研究：政客附和“白人替代论”与极端活动上升相关

从边缘话术到主流政治

“白人替代论”是一类已被证伪的叙事：它声称有秘密集团策划大规模移民，目的是替换一个国家的本土出生人口。过去这类说法多停留在边缘极端组织内部，用于招募成员、为敌意寻找理由。文章指出，近十年来其变体进入主流政治话语：有的政客直接谈“人口替代”或“外来入侵”，有的则用更隐晦的说法，称偏左政客鼓励非法移民只是为了锁定未来选民。

俄亥俄州立大学社会学者Jack Gabriel Risien Wippell与Laura Dugan想检验的正是：当政治人物公开附和这类叙事时，社会上会发生什么。他们的假设是，高层政治人物的表态可能让持有偏见的人感到“被壮胆”——敌意语言被正常化后，集体行动所感知的社会风险下降，极端想法显得更可行。

研究怎么做的

研究者建立了2021至2023年间联邦与州议员及政治候选人的公开表态数据库，从中筛出25次被主流媒体报道的“替代论”背书。要被计入，表态必须把移民描述为蓄意替换本土人口的阴谋。只取被媒体放大的表态，是为了确保分析的是真正触达广泛受众的话语。

全国层面，他们用三年周度数据，把表态的时间与累积量同“移民”话题的Google Trends数据、以及反诽谤联盟（ADL）整理的白人至上主义抗议与公开展示记录相对照。州层面则改为月度分析，把每次表态对应到该政客所代表的州，并加入州内白人至上主义宣传品散发的数据。

主要发现与边界

全国层面，政治表态的累积与随后白人至上主义事件之间呈正相关：媒体报道的背书越多，极端示威的频率越高。但全国层面表态与“移民”搜索量之间的关系在统计上不显著。

州层面的关联更清晰：当州议员附和替代论时，其选区内的白人至上主义事件和宣传品散发都出现上升；同时，当地政客表态的累积也与州内移民相关搜索增加相关。研究者据此认为，地方政治环境对社区层面的极端行为影响更大，政客对身边选民的注意力影响强于对全国舆论的影响。

这些结果都是关联，不能读成因果。作者也列出几处限制：新闻的实际触达范围极难追踪，片段和引语常经人际传播与不受监测的社交网络扩散，研究把媒体曝光当作表态之间的均等量，可能低估话语的真实社会传播。Google Trends给出的是相对搜索热度而非绝对搜索量，反映的是有限注意力中的比例变化。此外，补充分析提示州层面可能存在双向动态：政客表态或把公众注意力引向移民，政客也可能是在回应上升的公众关注而更多使用这类叙事。

这项研究的意义

文章把“精英话语”与可测量的现实后果放在同一时间轴上考察，提供了一个可检验的思路：政治表态不只是态度表达，也可能改变群体行动的社会环境。对关注极化、移民议题与极端主义的人来说，州级结果尤其值得注意——同一句话在全国层面未必留下痕迹，在地方却可能同时牵动搜索关注与组织活动。

但证据层级需要说清楚：这是基于公开表态记录、搜索趋势与极端活动数据库的观察性分析，样本是25次获媒体报道的表态，无法排除其他同期因素，也无法确定个体层面的动机。它支持“政治话语与极端活动同步变化”的判断，尚不足以证明某一表态直接导致了某场集会或某次宣传散发。

When political leaders publicly endorse white replacement conspiracy theories, their rhetoric is linked to measurable increases in real-world extremist activity. A recent analysis published in PLOS One shows that the repetition of these narratives by elected officials corresponds with upticks in white supremacist organizing. The research also highlights how such statements shape local public attention regarding immigration.

White replacement theories are false narratives claiming that a secretive group is orchestrating mass immigration to replace a nation’s native-born population. These ideological tropes have periodically resurfaced across Western countries over the last century. In the United States, these conspiracy theories often suggest that white Christian conservatives are being intentionally reduced to a demographic minority. Historically, these ideas were confined to fringe extremist groups trying to recruit members and justify hostilities.

Over the past decade, variations of these conspiracies have entered mainstream political discourse. Some politicians use explicit language about demographic replacement or foreign invasions. Others employ subtler versions of the narrative, alleging that left-leaning politicians are encouraging illegal immigration simply to secure future voters.

Sociologists Jack Gabriel Risien Wippell and Laura Dugan from The Ohio State University wanted to see if these political statements translate into tangible social consequences. The researchers designed a study to evaluate how political endorsements of these theories relate to both general public interest and extremist mobilization. They hypothesized that signaling from prominent leaders might create a sense of emboldenment among individuals holding prejudiced views. By normalizing hostile language, elites can lower the perceived social risks of collective action and make extreme ideas seem viable.

The researchers compiled a database of public statements made by federal and state legislators, as well as political candidates, between 2021 and 2023. They specifically isolated 25 endorsements of replacement theories that received coverage in major news outlets. To count as an endorsement, a statement had to reference immigration as a deliberate plot to replace a native population. By focusing on media-amplified statements, they ensured they were analyzing rhetoric that actually reached a broad audience.

Wippell and Dugan first conducted a national analysis using weekly data spanning three years. They compared the timing and accumulation of the political endorsements against weekly Google Trends data for the topic of immigration. They also measured national extremist activity using data from the Anti-Defamation League, an open-source database compiled from news reports and government documents. This dataset provided a comprehensive record of white supremacist protests and public demonstrations.

At the national level, the researchers found a positive association between the accumulation of these political statements and subsequent white supremacist events. As media reports of politicians endorsing replacement narratives piled up, the frequency of extremist demonstrations increased across the country. The relationship between the political rhetoric and national Google searches for immigration was not statistically significant.

The research team then shifted their focus to a state-level analysis, evaluating the data on a monthly basis. They linked each political endorsement to the specific state represented by the politician making the claim. For this local analysis, they tracked state-level Google searches for immigration and expanded their extremist activity metrics to include the distribution of white supremacist propaganda.

Within individual states, the associations were distinct and robust. When state representatives endorsed replacement theories, their specific constituencies experienced an increase in both white supremacist events and propaganda distributions. The data indicates that local political environments play a highly influential role in community-level extremist behavior.

The state-level analysis also revealed a shift in general public attention. The accumulation of replacement theory endorsements by local politicians was tied to an increase in Google searches about immigration within their respective states. This suggests that politicians exert a stronger influence on the attention of their immediate constituents than on the broader national discourse.

The researchers note a few limitations regarding how the data captures media exposure. Tracking the exact public reach of a news story is incredibly difficult, as clips and quotes often spread virally through person-to-person communication and unmonitored social networks. The study treats media exposure as a flat metric between statements, which likely underestimates the true societal spread of the rhetoric.

The tools used to measure public attention also come with inherent caveats. Google Trends measures search interest for a topic relative to all other searches, rather than providing absolute search volumes. This means the data reflects proportional shifts in what the public is paying attention to within a limited attention economy.

Finally, the relationship between political statements and public attention might not be a one-way street. Supplementary analyses by the researchers suggest a bidirectional dynamic at the state level. While political endorsements might draw public focus toward immigration, politicians might also be reacting to rising public interest by increasing their use of these narratives.

The study, “Endorsing narratives of white replacement: Elite discourse, public attention, and extremist mobilization,” was authored by Jack Gabriel Risien Wippell and Laura Dugan.