Shifting attributions for poverty motivates opposition to inequality and enhances egalitarianism

Piff, Paul K.; Wiwad, Dylan; Robinson, Angela R.; Aknin, Lara B.; Mercier, Brett; Shariff, Azim

doi:10.1038/s41562-020-0835-8

Cited by 103 publications

(119 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

104

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, within-person increases in situational attributions for poverty and opposition to inequality in turn predicted a higher willingness to help the poor. In line with previous research ( Piff & Wiwad et al, 2020 ), we also found that changes in attributions for poverty predicted increased opposition to inequality and support for government intervention.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Research demonstrates that attributions for poverty can change as a function of structural, environmental, and situational factors. For instance, interventions that make the situational challenges of living in poverty more salient, such as long-term contact with less financially well-off individuals or a short poverty simulation, can shift explanations for poverty and, in turn, support for efforts to alleviate it ( Mo & Conn, 2018 ; Piff & Wiwad et al, 2020 ). Given past work indicating that attributions for poverty are malleable, we posit that the pandemic may have made the plight of the poor and situational causes of poverty and inequality in the United States more salient, leading (at least some) people to recognize that poverty is not a uniquely dispositional phenomenon.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Recognizing the Impact of COVID-19 on the Poor Alters Attitudes Towards Poverty and Inequality

Wiwad

Mercier

Piff

et al. 2021

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The novel Coronavirus that spread around the world in early 2020 triggered a global pandemic and economic downturn that affected nearly everyone. Yet the crisis had a disproportionate impact on the poor and revealed how easily working-class individuals' financial security can be destabilised by factors beyond personal control. In a pre-registered longitudinal study of Americans ( N = 233) spanning April 2019 to May 2020, we tested whether the pandemic altered beliefs about the extent to which poverty is caused by external forces and internal dispositions and support for economic inequality. Over this timespan, participants revealed a shift in their attributions for poverty, reporting that poverty is more strongly impacted by external-situational causes and less by internal-dispositional causes. However, we did not detect an overall mean-level change in opposition to inequality or support for government intervention. Instead, only for those who most strongly recognized the negative impact of COVID-19 did changes in poverty attributions translate to decreased support for inequality, and increased support for government intervention to help the poor.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Recognizing the Impact of COVID-19 on the Poor Alters Attitudes Towards Poverty and Inequality

Wiwad

Mercier

Piff

et al. 2021

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, effort should be put in promoting a humanized perception of those who have low SES. For instance, recent research highlights that short interventions that made people think about daily difficulties of low-SES people increase the support for income redistribution in the long run (Piff et al, 2020). Similar procedures could be applied to overcome dehumanization and increase support for social expenditure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dehumanization of Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Groups Decreases Support for Welfare Policies via Perceived Wastefulness

Sainz¹,

Loughnan²,

Martínez³

et al. 2020

rips

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Low-socioeconomic status (SES) groups are sometimes depicted as money wasters who live on welfare. Previous research has also found that low-SES groups are also animalized. We expand previous findings (Sainz et al., 2019) by examining the consequences that animalization has on support for social welfare policies (e.g., unemployment, housing) and governmental control of low-SES groups' spending. We explored the mediating role of perceived wastefulness (i.e., the perception that low-SES people lack the ability to properly administer their budget) in the relationships between animalization and support for welfare policies and governmental control measures. In three correlation studies, 1a to 1c, we examined the relationships between these variables in three countries: The United Kingdom, the United States, and Spain. From our results, animalizing low-SES groups seem to negatively predict support for public policies and positively predict support for governmental control via the perception that low-SES people are unable to manage their finances. Finally, in two experimental studies, 2a and 2b, we directly manipulated the humanness of a low-SES group (animalized vs. humanized) and measured its effects on perceptions of the group's wastefulness, support for social welfare policies, and support for governmental control over the group's expenses. Results indicated that animalizing low-SES groups reduced support for social welfare by activating the impression that low-SES people are poor financial managers (Study 2a), but also that animalizing low-SES groups increased support for governmental control via perceived wastefulness (Studies 2a-b). We discuss the role of animalization in denying aid to those in need.

show abstract

“…In contrast, because inequality of opportunity describes access to rather than ownership of resources, it may be harder to directly observe (e.g., Brunori, 2016). Thus, its perception may rely more on popular narratives (e.g., in the media) of what leads some people to succeed and others to fail (Kim, 2019), or ideological differences of the role of structural forces in success (Piff, Wiwad, et al 2020). Consequently, and consistent with much prior theory (e.g., Alesina & LaFerrara, 2005;Benabou & Ok, 2001;Kluegel & Smith, 1986;Lane, 1959), specificity of whether perceptions of opportunity or outcomes is studied is crucial.…”

Section: What Kind Of Inequality?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Making the reference group more explicit-e.g., comparing this relationship among White and Black Americans-may highlight the manifold historical, environmental, and institutional forces that have promoted upward mobility among White Americans to a greater extent than upward mobility among Black Americans. Indeed, such a shift in reference groups may also have implications for the attributions people make about why some people move up the income distribution (e.g., Piff, Wiwad, et al, 2020; see also Georgeac & Rattan, 2019) or accrue large amounts of wealth (e.g., Kraus et al, 2019).…”

Section: What Reference Groups?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Inequality in Researchers’ Minds: Four Guiding Questions for Studying Subjective Perceptions of Economic Inequality

Jachimowicz¹,

Davidai²,

Goya‐Tocchetto³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The extent of inequality that people perceive in the world is often a stronger predictor of individual and societal outcomes than the level of inequality that actually exists. It is therefore imperative for researchers to theoretically conceptualize and empirically operationalize perceived inequality in a coherent and consistent manner. However, the lack of consensus on what constitutes perceived inequality can lead researchers to use the same words to study different phenomena. What seem like minor methodological decisions made in the study of inequality can substantially influence the outcomes and conclusions that researchers dra from their work. In this review, we draw on a wide range of interdisciplinary work, including from social and cognitive psychology, economics, political science, and sociology, to unpack the assumptions researchers often make. We develop the four questions framework which illustrates the important theoretical and empirical decisions researchers are recommended to address when studying perceived inequality: (1) What kind of inequality? (2) What level of analysis? (3) What part of the distribution? and (4) What comparison group? We posit that this framework provides the conceptual clarity necessary for understanding when, how, and why perceptions of inequality affect individuals and societies.

show abstract

Shifting attributions for poverty motivates opposition to inequality and enhances egalitarianism

Cited by 103 publications

References 47 publications

Recognizing the Impact of COVID-19 on the Poor Alters Attitudes Towards Poverty and Inequality

Recognizing the Impact of COVID-19 on the Poor Alters Attitudes Towards Poverty and Inequality

Dehumanization of Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Groups Decreases Support for Welfare Policies via Perceived Wastefulness

Inequality in Researchers’ Minds: Four Guiding Questions for Studying Subjective Perceptions of Economic Inequality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About