Is Support for Confederate Symbols Motivated by Southern Pride or Racism? Further Distinctions Between “Traditionalists” and “Supremacists”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In two preregistered studies we examine correlates of support for Confederate symbols among White Southerners (Study 1: N = 559) and examine potential negative effects of the widespread removal of Confederate symbols (Study 2: N = 139). In Study 1 we determine that support for Confederate symbols is largely a function of a traditional Southern worldview where cultural notions of industriousness, fairness, discipline, obedience, loyalty, and honor are central. Furthermore, we identify four distinct types of Southerners, including two types that equally support Confederate symbols: Traditionalists and Supremacists. While these groups equally support Confederate symbols, Traditionalists hold non-prejudicial attitudes that do not differ from those who do not support Confederate symbols, whereas Supremacists hold relatively more negative attitudes toward Blacks. These Supremacists are also more willing to engage in activist and radical behavior in support of Confederate monuments relative to Traditionalists. In Study 2 we show that when Traditionalists and Supremacists are exposed to the removal of Confederate symbols, they demonstrate an increased willingness to engage in activist, but not radical, behaviors in support of Confederate monuments, and they display more anger, disgust, and upset emotions. Supremacists, but not Traditionalists, also display hostility in response to the removal of Confederate symbols.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".