






More here.
New graphs (added 5/3/21):


More here.
A few weeks ago, Vermont Governor Phil Scott made the announcement that COVID-19 vaccine access in his state was being specifically expanded to all residents who are racial minorities (16 or older):
The disproportionately high toll that the pandemic has taken on communities of color — in terms of infection, hospitalization, and death, and now vaccine access disparities — was cited in support of this decision. The policy was soon met with criticism on social media. Although we still don’t know the contours of public opinion on this policy, one reason that might motivate opposition is self-interest: the majority of the public is white and thus does not qualify for this expanded vaccine access, and so supporting this policy presents a cost for white Americans (especially those who are not already vaccinated).
At the same time, some whites might want to help redress racial inequities in society more broadly as well as in specific cases like the pandemic. Indeed, arguably the biggest recent public opinion trend has been the increasing racial liberalism among whites (especially Democrats). This vaccine expansion context offers an interesting test of this growing racial liberalism — does it compel whites to support a policy like race-targeted vaccine expansion that creates a cost in their lives? If so, then maybe the growing racial liberalism among whites (and endorsing ideas like racial inequalities are a problem in society that ought to be solved) is sincere and meaningful.
I looked into this question in an early April Lucid survey of about 700 white Americans nationwide (out of about 900 total respondents, after filtering out inattentive survey-takers). Early on in this survey, respondents where asked to respond to two of the four standard racial resentment items:
Responses were on a 1-5 strength of agreement scale, and recoded to a 0-1 scale where higher values indicate higher levels of racial resentment. I then averaged the two items together and created a four-category racial resentment level variable based on the average: Low (0-0.25), Low Middle (0.25-0.5), High Middle (0.5-0.75), and High (0.75-1). This helps with data presentation and allows me to not assume a linear relationship between racial resentment and an outcome of interest (results are similar if I treat this as a continuous variable though).
Later on in the survey, respondents gave their opinions on the type of policy that the Vermont governor introduced (adapted for a national sample):
Responses here were also on a 1-5 strength of agreement scale. For purposes of easy presentation, I recode this variable to equal 1 if respondents strongly or somewhat support the policy, and 0 otherwise. The below plot shows policy support by the four-category racial resentment variable:
The plot shows that as racial resentment decreases — going from right to left — support for race-targeted vaccine expansion goes up. Whites in the highest racial resentment category support the policy at 43% while those in the lowest group sit at 91%.
Circling back to the earlier motivating question for this analysis, evidence here suggests that those on the lowest end of the scale — racial liberals, a group that’s been growing in size as of late — are actually acting on those beliefs in supporting a policy that may come as a cost to themselves but a benefit towards addressing racial inequalities in vaccine access.
Caveats and Other Things to Consider