On Dec. 15, 2025, UCLA psychology professor David Pinsof wrote:
Stereotypes are savvy. Our beliefs about religious, ethnic, occupational, and geographic groups are pretty accurate. The accuracy of our stereotypes is one of the most robust and well-replicated findings in psychology. But this fact has been suppressed by psychologists, because they’re terrified of any information that might make them look insufficiently progressive. Also, they hate Republicans, which makes sense because…
Partisan hatred is not a whoopsie. You want to know why partisans hate each other? It’s not because they gave in to a dumb, primitive urge called “tribalism.” It’s not because they had a senior moment and forgot to check for disconfirming evidence of their propaganda. It’s because they’re locked in zero-sum competition over the coercive apparatus of the state—the thing that forcibly puts human beings in prison at gunpoint. The stakes are high. And what do we do in a high-stakes competition? We fight dirty. We demonize the competition. And we deny we’re doing this—and embellish how much the other side is doing it—because denial and embellishment are useful weapons to wield in the fight.
Bigotry is not a brain-fart. A lot of it is intertwined with competition over the coercive apparatus of the state, because ethnic minorities are accurately stereotyped as allies of the Democratic Party (1, 2, 3). So feeling threatened by ethnic minorities is related to feeling threatened by Democrats, in the same way that feeling threatened by Christian fundamentalists is related to feeling threatened by Republicans. As for the rest of bigotry, it probably comes from zero-sum competition over intergroup status. Such competition may be most acute among ethnic minorities’ closest rivals in the social hierarchy—i.e., low-status white people—which might explain why antiracism confers elite status. And it might also explain why antiracist elites resent “millionaires and billionaires”—i.e., their closest rivals in the hierarchy.
Psychology professors Michael I. Norton and Samuel R. Sommers published this paper in 2011:
Whites See Racism as a Zero-Sum Game That They Are Now Losing
Although some have heralded recent political and cultural developments as signaling the arrival of a postracial era in America, several legal and social controversies regarding ‘‘reverse racism’’ highlight Whites’ increasing concern about anti-White bias. We show that this emerging belief reflects Whites’ view of racism as a zero-sum game, such that decreases in perceived bias against Blacks over the past six decades are associated with increases in perceived bias against Whites—a relationship not observed in Blacks’ perceptions. Moreover, these changes in Whites’ conceptions of racism are extreme enough that Whites have now come to view anti-White bias as a bigger societal problem than anti-Black bias.
Then they published an update in 2022:
White (but Not Black) Americans Continue to See Racism as a Zero-Sum Game; White Conservatives (but Not Moderates or Liberals) See Themselves as Losing
Liberal, moderate, and conservative White (but not Black) Americans alike believed that racism is a zero-sum game. Liberal White Americans saw racism as a zero-sum game they were winning by a lot, moderate White Americans saw it as a game they were winning by only a little, and conservative White Americans saw it as a game they were losing.
White Americans consistently underestimate the Black–White wealth gap (Kraus et al., 2020) and tend to identify perceived gains by Black people as a threat to their status (Dover et al., 2016). In fact, many White people see themselves as members of an oppressed racial group (King, 2015). In addition, when growing racial diversity is highlighted, White people tend to predict that discrimination against White people will increase in the future while discrimination against minorities will decrease.
White Americans in 2019 believed that gains for Black people necessarily come at the expense of losses for White people, as shown in Figure 1 and consistent with Norton and Sommers (2011). Specifically, White participants believed that anti-Black bias decreased steeply from the 1950s to the 2010s and that anti-White bias increased nearly as steeply from the 1950s to the 2010s. Black participants believed that anti-Black bias decreased modestly from the 1950s to the 2010s but that anti-White bias was steadily low from the 1950s to the 2010s…
Our results suggest that zero-sum thinking about racism pervades the entire political ideological spectrum among White Americans; even liberal White Americans believe that gains for Black people mean losses for White people. However, views of whether and by how much White people are seen as now winning or losing the zero-sum game vary by political ideology…
Conservatism is also correlated with symbolic racism, a blend of antipathy toward Black people and the sense that Black people violate cherished American values.
An academic paper published in 2024 noted:
White Americans who perceive themselves to be “last place” in the racial status hierarchy are most drawn to alt-right extremism
From 1983 to 2016, the median white family went from having approximately 8 times more wealth than the median Black family to 13 times more wealth4. Somewhat ironically, these wealth inequalities that benefit white people on average seem to lead many white people to feel as if they are falling behind the perceived high status of their racial group.While prior work has linked these feelings of despondency among white Americans to poor health outcomes, we propose that these subjective experiences of low status may also be associated with the rise of right-wing extremism…
white Americans increasingly report feeling that they are being “left behind,” and are less optimistic about their economic future than Black Americans. For these reasons, some have proposed that white people who feel disempowered may have played a role in the controversial election and presidency of Donald Trump—a candidate who seemed to prioritize connecting with anti-elite white Americans who otherwise felt ignored (e.g., “draining the swamp”). These trends have led many to wonder: why are some white people feeling disempowered, and when might this feeling lead to support for right-wing political extremism?
We propose that one reason white people may feel disempowered is because high economic inequality makes race/class stereotypes salient18—stereotypes which are likely to be more extreme as inequality rises. Because white Americans, on average, stereotypically assume that white people are wealthy, and because white Americans tend to compare their own SES (Socio-Economic Status) to the perceived high status of their racial group, conditions of high inequality mean that white Americans are making extreme upward comparisons, leaving them feeling as if they are “falling behind” most white people.
In addition to within-group comparisons, white Americans also make between-group status comparisons. As a result, white Americans’ feelings of falling behind may be further compounded by status comparisons with people from other racial/ethnic groups. On average, racially/ethnically minoritized groups (e.g., Asian, Black, and Latinx Americans) are stereotyped as poorer than most white Americans 9–11. However, in the current political climate, some white Americans may feel like their individual position in the economic hierarchy is challenged both by feeling they are “worse off” than other white people (i.e., feelings of exclusion) and that other racial/ethnic groups may be passing them as a result of perceived racial progress, and/or recent social movements pushing for racial equality (e.g., #BlackLivesMatter). This perception of precarious positionality within and between groups may activate fears of being in last place (i.e., last place aversion) and may stoke a general sense of victimization that others have argued can lead to hierarchy-enhancing efforts. This perception of precarious positionality within and between groups may activate fears of being in last place (i.e., last place aversion) and may stoke a general sense of victimization that others have argued can lead to hierarchy-enhancing efforts. Further, precarious positionality between groups may give rise to feelings of social exclusion, intergroup prejudice, and political radicalization. Therefore, for some white Americans, we expect that within- and between-racial group
comparisons may produce a feeling that the current system is not working for them, and that they need a radical candidate who promises to uplift white people who have been left behind the success of their racial group. Because white Americans without a college degree are more likely to feel threatened in the current economic climate, we anticipate that white Americans who do not have a college degree may be particularly likely to fit this profile.Together these findings suggest that there are some white Americans who feel they are both “falling behind” their racial group in terms of their socioeconomic status and getting passed by racial outgroups. This perception of being in “Last Place” is then associated with more support for alt right ideology, politicians, and events…
Which factors are related to white Americans’ subjective status profile placement? Exploratory analyses revealed that white Americans in this “Last Place” profile tended to be the most highly identified as “white”, and experienced the highest sense of belonging with being “white” out of all the profiles. Perhaps such racial identification both amplifies a sense of intergroup status threat, as well as motivations to reach the stereotypical high status of whiteness. Likewise, those in the “Last Place” profile were highest in SDO (Social Dominance Orientation). Perhaps such preferences for group-based hierarchy reflect hopes that such a hierarchy—a hierarchy in which their ingroup is perceived to be near the top—will have the potential to pull up their own status to the perceived higher status of their racial group.
The researchers used latent profile analysis to identify a specific psychological group labeled the “Last Place” profile. White Americans in this profile feel they are falling behind the perceived high status of other White people while simultaneously being passed or equaled in status by Black, Asian, and Latinx Americans. Individuals in this profile were not objectively the lowest in income or education; in fact, they often rated their own social class higher than those in other profiles. Support for alt-right ideology is driven more by where a person sees themselves in the race than where they see their race in the race. The feeling of being an individual outlier who is “falling behind” the success of one’s own group is a primary driver of extremism.
Last-Place Aversion is a psychological phenomenon where individuals who are just above the bottom of a social ranking become extremely anxious about being overtaken. This fear is often more intense than the desire to move up to the top.
This group has the largest discrepancy between where they feel they deserve to be in the social pecking order and where they are. Because these individuals rate their own status as high, they feel they have more to lose. They perceive their position as “precarious,” meaning it could be taken away at any moment by the rapid progress of others.
Rather than comparing themselves to those who have less, these individuals fixate on the perceived high wealth of other White people and the perceived gains of people of color. This “double comparison” makes them feel as if they are falling behind on two fronts simultaneously.
This anxiety often turns into a belief that the “entire system” is rigged against them specifically. They may feel that the government and elite institutions are prioritizing everyone except them, which fuels a deep sense of social exclusion.
To stop the feeling of “losing,” these individuals become drawn to radical movements that promise to “freeze” the hierarchy or restore a perceived past where their group’s status was undisputed. This is why they are most likely to support alt-right ideologies and politicians who promise to protect their specific interests.
In summary, this is not just a fear of being poor; it is the fear of being “passed” in a race where you feel you should be winning.
Belonging to the “Last Place” profile was the strongest predictor of support for alt-right outcomes across several categories:
Alt-Right Candidates: These individuals expressed the highest level of support for political candidates modeled after right-wing figures like Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis.
Extreme Events and Groups: Members of this profile showed significantly more positive feelings toward events like the January 6th Capitol storming and groups such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers.
Radical Ideology: This group most strongly endorsed beliefs that White people are “under attack” and that violence is sometimes a necessary response when the government is not working.
The study suggests that several social and psychological factors contribute to this mindset:
Racialized Wealth Stereotypes: High economic inequality reinforces the stereotype that White people are wealthy. When White individuals do not meet this perceived standard, they experience a sense of exclusion and “last place aversion”.
Social Dominance Orientation (SDO): Those in the “Last Place” profile scored highest in SDO, indicating a preference for group-based hierarchy. They may support such hierarchies in the hope that their in-group’s high status will eventually pull up their own personal status.
Group Identification: This group showed the highest levels of White racial identification and belonging. This strong identification may amplify their sense of threat when they perceive racial out-groups are making progress.
The “Last Place” profile is defined by a “self” that feels successful in a vacuum but feels like a loser when compared to the perceived rapid progress of other racial groups. This gap between one’s high personal status and the even higher perceived status of others is what the authors identify as the primary driver for supporting radical political ideologies.
Members of the “Last Place” group do not view themselves as failures in an absolute sense; in fact, they report having relatively high levels of money, education, and professional respect. However, this sense of personal success disappears the moment they look at the groups around them.
Because they believe every other racial group is already at the top or is quickly passing them, their own high status feels inadequate or “precarious”. They feel like they are “losing” a very competitive race, even though they are running it at a high speed.
The authors argue that this specific psychological tension—feeling personally accomplished but socially “overtaken”—creates a deep sense of victimhood. This “status anxiety” is what makes radical, alt-right political movements so attractive to them, as these movements promise to protect their position and stop other groups from getting ahead.
The study identifies this specific discrepancy—the feeling of being “last” in a race they believe they should be winning—as a primary driver for radicalization. The gap between their expectations and their perceived rank creates a general sense of victimization. Because they feel they have not achieved the “spoils” associated with their racial group, they conclude the current system is not working for them. They are drawn to radical ideologies and “pro-White” politicians who promise to “uplift” White people who feel left behind and to stop the progress of other groups that they perceive as a threat to their position. The “Last Place” crowd consists of people who feel they are the only ones not invited to the party their own group is hosting. This perceived exclusion makes them feel like the primary victims of modern society, justifying their support for radical political change.
Status anxiety in the context of the “Last Place” profile often manifests as a deep sense of relative deprivation, where successful individuals feel like “losers” because they believe others are closing the gap or passing them.
According to the research, this anxiety typically presents in the following forms:
1. Political Extremism and Radicalization
The most prominent manifestation is a strong attraction to radical, “alt-right” political movements.
Individuals in the “Last Place” profile show significantly higher support for groups like the Proud Boys and events like the January 6th Capitol storming.
This anxiety can manifest as a belief that the government is no longer protecting their interests, leading to the endorsement of political violence as a legitimate solution.
To alleviate the fear of falling to the bottom, these individuals often support “hierarchy-enhancing” policies, such as bans on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
2. Chronic Health and Psychological Strain
The persistent worry of being “overtaken” by other groups acts as a chronic stressor with measurable health impacts.
For White Americans, the subjective feeling of falling behind others is a strong predictor of depressive symptoms, fewer positive emotions, and poor sleep quality.
This state of “allostatic overload” can lead to long-term physical issues, including an increased risk for hypertension and cardiometabolic disorders.
Despite often having high objective status (good jobs and education), these individuals report a profound sense of being “left behind” or ignored by elites and the government.
3. Behavioral Defensiveness and Denial
Status anxiety also shapes how individuals interact with information about racial progress and privilege.
By subjectively placing themselves in “last place,” individuals can psychologically deny that they benefit from racial privilege, framing themselves instead as the primary victims of the current system.
This is a behavioral tendency where individuals at risk of being in the bottom rank become highly competitive or even “punish” those slightly below them to maintain their own standing.
This anxiety frequently manifests as a belief that immigrants or minority groups are “contaminating” the culture or receiving “unfair” advantages at the individual’s expense.
4. Status Signaling and Social Comparison
In a “neck-and-neck” race at the top of the hierarchy, individuals may engage in intensified social comparisons.
Constant monitoring of the “score” between themselves and other groups, where even minor gains by others are perceived as major personal losses.
A longing for a perceived past where social and economic trajectories were “guaranteed” for their group, leading to the rejection of modern progressive social changes.
In psychological and sociological literature, this downward spiral usually features chronic grievance, externalized blame, and the resulting attraction to radical solutions.
1. Aggrieved Entitlement
Coined by sociologist Michael Kimmel, this term describes the anger felt by those who believe that the benefits and status they were “promised” are being stolen by scapegoats—typically women or minority groups.
The Downward Spiral: It begins with a sense of relative deprivation, where an individual compares their life not to the poor, but to a perceived “golden age” or to the rapid progress of others.
The Maladaptive Shift: Instead of identifying structural economic changes (like globalization or automation) as the cause of their struggle, they misdirect their rage toward those they perceive as “advancing at their expense”.
2. The Entitlement-Distress Cycle
Clinical research maps a self-reinforcing loop where high levels of entitlement—defined as an exaggerated feeling of deservingness—lead directly to chronic unhappiness.
Phase 1: Vulnerability: Entitled individuals have constant “unmet expectations” because they believe they deserve special treatment or outcomes without effort.
Phase 2: Outward Blame: When life fails to deliver these “deserved” results, they experience volatile emotions like anger and disappointment. To protect their ego, they blame others rather than adjusting their own behavior.
Phase 3: Reinforcement: This outward blame provides a “temporary relief” by reassuring them of their own superiority, but it eventually leads to deeper social isolation and depression, starting the cycle again.
3. Injustice Rumination
This is a specific maladaptive coping strategy where an individual mentally “replays” their perceived mistreatment, focusing on the “irreparability” of their loss.
Externalizing Blame: This mindset is characterized by the belief that “I am suffering because of someone else’s negligence”.
Behavioral Outbursts: Injustice rumination is linked to lower “psychological flexibility.” Individuals become so rigid in their belief that they have been wronged that they lose the ability to take risk or adapt to new opportunities.
4. Status Despondency and “Last Place Aversion”
This is a form of egoistic deprivation.
Precarious Positionality: People in this state feel they are in a “tight race” and that any progress by another group is a direct threat to their own survival.
High Conflict Personality (HCP): While not a formal diagnosis, clinicians use this to describe people who “thrive in conflict,” display polarized “black-and-white” thinking, and consistently project their frustrations onto others.
These approaches are considered non-adaptive because they focus entirely on “changing the score” of a perceived game rather than developing the internal resilience or skills needed to navigate a changing world. This rigidity often leads to “cognitive caution” and a weaker ability to process complex information, making the individual more susceptible to extremist doctrines that provide simple, “us vs. them” explanations for their pain.
The comparison between the “Last Place” crowd and Emma Bovary captures the essence of a downward spiral fueled by a discrepancy between grand expectations and mundane reality. Like the individuals in the 2024 study, Madame Bovary suffers from a deep sense of relative deprivation, though her “status” is more romantic and social than political.
Entitled Desires vs. Perceived Reality
The “Last Place” profile is defined by people who feel they should be at the top because they belong to a group they perceive as high-status, yet they feel they are failing to reach that mark.
Emma Bovary believes she belongs in the world of aristocratic glamor and intense passion, much like the “Last Place” group believes they should inhabit the stereotypical high-wealth status associated with whiteness. In her eyes, her life with a provincial doctor is a form of “last place” existence, despite the fact that she is objectively middle-class and better off than the peasantry.
Both Emma and the “Last Place” subjects experience a feeling of being “left behind” by a world that is supposedly passing them by.
Maladaptive Coping and Downward Spirals
The 2024 paper notes that the “Last Place” approach is not adaptive, as it leans toward radicalism and a sense of victimization.
Just as Emma blames her husband and her surroundings for her unhappiness, individuals in the “Last Place” profile blame other racial groups or the government for their perceived loss of status. Emma seeks escape through reckless affairs and debt; the “Last Place” crowd seeks it through alt-right extremism and ideologies that challenge the current social system.
Both are trapped in a cycle of “injustice rumination,” where they focus so heavily on what they are “owed” that they become unable to adapt or find genuine satisfaction in their actual circumstances.
The Resulting Crisis
The “Last Place” profile identifies a group that rates their own status as high but feels “passed” by everyone else, leading to a belief that the system is fundamentally broken. This reflects the “Bovary-esque” tragedy of a person who is so focused on the status they feel they deserve that they set fire to the life they actually have. This psychological state makes them highly receptive to radical ideologies that promise a return to a “rightful” hierarchy.
Critical analysis of the 2011, 2022, and 2024 papers reveals several methodological and framing choices that seem like a specific type of academic “sneering” or asymmetric treatment of White resentment compared to Black resentment.
A primary critique of these papers involves the terminology used to describe group frustrations. In the 2024 paper, White resentment is categorized through “Latent Profile Analysis” and linked to “Alt-right extremism,” “Last Place Aversion,” and “maladaptive” psychological traits. In contrast, academic literature regarding Black resentment typically uses a “structural” or “sociological” lens, framing it as a rational response to systemic injustice.
The 2011 and 2022 papers frame White perceptions of racism as a “zero-sum game” where one group’s gain is viewed as another’s loss. By labeling this a psychological “belief” or “perception,” the papers imply it is a cognitive error. Christopher Caldwell’s critique suggests that if the legal system actually functions to trade the rights of one group for another, then the “zero-sum” view is a rational observation of law rather than a psychological malfunction.
The papers frequently suggest that White resentment is rooted in a lack of factual understanding.The 2011 and 2024 papers argue that White Americans “underestimate” racial wealth gaps. This frames their resentment as a product of ignorance.
The 2024 paper explicitly discusses “motivated denial,” suggesting that White people subjectively claim “last place” status to avoid the psychological discomfort of acknowledging their own privilege. This pathologizes the experience of the subject, treating their self-reported pain as a defense mechanism rather than a lived reality.
There is a notable difference in how “radicalization” is studied across groups. The 2024 paper specifically measures support for “violent anti-government beliefs” and “alt-right ideology” as the primary downstream consequences of White status anxiety.
In studies of minority groups, strong racial identification is often treated as a “buffer” against discrimination and a source of psychological health. In the 2024 paper, high White racial identification is treated as a predictor of “intergroup status threat” and “alt-right extremism”.
The papers lean toward a “Bovary-esque” framing: the idea that these individuals are unhappy because they have “delusions of grandeur” or “unmet expectations” that the world no longer supports. The 2024 paper notes that White status comparison predicts “fewer positive emotions” and “worse health over time,” framing the mindset as fundamentally self-destructive and “non-adaptive”.
Academic papers rarely describe Black resentment as “non-adaptive” or “maladaptive,” even when that resentment leads to poor health outcomes. Instead, those health outcomes (such as “weathering”) are attributed to the external environment (racism) rather than the internal psychological “spiral” of the individual.
This asymmetry leads to a “moralized” science where White grievance is treated as a psychological problem to be solved or corrected, while minority grievance is treated as a political claim to be addressed.
Academic literature often treats the grievances of different groups with distinct analytical tools, which can create the appearance of an ideological “double standard.” The 2011, 2022, and 2024 papers generally use a psychological/pathological lens for White resentment, while sociopolitical literature often uses a structural/validating lens for the resentment of other groups.
When Black or Hispanic groups express resentment over status or resources, it is typically framed as a rational response to documented systemic inequality. In contrast, the 2011 and 2024 papers frame White resentment as a “misperception” or a failure to understand the actual wealth gap.
The 2011 and 2022 papers label the zero-sum view of racism as a subjective belief rather than a potential reflection of reality. If a person believes that a specific DEI policy or hiring quota directly removes an opportunity from them, they are seeing a zero-sum reality; however, the papers often treat this as a cognitive error.
The 2024 paper links the “Last Place” profile to “alt-right extremism” and “violent anti-government beliefs”. By tying a specific status perception directly to extremism, the research implicitly moralizes the data, suggesting that feeling “last” is a gateway to bad behavior.
All groups—regardless of race—seek to protect their status when they feel it is threatened. Research shows that every group tends to favor its own members and reacts with “status anxiety” when its relative position declines. If any group—Black, Asian, or White—perceived they were “falling behind” or being “passed” in a competitive race, they would likely support political candidates who promised to prioritize their specific group interests.
Strong racial identification is often treated as a psychological “buffer” and a positive trait for minority groups. However, the 2024 paper finds that high White racial identification is a primary predictor of “alt-right extremism”.
The papers use terms that can feel like a clinical dismissal of the subjects’ lived experiences. The authors suggest that Whites claim “last place” status as a way to “deny personally experiencing racial privilege”. This implies the subjects are lying to themselves or the researchers to maintain a victim status. By linking status anxiety to “fewer positive emotions” and “worse health,” the papers frame the subjects’ outlook as a personal failure to adapt to a changing world rather than a legitimate political grievance.
If the legal and social system is indeed shifting—as Christopher Caldwell argues in Age of Entitlement—then the resentment of the “Last Place” crowd might not be “ignorant” or “maladapted.” It could be a predictable, group-neutral response to a perceived loss of legal and cultural standing. These papers often assume the “system” is fundamentally fair, and therefore any White person who feels victimized by it must be suffering from a psychological distortion.
Academic literature exploring resentment or perceived status loss among Black Americans generally employs different analytical frameworks and terminologies than those used in the “Last Place” White Americans paper. While the 2024 paper uses a psychological/clinical lens to link White status anxiety to “extremism” and “maladaptation,” research on Black resentment typically grounds its analysis in sociopolitical history and structural reality.
A paper on Black “Last Place” resentment would likely frame the experience as a rational response to documented systemic barriers rather than a subjective psychological “profile”. Rather than using terms like “Last Place Aversion” to describe a fear of losing rank, research on Black resentment often uses terms like “Racial Weathering” or “Systemic Injustice” to describe the stress of being at the bottom of a hierarchy.
The 2024 paper suggests White people in “last place” may be engaging in “motivated denial” of their privilege. In contrast, a paper on Black resentment would likely validate the “last place” position as an objective economic reality, citing the 13-to-1 wealth gap between White and Black families mentioned in your uploaded documents.
The manifestations of resentment are often categorized differently based on the group being studied. The 2024 paper specifically measures White status anxiety as a predictor of “alt-right extremism” and “violent anti-government beliefs”. Research on Black resentment typically frames similar frustrations as drivers of “pro-social” collective action or social movements aimed at equality, such as the #BlackLivesMatter movement mentioned in the 2024 text.
While the 2024 study finds that strong White racial identification leads to “intergroup status threat,” research on Black identity often treats strong racial solidarity as a psychological “buffer” that protects individuals from the negative health effects of discrimination.
A “Last Place” paper for Black Americans would likely focus on the gap between the “American Dream” promise and the reality of stalled progress. Instead of focusing on “unmet expectations” like the Madame Bovary comparison, such a paper would likely emphasize the historical “failed Reconstruction” and “persistent structural discrimination” that maintain the racial wealth gap.
While the “Last Place” White profile focuses on the fear of being “passed” by others, a Black-focused paper might explore the resentment of being “kept in place” despite individual effort, a concept often explored through “Group Positional Theory”.
The sneering and pathologization of mad whites—labeling grievances as “ignorant” or “lacking perspective”—is rarely applied to Black resentment in modern academia.
Studies on White resentment often look for internal psychological flaws (like high Social Dominance Orientation). Studies on Black resentment almost exclusively look for external environmental causes (like predatory lending or exclusionary zoning). Black resentment is often framed as an “adaptive” survival mechanism in a hostile environment, whereas the 2024 paper explicitly frames the “Last Place” White mindset as a “downward spiral” that leads to poor health and political radicalization.
Christopher Caldwell’s book The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties provides a historical and legal theory that aligns closely with the “zero-sum” and “Last Place” psychological papers.
His central argument is that the United States currently operates under two incompatible constitutions: the “de jure” Constitution of 1788 (focused on individual liberty and freedom of association) and a “de facto” Constitution of 1964 (focused on mandatory racial and social equality).
Caldwell’s thesis provides a structural explanation for why many White Americans view racism as a zero-sum game:
Competing Constitutional Orders: He argues that for the “new” constitution to establish rights for marginalized groups, it must necessarily extinguish the traditional rights (like freedom of association) of others. This mirrors the “less against you means more against me” mindset identified in the 2011 Norton and Sommers paper.
The Stick of Political Correctness: Caldwell posits that “political correctness” is the enforcement mechanism of the new order, designed specifically to discipline White Americans into conforming to the new social hierarchy.
Erosion of Majority Rule: He suggests that civil rights laws moved political power away from legislative majorities toward judicial and bureaucratic elites, which creates a sense among the majority that their gains are being systematically traded for the gains of others.
Caldwell’s analysis specifically highlights the “losers” of this new constitutional order, which aligns with the “Last Place” profile from the 2024 Cooley et al. paper:
Working-Class Displacement: He argues that while racial minorities and highly credentialed professionals benefited from the post-1964 order, working-class White Americans were the primary “losers” who felt marginalized and dispossessed.
Subjective Status Loss: Caldwell describes a “status anxiety” where White working-class people feel they have lost their political and cultural influence. This directly mirrors the “Last Place” profile’s feeling of being “left behind” despite having an objectively stable status.
Radicalization as a Response: The book frames current political polarization and the rise of populism as a “revolt” by those who feel excluded from the new constitutional framework. This provides a historical context for the 2024 paper’s finding that “Last Place” individuals are most drawn to alt-right extremism.
Caldwell uses the word “entitlement” differently than psychological studies. In his view, the “Age of Entitlement” refers to the new legal right of certain groups to have their historical injustices redressed through the administrative state. This “entitlement” of outgroups is exactly what individuals in the “Last Place” profile perceive as the “unfair” advantage that allows others to pass them in the status race.
