Reminders of Japanese redress increase Asian American support for Black reparations

The study investigates whether knowledge of Japanese American incarceration during World War II and subsequent federal redress (Civil Liberties Act of 1988 providing $20,000 payments and an apology) can increase Asian American support for reparations for Black Americans for harms from chattel slavery and Jim Crow. The work is situated in the history of Asian–Black intergroup relations in the U.S., which features both solidarity and conflict, including the effects of model minority stereotypes that can position groups against one another. Public opinion data show broad opposition to Black reparations in the U.S., including among Asian Americans. The authors propose that an informational intervention reminding Asian Americans of Japanese incarceration and redress could increase support for Black reparations, particularly because many Americans, including Asian Americans, are unaware of this redress history. Theoretically, the authors argue that learning about in-group redress can induce a form of moral hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance when considering unrealized redress for another marginalized group, motivating attitude change toward greater support for consistent reparative policies. They preregister two hypotheses: (I) exposure to information about Japanese redress increases support for Black reparations versus a control; (II) the extent of learning about Japanese redress during the intervention accounts for its impact on support for Black reparations.

The authors build on research regarding Asian–Black intergroup dynamics, solidarity among stigmatized groups, and the use of informational interventions to shift policy attitudes. Prior work shows that highlighting shared discriminatory experiences can build solidarity across stigmatized groups and that interventions providing novel, accurate information about racial inequality (e.g., wealth gaps) can durably change perceptions and attitudes. The model minority myth and racial positioning theories illustrate how Asian Americans can be used as a wedge against other minorities, potentially undermining coalitions. Polls suggest limited support for reparations among the general public and Asian Americans, and evidence indicates limited public knowledge of Japanese American redress. The moral hypocrisy framework, rooted in cognitive dissonance, suggests that awareness of favorable treatment toward one’s own group can reduce support for unequal treatment of others when inconsistencies are made salient, as shown in studies reducing collective blame and policy hostility toward Muslims.

Design: Two preregistered, between-subjects experiments with online samples of Asian Americans residing in the U.S. Participants completed a ~10-minute survey that included random assignment to an informational video intervention and then measures of support for Black reparations and related political attitudes. Both studies included an attention/learning quiz about Japanese redress. Study 1 participants and recruitment: N=329 Asian Americans recruited via Centiment Survey Panels; compensation $5; IRB approval at Yale University. Demographics included multiple Asian origin subgroups (largest: Chinese n=91) and immigration generations (mostly first n=166 and second n=113). Mean age 43.80 (SD=18.21); median income $60,001–$80,000; majority college graduates (n=248); gender: women n=163, men n=153, other n=1. Study 1 procedure and materials: Participants confirmed Asian American identity and were randomly assigned to: (a) Intervention: a 143-second narrated slideshow describing Japanese incarceration, the struggle for redress, and the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 (with steps to reduce defensiveness, e.g., transcripts and opportunities for written feedback), or (b) Control: a 136-second nature video (animals and climate challenges) matched on length, affect, and apparent authority. After the video, participants answered reparations items, political attitude measures, demographics, and then were debriefed and offered the intervention video. Study 2 participants and recruitment: N=500 Asian Americans recruited via Prolific Academic; compensation $3; IRB approval at Yale University. Demographics included multiple Asian origin subgroups (largest: Chinese n=146) and immigration generations (mostly second n=326 and first n=138). Mean age 31.98 (SD=9.80); median income $80,001–$100,000; majority college graduates (n=309); gender: men n=307, women n=186, other n=4. Study 2 procedure and materials: Intervention identical to Study 1 (incarceration and redress). Control condition showed the incarceration portion only, titled “the story of Japanese incarceration,” omitting redress information. As in Study 1, participants were invited to provide written reactions to reduce defensiveness. Measures (common across studies unless noted): Primary outcomes were four items adapted from national panels assessing: (1) general support for federal cash payments for past harms, (2) support for cash payments to descendants of enslaved people, (3) support for a federal commission to study effects of slavery and recommend remedies, and (4) perceived feasibility that reparations will occur in one’s lifetime. Responses used 4-point scales (4=definitely should/will to 1=definitely should not/will not). A composite of the first three policy items indexed support for Black reparations (Study 1 α=0.82; Study 2 α=0.86). Learning/attention quiz asked whether Japanese Americans received cash payments and for how much (options: no; yes, $20,000 [correct]; yes, $100,000). Political attitudes: network diversity (4-item index), social and economic conservatism (2 items), common fate with Black Americans (single item), feeling thermometers toward Black and Asian Americans, and model minority stereotype beliefs (work ethic and exposure to discrimination subscales). Study 2 additionally measured anti-Black attitudes (10-item scale) and perceived similarity to Black Americans (2-item composite).

Manipulation checks (learning): Study 1 quiz correct responses were higher in the intervention (74.1%) vs control (45.9%), χ2(1)=26.95, p<.001; partial-credit recode increased intervention correctness to 80.4%. Study 2: intervention 91.9% vs control 44.8%, χ2(1)=127.82, p<.001; partial-credit recode 93.5%. Primary outcomes—Study 1 (N=329): Compared to control, intervention increased: (1) general support for cash payments for past injustice (M=3.06 vs 2.76), t(327)=3.116, p=.002, d=0.344; (2) support for Black reparations to descendants of enslaved people (M=2.68 vs 2.45), t(327)=2.146, p=.033, d=0.237; (3) commission to study slavery impacts not statistically significant (M=3.03 vs 2.88), t(327)=1.499, p=.135, d=0.165. Composite support was higher in intervention (M=2.92) than control (M=2.70), t(327)=2.616, p=.009, d=0.289. Feasibility item showed lower perceived likelihood in intervention (M=2.18) vs control (M=2.41), t(327)=-2.716, p=.007, d=0.300. Primary outcomes—Study 2 (N=500): Intervention increased: (1) general support for cash payments for past injustice (M=3.20 vs 2.87), t(498)=4.383, p<.001, d=0.392; (2) support for Black reparations to descendants of enslaved people (M=2.84 vs 2.63), t(498)=2.481, p=.013, d=0.222; (3) support for a federal commission (M=3.35 vs 3.08), t(498)=3.566, p<.001, d=0.319. Composite support higher in intervention (M=3.13) vs control (M=2.86), t(498)=3.898, p<.001, d=0.349. Feasibility did not differ, t(498)=1.169, p=.243. Exploratory mediation (PROCESS Model 4, controls: education, gender): Study 1: intervention → quiz mediator B=0.605 (0.101), t=5.99, p<.001; mediator → support B=0.109 (0.049), t=2.22, p=.0274; direct effect B=0.195 (0.093), t=2.11, p=.0357; indirect effect B=0.066 (0.0318), 95% CI [0.008, 0.135]. Study 2: intervention → mediator B=0.931 (0.070), t=13.305, p<.001; mediator → support B=0.133 (0.044), t=3.037, p=.0025; direct effect B=0.161 (0.080), t≈2.025, p=.0434; indirect effect B=0.1611 (0.0433), 95% CI [0.041, 0.211]. These results suggest that increased knowledge about Japanese redress statistically accounted for greater support for Black reparations. Pooled mini–meta analysis: Across studies, the intervention increased support for reparations, F(1,825)=20.145, p<.001, ηp2=0.024, d=0.313; main effect of study F(1,825)=11.04, p<.001; no study×condition interaction F(1,825)=0.167, p=.682. Comparison with national polling: Pooled intervention condition showed significantly higher support for Black reparations than national polls, including an Asian American subsample in a 2021 UMass poll, t(421)=4.784, p<.001, d=0.237. The pooled control condition did not differ from that 2021 Asian American poll, t(421)=0.717, p=.474. The intervention increased support by nearly 10 percentage points relative to control, approximating 46.7% of the progressive shift in U.S. reparations support observed from 2014 to 2021. Additional exploratory findings: Correlational analyses linked higher reparations support to lower conservatism, lower endorsement of model minority work ethic beliefs, higher common fate (and in Study 2 greater similarity) with Black Americans, less anti-Black attitudes, and more positive feelings toward both Black and Asian Americans. Moderation tests generally found no reliable moderators (e.g., conservatism, common fate, model minority beliefs, network diversity, Japanese vs non-Japanese identity); an interaction with immigrant generation suggested earlier generations showed stronger effects in the intervention while controlling for age. The intervention did not consistently shift broader political attitudes; in Study 2 only, participants in the intervention reported fewer barriers for Asian Americans (M=3.59 vs 3.29), t(498)=2.239, p=.026.

The findings support the central hypothesis that reminding Asian Americans of Japanese American incarceration and successful federal redress increases their support for reparations for Black Americans, relative to control conditions. The effect was replicated across two different online samples and held when the control emphasized incarceration without redress, indicating that the redress information itself was critical. Exploratory mediation suggests that learning about redress increased support via a desire to avoid hypocrisy or resolve cognitive dissonance between known in-group redress and unrealized redress for another marginalized group. The intervention’s impact did not appear to operate through broad shifts in political ideology, affect toward groups, or model minority beliefs, implying a more specific informational mechanism. Comparisons to national polling underscore practical significance: the intervention produced support levels exceeding those observed in representative polls, highlighting the potential for targeted historical education to build cross-group solidarity around reparative policies. The results contribute to scholarship on stigma-based solidarity, effective messaging on racial history, and strategies for promoting reparative justice. They suggest that providing novel, accurate, and non-defensively framed history can galvanize support without eliciting backlash, though beliefs about feasibility of policy change may remain unchanged or even become more conservative in some contexts.

Two preregistered experiments show that educating Asian Americans about Japanese American incarceration and subsequent federal redress increases support for reparations for Black Americans. The effect generalizes across two online samples and persists when controlling for content about incarceration alone, indicating that knowledge of redress is a key driver. Evidence points to a mechanism consistent with moral consistency—learning about in-group redress encourages support for similar reparative action for others—rather than broad ideological shifts. Practically, accurate, novel historical information delivered in ways that reduce defensiveness can foster intergroup solidarity for reparative economic justice. Future work should test this intervention in nationally representative and language-diverse samples, examine heterogeneity by Asian origin subgroups and immigrant generations, explore message framing to maximize impact and minimize backlash, and assess whether similar interventions influence other populations (e.g., white Americans) and other reparative policies.

The samples were online panels and not nationally representative; results may not generalize to the full diversity of Asian Americans, who encompass many ethnicities, immigration histories, and languages. Surveys were conducted in English, limiting applicability to English-speaking subsets. Targeted sampling is needed to assess subgroup differences (e.g., Japanese Americans specifically) and immigrant generational effects. The intervention did not consistently shift broader political attitudes, and one unexpected finding in Study 2 (lower perceived barriers for Asian Americans in the intervention) warrants caution. Beliefs about feasibility of reparations did not consistently increase and even decreased in Study 1, suggesting mixed effects on perceptions of policy progress. Finally, the studies rely on self-reported attitudes immediately post-intervention; durability over time and behavior change were not assessed.