Fuzzy kappa.
PLoS One. 2016; 11(3):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149787 PMID: 26933956
59. Boschloo RD. Raised conditional level of significance for the 2 ×2-table when testing the equality of two
probabilities. Stat Neerl. 1970; 24(1):1–9.
60. Calhoun P. Exact: Unconditional Exact Test. 2019.
61. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation
for Statistical Computing; 2018.
62. Lemon J. Plotrix: a package in the red light district of R. R-News. 2006; 6(4):8–12.
63. Kullback S, Liebler RA. On information and sufficiency. Ann Math Stat. 1951; 22(1):79–86.
64. Mackie DM, Smith ER. Intergroup emotions. In: Mikulincer M, Shaver PR, editors. APA Handbook of
Personality and Social Psychology. American Psychological Association; 2015. p. 263–93.
65. Zaniboni S, Kmicinska M, Truxillo DM, Kahn K, Paladino MP, Fraccaroli F. Will you still hire me when I
am over 50? The effects of implicit and explicit age stereotyping on resume evaluations. Eur J Work
Organ Psychol. 2019 Jul 4; 28(4):453–67.
PLOS ONE
How the term "white privilege" affects online communication
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267048 May 4, 2022 20 / 21
66. Thill C. Listening for policy change: how the voices of disabled people shaped Australia’s National Dis-
ability Insurance Scheme. Disabil Soc. 2015; 30(1):15–28.
67. Thorson K, Cotter K, Medeiros M, Pak C. Algorithmic inference, political interest, and exposure to news
and politics on Facebook. Information, Commun Soc. 2021 Jan 25; 24(2):183–200.
68. Fowler FJJ, Cosenza C. Writing effective questions. In: de Leeuw ED, Jox JJ, Dillman DA, editors. Inter-
national Handbook of Survey Methodology. New York: Psychology Press; 2008. p. 136–60.
69. Stewart TL, Latu IM, Branscombe NR, Phillips NL, Ted Denney H. White Privilege Awareness and Effi-
cacy to Reduce Racial Inequality Improve White Americans’ Attitudes Toward African Americans. J Soc
Issues. 2012 Mar; 68(1):11–27.
70. Steele CM. Whistling Vivaldi. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.; 2010.
71. Zhao F, Li S, Li T, Yu G. Does Stereotype Threat Deteriorate Academic Performance of High School
Students With Learning Disabilities? The Buffering Role of Psychological Disengagement. J Learn Dis-
abil. 2019 Jul 23; 52(4):312–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219419849107 PMID: 31122139
72. Heikamp T, Phalet K, Van Laar C, Verschueren K. To belong or not to belong: Protecting minority
engagement in the face of discrimination. Int J Psychol. 2020 Oct 17; 55(5):779–88. https://doi.org/10.
1002/ijop.12706 PMID: 32940935
73. Turchin P. War and Peace and War: The Rise and Fall of Empires. New York: Pi Press; 2007.
74. 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(2):337–53. https://doi.org/10.
1037/a0022832 PMID: 21534702
75. Iyengar S, Lelkes Y, Levendusky M, Malhotra N, Westwood SJ. The Origins and Consequences of
Affective Polarization in the United States. Annu Rev Polit Sci. 2019 May 11; 22(1):129–46.
PLOS ONE
How the term "white privilege" affects online communication
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267048 May 4, 2022 21 / 21
