Report Publish Date: April 20, 2023
This issue brief tests racial justice language—used by the authors in an earlier survey—against more ideologically neutral language to see whether the survey language could have alienated conservative voters.
The authors found that fewer conservatives agreed with their survey language regarding racial equity than with more ideologically neutral language about poverty and inequalities.
They also found that liberal respondents agreed more with statements that had racial equity language than with ideologically neutral statements.
When the authors conducted their What Shapes Health and Well-Being survey among state and local leaders, they found that few conservatives responded. Some refused to participate in the survey. The authors wanted to know whether their language had been liberally biased and deterred responses from conservatives, even though most people, regardless of ideology, support the idea that all people should have a fair opportunity for health and well-being.
The authors conducted an online survey of over 1,000 people. They tested racial and social justice language used in their earlier survey against more “ideologically neutral” language. They also tested how people of different ideologies responded to language about structural racism and inequalities faced by people of color.
“Further research is needed to see whether these findings can be replicated with different populations and with a broader range of racial equity and social justice language tests than those explored in the current study.”
—Nyna Williams, Emily Hoe, and Martha Kovac, Mathematica
When studying support for giving everyone the opportunity for health and well-being, researchers should consider using ideologically neutral language to avoid alienating more conservative respondents, the authors say.
To better understand the perspectives of influential people, we fielded the What Shapes Health and Well-Being survey to a nationally representative sample
of state and local leaders drawn from multiple sectors (How State and Local Leaders View Social Determinants of Health and Health Equity). We fielded the survey in two phases—October 2020 through May 2021 and September 2021 through March 2022.
During the first phase of data collection, we became concerned about potential bias, because of variation in response rates across sectors, how few conservatives responded to the survey, and concerns raised by a few sample members who refused to participate in the survey. Those sample members described strong negative reactions to the perceived bias of the survey language. For example, one noted that the survey felt “more like a push poll for social justice than a survey on how to better promote a culture of health.” Another said that “it is clear that the survey is intended for individuals that concur with the organization’s theoretical beliefs (health equity, structural racism).” Yet another indicated that they declined to complete the survey because of the structural racism term and definition, and asked, “How can anyone trust a survey that is loaded with biases?”
This heightened our concern regarding a central challenge to fielding a survey that discussed racial equity—how do we ensure our language is acceptable to all leaders, regardless of background, beliefs, or ideology? In reviewing the literature, we found that people’s views—their liberalism or conservativism—affects how they react to language about racial equity. Liberal respondents were more receptive to messages highlighting that personal choices depend on opportunities available to the person, but not to messages that highlighted personal responsibility for choices. On the other hand, conservative respondents were more receptive to messages about increasing opportunity and access, but not to messages that focused on race or advocated government intervention.
To further explore the racial equity language included in our What Shapes Health and Well-Being survey—and language that may resonate with audiences across the ideological spectrum—we conducted a study that tested racial equity and social justice language from the What Shapes Health and Well-Being survey against more ideologically neutral language.
Mathematica, April 2023
Exhibit 2. Tests of racial equity language Page 3
Exhibit 3. Tests of social justice language Page 3
This study and report was conducted and created by the following:
