 |
University of Pennsylvania Library
Expanded Academic ASAP |
Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, Dec
2002 p519(11)
Do middle-class students perceive poor women and poor men differently? Catherine Cozzarelli; Michael J. Tagler; Anna V. Wilkinson. Author's Abstract: COPYRIGHT 2002 Plenum Publishing Corporation In this study, we examined attitudes toward poor women, stereotypes about them, attributions for their poverty, and whether these thoughts and feelings differ from those about poor men. In our Midwestern college students sample (n = 206), attitudes toward poor women were significantly more positive than attitudes toward poor men. In addition, stereotypes of poor women were both more positive and more consistent with gender stereotypes than were those of poor men. Participants endorsed internal attributions for the poverty of both women and men more strongly than external or cultural attributions. However, the content of these attributions was different for the two target groups. Poor women were held responsible for nontraditional familial and reproductive patterns, whereas poor men were held responsible for lack of initiative and self-improvement. For poor men, all types of attributions included references to ability or willingness to work. The three types of attributions were more conceptually distinct for p oor women. KEY WORDS: poverty; gender; attitudes. Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2002 Plenum Publishing Corporation
Despite the fact that the United States is the wealthiest nation in the world, about 12% of its citizens (or 32.3 million people) live below the official poverty line (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). While surrounded by real-life and media examples of the high standard of living and conspicuous consumption of wealthier Americans, these individuals inhabit a world all too often characterized by substandard housing, violence, illegal drugs, poor schools, lack of health insurance and day care, and compromised mental and physical health (e.g., Adler & Coriell, 1997; Lott & Bullock, 2001; Rice, 2001). Although poverty is a pressing social issue overall, it is a particularly important one for those who are concerned with the health and status of American women. Women, particularly single parents, comprise a large (about 28%) and growing percentage of the poor. While attempting to support themselves and their children, these women typically have access to only the lowest paying jobs, which are often part-time and typical ly do not offer benefits such as health insurance, day care, or flex time (Lott & Bullock, 2001; Scarbrough, 2001).
In part, efforts to alleviate poverty in women and men will depend on an understanding of the attitudes that Americans hold toward the poor. The aim of the current research was to contribute to this effort by expanding on the results of an earlier study we conducted on this topic (Cozzarelli, Wilkinson, & Tagler, 2001). In particular, our goals were to examine in detail Americans' attitudes toward poor women, stereotypes about them, and attributions for women's poverty, and whether these thoughts and feelings are different from those about poor men. An articulation of these issues is clearly important because these attitudes and beliefs are likely to have consequences for poor women and men, especially in terms of middle-class Americans' voting behavior, willingness to help alleviate or end poverty, and beliefs about welfare and the efficacy of welfare reform. Indeed, the few studies of the consequences of attitudes toward poverty indicate that hypothetical welfare allocations are impacted by such attitudes ( e.g., Bullock, 1995; Groskind, 1991; Iyengar, 1990; Zucker & Weiner, 1993).
Although sociologists, social workers, and economists historically have investigated many facets of poverty, such as the impact of increasing the minimum wage (e.g., Card & Krueger, 1995; Mishel, Bernstein, & Schmitt, 2000), the role of area of residence and concentration of poverty on various outcomes (e.g., Coulton, Korbin, & Su, 1999; Sampson, Morenoff, & Earls 1999), and the impact of welfare reform on the lives of those affected (e.g., Meyer & Cancian, 2000), psychologists have conducted surprisingly little research in this area. Research conducted by psychologists, in collaboration with scholars from other disciplines, has focused on two distinct areas: attitudes, stereotypes, and attributions for poverty (see Bullock, 1995; Cozzarelli et al., 2001, for reviews), and the impact of experiences that stem from poverty on well-being and development (e.g., Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, & Aber, 1997; Caughy, Brodsky, O'Campo, & Aronson, 2001). Much of the early research in the first area confounded attitudes toward th e poor and attributions for poverty or used unreliable measures (e.g., MacDonald 1971, 1972; Price, Desmond, Snyder, & Kimmel, 1988). In a recent study that attempted to address these methodological issues, Cozzarelli et al. (2001) found that in a sample of Midwestern college students, affective evaluations of the poor (which we will hereafter refer to as attitudes) were, on average, moderately positive (M = 3.53 on a 5-point scale). However, the adjectives that participants endorsed as being most descriptive of poor people were predominantly negative and included beliefs that the poor are uneducated, unmotivated or lazy, or in some way socially irresponsible (e.g., alcoholic, drug abuser). In addition, the participants were significantly more likely to endorse all of the negative traits on the list of adjectives as being more characteristic of the poor than of the middle class and to endorse all of the positive traits, with the exception of "humble," as more characteristic of the middle class.
The majority of the previous psychological research on poverty has focused on the kinds of attributions that people make in order to explain why some individuals are poor (e.g., Feagin, 1972; Smith & Stone, 1989; Zucker & Weiner, 1993). Although technically not a component of attitudes (attributions go beyond the favorable/unfavorable evaluation of an entity that describes an attitude in that they consist of explicit causal beliefs), attributions for poverty are likely to be highly related to attitudes toward poverty. Overall, the majority of the researchers who have examined attributions find that Americans believe that there are multiple determinants of poverty but that individualistic or "internal" causes (e.g., lack of effort, laziness, low intelligence, drug user) tend to be seen as more important than societal or "external" ones (e.g., being a victim of discrimination, earning low wages, being forced to attend bad schools; see Feagin, 1975; Kluegel & Smith, 1986; Singh, 1989; Smith & Stone, 1989). In th eir recent study, Cozzarelli et al. (2001) confirmed the existence of strong internal and external attributions for poverty, but their data suggested that Americans also make "cultural attributions," which reflect the perception that poor people are trapped in a subculture of poverty or caught in negative circumstances over which they have little control (e.g., being born into poverty, having to attend bad schools, the poor get low-paying jobs).
The Current Research
In the Cozzarelli et al. (2001) study and the majority of other studies on poverty, researchers asked respondents what they think about "poor people" or "the poor." A few studies have provided some information about Americans' reactions to poor women, usually those who are receiving welfare (see Bullock, 1995). However, as far as we are aware, there has not been any systematic examination of the differences or similarities in the attitudes toward and stereotypes about poor men and poor women or in the attributions Americans make for poverty among these two groups of individuals.
Given the paucity of prior research in this area, we viewed our study as primarily exploratory. However, we did have some tentative hypotheses. First, we hypothesized that a central feature of the stereotypes about poor men would focus on their lack of agency (e.g., lazy, unmotivated), whereas the stereotypes of poor women would focus on violations of traditional "family values" or motherhood roles (e.g., too many children, promiscuous). As is well known, gender stereotypes in our society tend to focus on agency in men and expressiveness/nurturance in women (Bergen & Williams, 1991; Broverman, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson, & Rosenkrantz, 1972; DeLisi & Soundranayagam, 1990). We suspected that the stereotypes of poor women and poor men would reflect the fact that both of these groups are in some way seen as violating traditional gender stereotypes. Although this prediction dovetails with common perceptions that poor men are willfully unemployed and poor women (sometimes purposefully) bear multiple children out o f wedlock (Bullock, 1995; Bullock, Wyche, & Williams, 2001; Price et al., 1988), it is not at all clear whether Americans' stereotypes of poor men and poor women also differ in terms of general character traits (e.g., nice, intelligent, happy, abusive). To examine this issue, we asked our participants to rate poor women and men on the list of 38 adjectives developed by Cozzarelli et al. (2001).
Gender stereotypes may also inform Americans' attributions for poverty among women and men. Specifically, on the basis of our prior research, we hypothesized that participants would be more likely to make internal than external/cultural attributions for the poverty of both women and men. However, we also expected that the content of these attributions might differ. Specifically, internal attributions for poverty in men might focus on a lack of initiative/motivation, whereas in women, these attributions might center on the perceived lack of traditional familial/reproductive patterns. To examine these issues, we factor-analyzed attributions for women's and men's poverty separately and examined both the content and frequency of endorsement of the various attributions that were made.
We also assessed our participants' overall attitudes toward poor women and poor men. Given that no prior research exists on this point, we offer no hypotheses concerning possible differences in attitudes toward these two groups.
METHOD
Participants
Two hundred six undergraduates from a large, Midwestern university (75 men and 131 women) volunteered to participate in this study in order to fulfill a psychology course requirement. The mean age of participants was 19.14 years (SD = 1.81). Most participants (90.3%) identified themselves as European American; 1.9% identified themselves as African American, 3.4% as Asian American, 2.9% as Hispanic, and 1.5% as members of another ethnic group. On average, our respondents considered themselves to be political moderates (M = 5.02, SD 1.38, on an 8-point scale that ranged from very liberal to very conservative). The majority of participants (83.2%) estimated their household's yearly income while they were growing up to be above $35,000/year, which the U.S. Census Bureau defines as the lowest income necessary to be considered middle class. In addition, when asked whether their families were poor when they were growing up, 92.2% answered "no."
Materials
Attitudes Toward the Poor
We measured overall attitudes toward the poor with a modified version of the scale developed by Cozzarelli et al. (2001). This reliable measure ([alpha] = .87, Cozzarelli et al., 2001) has 12 items, 6 of which are phrased in a positive direction (e.g., "My feelings toward poor people are generally positive," "I hold poor people in high regard," "I generally like poor people") and 6 of which are phrased in a negative direction (e.g., "I don't like poor people very much," "Poor people make me feel uncomfortable," "I have negative feelings toward poor people"). In this study, half of the participants received a version of this scale in which all items referred to "poor women" instead of "poor people," and the other half received a version that referred to "poor men." Participants rated the extent to which they agreed with each item on a scale that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). No other modifications were made to the Cozzarelli et al. scale.
Stereotypes About the Poor
To assess participants' stereotypes about the poor, we asked them to complete a modified version of the stereotype measure created by Cozzarelli et al. (2001). On this measure, participants are asked to indicate on a scale that ranged from 1 (not at all characteristic of poor people) to 5 (extremely characteristic of poor people) the extent to which they agree that each of 38 characteristics describes poor people. The attribute list contains both positive (e.g., "capable," "proud," "family-oriented," "strong," "moral," "healthy") and negative (e.g., "weak," "drug-abusing," "criminal," "lazy," "mentally ill," "dirty," "promiscuous") adjectives. Again, half of the participants received a version of this scale that was rewritten to refer to poor women, and the other half received a version that referred to poor men.
Attributions for Poverty
To assess attributions for poverty, our participants completed a modified version of the Attributions for Poverty Scale developed by Cozzarelli et al. (2001), which was altered to refer to attributions for poverty among either women or men. Participants were asked to rate the importance of each of 22 factors as causes of poverty on a scale that ranged from 1 (not at all important as a cause of poverty) to 5 (extremely important as a cause of poverty). Cozzarelli et al. reported that their scale was composed of three subscales reflecting (a) internal attributions (e.g., "lack of effort or laziness," "alcohol and drug abuse," "lack of thrift and proper money management," [alpha] = .75), (b) external attributions (e.g., "prejudice and discrimination in promotion and wages," "failure of industry to provide enough jobs," "a federal government that is insensitive to the plight of the poor," [alpha] = .79), and (c) cultural attributions (e.g., "the breakdown of the nuclear family," "being born into poverty," "having to attend bad schools," [alpha] = .65). Because we were interested in the extent to which attributions for poverty in women and men were similar or dissimilar, in this study, we re-analyzed the factors in the two gender-specific versions of this scale.
Procedure
Participants were asked to complete a packet of questionnaires that contained measures (in counterbalanced order) of sociodemographic variables (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity, political affiliation), attitudes toward the poor, stereotypes about the poor, and attributions for poverty. Half of the participants completed questionnaires that focused on poor women, and the other half completed questionnaires that focused on poor men. The gender of the target group the participant was asked to consider was consistent across all of the questionnaires that he/she completed (i.e., the gender of the target group was a between-participants variable). Completion of the packets took place in a standard university classroom.
RESULTS
Attitudes Toward Poor Women and Men
Responses to the negative attitude items were recoded, and responses to all scale items were then averaged to create measures of attitudes toward poor women (coefficient [alpha] = .90) and poor men ([alpha] = .91). Scores could range from 1 to 5. Higher scores on these measures indicate a more positive attitude. On average, in this sample, attitudes toward both poor women (M = 3.54, SD = 0.69) and poor men (M = 3.16, SD = 0.71) were moderately positive. We conducted a one-way ANCOVA on attitudes toward the poor with gender of the poor person as the independent variable in order to compare attitudes toward poor women and poor men. In this analysis we covaried participant gender to control for the possibility that male and female participants might have different attitudes toward poor men and poor women. (4) Participants had more positive attitudes toward poor women than toward poor men, F(1, 201) = 14.90, p < 001 [[eta].sup.2] = .07.
Stereotypes About Poor Women and Men
We hypothesized that the stereotypes about both poor women and poor men would reflect violations of traditional gender stereotypes. To investigate this hypothesis, we conducted a MANCOVA on the 38 stereotype items with gender of the target group as the independent variable and participant gender covaried out of the analysis. (5) This analysis yielded a significant and large multivariate effect for gender of the target group, F(38, 151) = 2.56, p < .001 [[eta].sup.2] = .39 (see Table I for means on all of the stereotype items). Examination of the significant univariate effects revealed a consistent pattern that suggests that poor women were stereotyped in a more positive manner than were poor men. Specifically, poor women were viewed as more hardworking, proud, family-oriented, friendly, responsible, loving, nice, and healthy than were poor men. Poor men were seen as more dirty, criminal, and alcoholic than were poor women. However, poor women were more likely to be characterized as having too many children.
Attributions for Poverty in Women and Men
We hypothesized that internal attributions for poverty in men would focus on a lack of initiative/motivation, whereas for women poverty attributions would center on a lack of traditional familial/reproductive patterns. To examine these attributions for women's and men's poverty, we conducted separate factor analyses on the two sets of attribution items. Because prior research with this attribution scale has identified three main types of attributions for the causes of poverty, in both analyses, we subjected our attribution items to a principal components factor analysis with oblique rotation in which we specified that three factors should be extracted. Results of these analyses are presented in Tables II and III. We dropped all items with factor loadings below .40. (The dropped items are not included in the tables.)
A factor that clearly represented internal attributions for poverty emerged from the factor analyses for both poor women and poor men. It is interesting that the items that loaded on this factor for poor men were identical to those that represented internal attributions for the poverty of "people" in the Cozzarelli et al. (2001) study. Internal attributions for poverty in men seemed to reflect mainly a lack of initiative/motivation and an inability to manage money. The pattern that emerged for poor women was similar in many respects. However, internal attributions for women's poverty did not include problems with money management, but did include having too many children and the breakdown of the nuclear family. Given that "loose morals" also loaded on this factor, internal attributions for women's poverty reflected the fact that participants held poor women (but not poor men) responsible for the lack of a traditional family structure.
Both factor analyses also yielded a factor that reflected standard external attributions. The content of these attributions for women's and men's poverty was strikingly similar and focused on the fact that prejudice exists in hiring and in promotion and that industry and government contribute to the lack of economic opportunities for the poor. The only difference between the two external attribution factors was that women, but not men, were said to be "taken advantage of by the rich."
The third factor yielded the largest differences in the attributions that were made for women's and men's poverty. The attributions that were made for women's poverty in this study were similar to those obtained by Cozzarelli et al. (2001) and seemed to reflect the belief that women were born into a culture of poverty or disadvantaged in ways beyond their control (e.g., "having to attend bad schools," "born into poverty," "born with a low IQ"). This factor was also composed of these "culture of poverty" items for men. In addition, however, several items loaded on this factor that seemed to reflect the belief that factors beyond their control often kept poor men from working or making money (e.g., "sick," "lack of contacts for finding jobs," "laid off").
We hypothesized that participants would be more likely to make internal than external/cultural attributions for the poverty of both women and men. To test this hypothesis, items within each of the six factors that were obtained as a result of the two factor analyses were averaged and used to create subscales that we labeled External Attributions, Internal Attributions, and Cultural Attributions. Average scores on all subscales could range from 1 to 5. Because the content of the identically named attribution scales differed for poor women and poor men, we could not statistically compare mean scores on the various attribution scales across target gender. However, we were able to compare mean scores on the three attribution types within target gender. A series of dependent t- tests revealed that participants were more likely to make internal than external attributions for the poverty of both women, t(99) = 5.50, p < .001, [[eta].sup.2] = .23, and men, t(100) = 6.49, p < .001 [[eta].sup.2] = .30. Similarly, parti cipants were also more likely to make internal than cultural attributions for the poverty of both women, t(98) 5.13, p < = .21, and men, t(100) = 4.91, p < .001, [[eta].sup.2] = .19. However, although participants were only marginally more likely to make cultural than external attributions for the poverty of women, t(101) = 1.68, p < .10, [[eta].sup.2] = .03, they were significantly more likely to make cultural than external attributions for the poverty of men, t(100) = 3.94, p < .001, [[eta].sup.2] = .13. Overall, participants were most likely to make internal attributions and least likely to make external attributions for the poverty of both women and men.
Examination of correlations among the attribution scales within each target gender revealed that making more internal attributions was related to making less external attributions for the poverty of both women, r(96) = -.32, p < .01, and men, r(98) = -.26, p < .01. Internal attributions for both poor women and poor men were unrelated to cultural attributions, r(98) = .00, p > .10, and r(96) = .00, p > .10, respectively. Finally, more external attributions for targets of both genders were related to increased cultural attributions for women, r(98) = .33, p < .01, and for men, r(96) = .23, p < .05.
DISCUSSION
Stereotypes and Attitudes
Overall, our results suggest that stereotypes of poor women are more positive than those of poor men. Poor women were seen as more hardworking, proud, family-oriented, friendly, loving, nice, healthy, and responsible than poor men who were characterized as dirtier and more likely to be criminal or alcoholic. The one notable exception to this relatively more positive pattern was that poor women were more likely to be characterized as having too many children. This pattern of results for poor women is congruent with the content of overarching gender stereotypes in the United States. That is, women are typically characterized by adjectives that reflect warmth or expressiveness (e.g., friendly, nice) and nurturance (e.g., loving, family-oriented; see Bergen & Williams, 1991; Broverman et al., 1972; DeLisi & Soundranayagam, 1990). Indeed, "having too many children" can be viewed as a behavior that does not so much contradict gender stereotypes as enact them in a nontraditional or socially disapproved of manner. Th us, these results suggest that to some extent, poor women are not seen as violating traditional gender stereotypes (see also Landrine, 1985).
It is interesting to speculate about why women are seen as relatively likely to have too many children, when clearly, having children is a joint activity of men and women. One possibility is that this reflects the fact that children who live in single parent homes are much more likely to be living with women. According to the Census Bureau, 22% of children live with their mother only, whereas 4% live with their father only (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). Another possible explanation relies on the strong stereotype that poor women and their children are likely to be relying on public assistance. In fact, research suggests that Americans believe that poor women sometimes have additional children expressly to collect increased welfare checks (Bullock, 1995; Task Force on Women, Poverty, and Public Assistance by the Division of the Psychology of Women, 1997). Statistics document however that on average, the families of welfare recipients are no larger than the families of nonrecipients (Staff of House Committee of Wa ys and Means, 1996). Finally, research suggests that women are expected to assume the "gatekeeper" role in sexual interactions, or to act in such a way as to restrain the "more insistent" sexual urges of men (Lott, 1994). Thus, having a child when one is poor or perhaps unwed may suggest to some a lack of proper control over a woman's sexuality.
The findings that stereotypes of and attitudes toward poor women seem to be more positive than those that refer to poor men could easily lead to some misperceptions, however. Specifically, past research (e.g., Cozzarelli et al., 2001) has clearly suggested that stereotypes of poor people are much more negative than stereotypes of the middle class. Thus, although poor women may be seen in a more positive light than are poor men, it is quite likely that stereotypes of poor women are more negative than those of middleclass people. This makes a strong case for the fact that stereotypes of the poor and attitudes toward them must be judged against stereotypes/attitudes that reference other, less stigmatized groups (such as the middle class) in order to gain proper perspective on their valence and meaning (see also Landrine, 1985).
Attributions
Overall, internal attributions for poverty in women and men were more strongly endorsed than either external or cultural attributions. This result is consistent with prior research (Cozzarelli et al., 2001; Kluegal & Smith, 1986; Smith & Stone, 1989) and likely reflects Americans' cultural belief in personal control. The greater endorsement of internal over other kinds of attributions also may reflect the media's depiction of the poor (Bullock, Wyche, et al., 2001; Iyengar, 1990). Media coverage of the poor typically frames poverty in one of two distinct ways. Either stories focus on the lives and personal experiences of the poor or social problems associated with poverty ("episodic" portrayals), or they focus on trends and public assistance programs presented in an impersonal factual style ("thematic" presentation). Iyengar (1990) reported that media coverage of the poor tends to be episodic rather than thematic and that internal attributions for poverty were higher among viewers who were exposed to episodic -type media coverage. In contrast, external or structural attributions were higher among viewers who were exposed to more thematic coverage. By focusing on the individual qualities of the poor, the media fail to contextualize poverty and make viewers aware of the societal factors that contribute to the perpetuation of inequality.
Caveats
Second, as was the case in the Cozzarelli et al. (2001) study, some of the internal reliability coefficients for the attribution scales were modest. This was especially so for the cultural attribution scales. It is interesting that, in addition to internal and external attributions, earlier researchers in this area obtained a third attribution factor that they typically referred to as "fatalistic attributions" or those that ascribe poverty to factors beyond the control of the poor person (e.g., bad luck, born inferior, lack of the talent and ability to succeed). Alphas on these scales have historically been low as well (e.g., Feagin, 1972; Smith & Stone, 1989). Perhaps this may simply be due to the fact that cultural/fatalistic attributions are not as conceptually pure as internal or external attributions. For example, in a recent study (Bullock, Williams, & Limbert, 2001) fatalistic and cultural attributions were sometimes found in combination with more internal or structural attributions. Similar results we re found in the current study, particularly with regard to the cultural attribution factor for poverty in men, which did not have as clear a factor structure as would be ideal. Several of the items that loaded on this factor also had moderate loadings on one of the other two factors.
Implications
In this study, particularly in regard to poor people in general, our participants appeared to hold a mix of views, which suggests, perhaps, that overall feelings and beliefs about the poor are ambivalent or somewhat conflicted. Given this fact, it is interesting to speculate about whether attitudes, stereotypes, or attributions will be the best predictor of people's behaviors toward the poor and toward policy issues that impact the poor. One possibility is that attributions for poverty may be most strongly related to Americans responses to policy issues concerning the poor. Indeed, research on attributions for poverty has consistently supported the presence of a link between these attributions and reactions to welfare. For example, it has been found that endorsement of individualistic attributions for poverty is associated with more negative attitudes toward welfare, whereas endorsement of external or societal causes is positively associated with support for welfare (Feagin, 1972; Kluegel & Smith, 1986), more progressive welfare policies (e.g., Bullock, Williams, et al., 2001), and social service spending (Iyengar, 1989). In a structural equation analysis, Zucker and Weiner (1993) demonstrated that such attributions exert both a direct and an indirect effects (mediated through emotion) on judgments about welfare deservingness. This suggests the possibility that attributions will be an important predictor of attitudes toward the poor but that attributions will ultimately have a more powerful impact on policy-relevant judgments and behaviors.
It is also important to consider the possibility that our participants' attributions for poverty as well as their attitudes toward poor women and men may be influenced by current policy. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act underscored the role of personal responsibility in improving one's economic conditions and getting out of poverty. Our participants are young and as such may have been more strongly influenced by these policies and their implications than older cohorts.
Our data also suggest that attitudes toward particular issues relevant to helping the poor may be at least partially determined by the gender of the poor persons who are seen as most impacted by the issue in question. For example, given their somewhat more positive view of poor women than that of poor men, middle-class Americans may be more inclined to support policies that seem to be directed toward women and children particularly (e.g., support for childcare, food stamp programs). In fact, policymakers may wish to educate the public about specific policies that would help poor women and their children to capitalize on the more positive aspects of people's feelings toward this group. More generally, policymakers who wish to help both poor men and poor women may have greater success if they attempt to frame their attempts to ameliorate poverty in specific ways. For example, it seems likely that voters would be more sympathetic to policies that seek to help poor women attain "equal opportunities" (e.g., by pro viding childcare so that they are able to work or go to school) than to policies that provide direct monetary benefits that are tied to increases in family size. Similarly, policies that seek to help poor men get jobs (e.g., job training, education) may be seen as viable ways to deal with the perceived need for poor men to be employed without resorting to "handouts."
CONCLUSIONS
The widespread acceptance of negative stereotypic images of the poor, negative attitudes toward the poor, and belief in personal responsibility for poverty serve as major roadblocks for efforts to reduce poverty. Given the manner in which the American political system functions, it can be argued that it is ultimately the viewpoints of those who hold the most power in this country (i.e., the wealthy) that are crucial in determining the success of such efforts. However, we argue that the views of the middle class are also very influential in that politicians will inevitably be persuaded by middle-class voting patterns. Unfortunately, our data and those of others suggest that the views of the middle class about the poor are fairly negative. This is problematic for the poor because he middle class likely serves as a social and political "protective buffer" for the few who hold the wealth and power) in this country. In this way, the middle class plays a large role in maintaining the status quo of inequality. The l ikelihood of political and social change is limited by the degree to which the middle class continues to endorse ideological beliefs that include a strong emphasis on capitalism, beliefs in a just world, individualism, and the Protestant work ethic. such beliefs are comforting because they foster the illusion that the United States is an egalitarian society. However, there are some indicators that the views of middle-class Americans may be ready to change. Low voter turn out in recent elections suggests that there s a growing sense of dissatisfaction with the political system as it currently operates. Furthermore, it s becoming increasingly hard for Americans to deny the growing inequality in the distribution of wealth in this society, one reflection of which is the perception of a "shrinking middle class." Despite this awareness, however, Americans' attitudes and beliefs about the poor remain fairly negative. Without the support of the middle class, the prospect for meaningful and progressive social change i s dim.
(4.) Because we did not expect participant gender to have a major impact on ratings of poor women and men and in order to avoid needlessly complicating our results, we chose to covary participant gender in analyses throughout the paper rather than adding it as an additional independent variable. As we expected, in general, participants' gender had small or nonsignificant effects on their responses. One exception to the general lack of effects for participant gender concerned attitudes toward poor women and men. A 2 (respondent gender) x 2 (target gender) ANOVA on attitudes toward the poor revealed a significant interaction, F(1, 200) = 8.82, p < .01. Probes of this interaction revealed that male participants did not differ in their attitudes toward poor women (M = 3.32, n = 36) and men (M = 3.32, n = 39), but that female participants had more positive attitudes toward poor women (M 3.65, n = 66) than they had toward poor men (M = 3.06, n = 63), F(1, 128) = 25.38, p < .001.
(5.) We also ran a second version of MANCOVA on the stereotype items with participant gender added as an independent variable instead of as a covariate. The main effect for gender in this analysis was not significant, nor was the target gender x participant gender interaction (although a handful of the univariate interactions were significant).
REFERENCES
Adler, N. E,, & Coriell, M. (1997). Socioeconomic status and women's health. In S. J. Gallant, G. P. Keita, & R. Royak-Schaler (Eds.), Healthcare for women: Psychological, social and behavioral influences (pp. 11-23). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bergen, D. J., & Williams, I. E. (1991). Sex stereotypes in the United States revisited: 1972-1988. Sex Roles, 24, 413-424.
Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan G. J., & Aber, L. (1997). Neighborhood poverty: Context and consequences for children. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., & Rosenkrantz, P. S. (1972). Sex role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 59-78.
Bullock, H. E. (1995). Class acts: Middle-class responses to the poor. In B. Lott & D. Maluso (Eds.), Social psychology of interpersonal discrimination (pp. 118-159). New York: Guilford Press.
Bullock, H. E., Williams, W. R., & Limbert, W. M. (2001, August). Attributions, beliefs about inequality, and support for progressive welfare policies. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco.
Bullock, H. E., Wyche, K. F., & Williams, W. R. (2001). Media images of the poor. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 229-246.
Card, D., & Krueger, A. (1995). Myth and measurement: The new economics of the minimum wage. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
Caughy, M. 0., Brodsky, A. E., O'Campo, P. J., & Aronson, R. (2001). Perceptions of parenting: Individual differences and the effect of community. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 679-699.
Coulton, C. J., Korbin, J. E., & Su, M. (1999). Neighborhoods and child maltreatment: A multi-level study. Child Abuse and Neglect, 23, 1019-1040.
Cozzarelli, C., Wilkinson, A. V., & Tagler, M. J. (2001). Attitudes toward the poor and attributions for poverty. Journal of Social issues, 57, 207-228.
DeLisi, R., & Soundranayagam, L. (1990). The conceptual structure of sex role stereotypes in college students. Sex Roles, 23, 593-611.
Feagin, J. R. (1972, November). Poverty: We still believe that God helps them who help themselves. Psychology Today, 6, pp. 101-110, 129.
Feagin, J. R. (1975). Subordinating the poor: Welfare and American belief. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Groskind, F (1991). Public reaction to poor families: Characteristics that influence attitudes towards assistance. Social Work, 36, 446-453.
Hunt, M. O. (1996). The individual, society, or both? A comparison of Black, Latino, and White beliefs about the causes of poverty. Social Forces, 75, 293-322.
Iyengar, S. (1990). Framing responsibility for political issues: The case of poverty. Political Behavior, 12, 19-40.
Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, E. R. (1986). Beliefs about inequelity: Americans' views of what is and what ought to be. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Landrine, H. (1985). Race x class stereotypes of women. Sex Roles, 13, 65-75.
Lott, B. (1994). Women 's lives: Themes and variations in gender learning. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Lott, B., & Bullock, H. E. (2001). Who are the poor? Journal of Social Issues, 57, 189-206.
MacDonald, A. P. (1971). Correlates of the ethics of personal conscience and the ethics of social responsibility. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34, 443.
MacDonald, A. P. (1972). More on the Protestant ethic. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39, 116-122.
Meyer, D., & Cancian, M. (2000). Ten years later: Economic wellbeing among those who left welfare. Journal of Applied Social Sciences, 25(1), 13-30.
Mishel, L., Bernstein, J., & Schmitt, J. (2000). The State of Working America: 1998-99. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Price, J. H., Desmond, S. M., Snyder, F. F., & Kimmel, S. R. (1988). Perceptions of family practice residents regarding health care and poor patients. Journal of Family Practice, 27, 615-621.
Rice, J. K. (2001). Poverty, welfare, and patriarchy: How macro-level changes in social policy can help low-income women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 355-374.
Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J., & Earls, F (1999). Beyond social capital: Spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children. American Sociological Review, 64, 633-666.
Scarbrough, J. W. (2001). Welfare mothers' reflections on personal responsibility. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 261-276.
Singh, A. K. (1989). Attribution research on poverty: A review. Psychologia, 32, 143-148.
Smith, P. A., & Midlarsky, E. (1985). Empirically derived conceptions of femaleness and maleness: A current view. Sex Roles, 12, 313-328.
Smith, B., & Stone, L. H. (1989). Rags, riches, and bootstraps: Beliefs about the causes of wealth and poverty. Sociological Quarterly, 30, 93-107.
Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means. (1996, November, 19). Overview of entitlement programs: 1996 green book. (WMCP 104-14). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Task Force on Women, Poverty, and Public Assistance by the Division of the Psychology of Women. (1997). Implementing welfare policy to insure long-term independence and well-being. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Poverty in the United States: 1999 (Current Population Reports Series P60-209). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2001). Living arrangements of children under 18 years old: 1960 to present. Retrieved June 29, 2001, from www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabCH-1.txt
Zucker, G. S., & Weiner, B. (1993). Conservatism and perceptions of poverty: An attributional analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 925-943.
Catherine Cozzarelli, (1) Michael J. Tagler, (1, 3) and Anna V. Wilkinson (2)
(1.) Department of Psychology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas.
(2.) Texas Program for Society and Health & Rice University, Houston, TX.
(3.) To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Psychology, 492 Bluemont Hall, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506; e-mail: tagler@ksu.edu. | |||
The pattern of results we obtained for poor men paints a
portrait that is quite different from the one we obtained for poor
women. Traditional gender stereotypes for men emphasize competence,
potency/strength, and work-mindedness (e.g., Broverman et al., 1972;
DeLisi & Soundranayagam, 1990; Smith & Midlarsky, 1985). In
the few cases where we obtained gender differences on adjectives
that tap into these dimensions (e.g., hardworking, responsible),
poor women were more likely to be described in ways that match this
"masculine" stereotype. In no case were poor men rated as more
likely than poor women to possess a positive characteristic that is
ordinarily part of the masculine gender stereotype. These results
suggest that poor men are seen as violating traditional gender
stereotypes in a way that poor women are not. In addition, on
adjectives unrelated to traditional gender stereotypes, poor men
were more likely than poor women to be characterized in some
extremely negative ways (e.g., dirty, alcoholic, criminal ). In
fact, examination of Table I reveals that all of the adjectives that
were rated as being more than moderately descriptive of poor men
(i.e., an average score greater than 3.0) were negative (lazy,
embarrassed, dirty, uneducated, immoral, angry, alcoholic,
depressed, unmotivated). This set of results is also consistent with
the fact that our respondents had more negative attitudes toward
poor men than they did toward poor women, although overall their
attitudes toward both poor men and women were moderately positive.
.jpg)
.jpg)
Copyright and Terms of
Use