**Principal investigator(s):** **Riana Brown** University of Pennsylvania Email: riana.brown@appc.upenn.edu Homepage: https://www.asc.upenn.edu/people/faculty/riana-m-brown-phd **Pia Dietze** University of California Irvine Email: pdietze@uci.edu Homepage: https://www.piadietze.com/ **Sample size:** 1607 **Field period:** 05/13/2022-11/22/2022 **Abstract** Black Americans are negatively affected by racial disparities in domains of employment, health care, and general treatment by individuals in society (among other racial disparities) compared to White Americans (Bleich et al., 2019). What might lead Americans to support action to reduce these racial disparities? We test if support to alleviate racial inequality depends on the domain of inequality (i.e., in which area of life the inequality manifest). Specifically, we test if disparities that manifest in the domain of health (e.g., medical care, hospital access, food availability) are considered more morally sacred (Tetlock, 2003) and more unjust than disparities that manifest in economic (e.g., money, job, resources) and belonging (i.e., negative interpersonal treatment) domains. We hypothesize that health-related inequality is perceived as more morally sacred, and in turn, perceived as more unjust compared to economic-related and belonging-related inequality. These heightened perceptions of injustice are hypothesized to lead to more support for action to reduce the disparities (e.g., policy support). Thus, the present research aims to investigate whether highlighting either health-based, economic-based, or belonging-based racial inequalities may differentially impact perceptions of an issue as fair and morally sacred, subsequently increasing support for action to reduce racial disparities. Participants will be prompted to view an infographic presenting information about racial disparities in either health, economics, or belonging domains. Then participants will report their perceptions of how unjust and morally sacred the presented disparities are and if they support reducing the disparities via policy changes. **Hypotheses** Hypothesis 1: We predict that people will support polices to reduce racial disparities more when presented with health-based disparities, compared with economic-based and belonging-based disparities. Exploratory Test: We will also test a serial mediation model to assess if highlighting health disparities (vs. economic and belonging) increases support for policy via moral sacredness perceptions and, in turn, injustice perceptions. **Experimental Manipulations** 1 between-subjects condition (3-levels: health, economics, belonging). Participants will be prompted to respond to a graphic presenting the existence of racial disparities in either health, economics, or belonging domains. **Outcomes** All participants reported on their agreement (from 1, strongly disagree, to 7, strongly agree) of how unjust (“these disparities are unjust”) and morally sacred (2 items, r = 0.48; e.g., “these racial disparities involve issues or values that should never be violated”) the issue was as well as their support for general policies to reduce it (2 items, r = 0.77, e.g.; “politicians need to prioritize creating policies that reduce these racial disparities”). **Summary of Results** An analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a marginal main effect of disparity domain on policy support [F(2, 1547) = 2.75, p = 0.064, ηp2 = 0.01]. As predicted, planned contrasts revealed that participants exposed to health disparities supported mitigating policies more than those exposed to economic disparities [β = 0.14, t(1547) = 2.32, p = 0.020]. There were no differences in policy support between the economic and belonging conditions (β = −0.09, p = 0.150) nor, unexpectedly, between the belonging and health conditions (β = 0.05, p = 0.378). Additionally, we found support for the preregistered serial mediation model: Highlighting health (versus economic) disparities elicited support for mitigating policies as a result of perceptions that the issue is morally sacred, which, in turn, induced perceived injustice [95% CI, (0.05, 0.13)]. As such, with a nationally representative sample, this study finds support that health-based disparities (versus economic disparities) are seen as a violation of moral sacredness and are thus unjust, which evokes more policy support. **References** Brown, R. M.*, Dietze, P.* & Craig, M. A. (2023). Highlighting health consequences of racial disparities sparks support for action. *Science*. [DOI:10.1126/science.adh4262](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh4262)