4 questions about social science, due on May 21st.
the first file is the reading, finish the 4 questions (second file) basic on the reading. Other files are lecture notes or sample answers.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wpov20
Journal of Poverty
ISSN: 1087-5549 (Print) 1540-7608 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wpov20
Shifting Societal Attitudes: Examining the Effects
of Perspective Taking on Attitudes toward and
Derogation of the Poor
Jessica Louise Wiese, Colleen Loomis & Terry Mitchell
To cite this article: Jessica Louise Wiese, Colleen Loomis & Terry Mitchell (2019) Shifting Societal
Attitudes: Examining the Effects of Perspective Taking on Attitudes toward and Derogation of the
Poor, Journal of Poverty, 23:1, 1-20, DOI: 10.1080/10875549.2018.1496375
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10875549.2018.1496375
Published online: 25 Jul 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 292
View related articles
View Crossmark data
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wpov20
https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wpov20
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10875549.2018.1496375
https://doi.org/10.1080/10875549.2018.1496375
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=wpov20&show=instructions
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=wpov20&show=instructions
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/10875549.2018.1496375
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/10875549.2018.1496375
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/10875549.2018.1496375&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2018-07-25
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/10875549.2018.1496375&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2018-07-25
Shifting Societal Attitudes: Examining the Effects of
Perspective Taking on Attitudes toward and Derogation of
the Poor
Jessica Louise Wiese a, Colleen Loomis b,c, and Terry Mitchell b,c
aCentre for Urban Health Solutions, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; bBalsillie School of
International Affairs, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada; cWilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
ABSTRACT
People tend to hold negative attitudes about and derogate
those in poverty to varying degrees, often relying on indivi-
dualistic explanations of poverty that largely ignore systemic
sources. This study (N = 208) examined a perspective-taking
strategy that could be used to reduce distancing behaviors and
negative attitudes toward the poor. Perspective takers dis-
tanced less and reported fewer negative attitudes than others.
An additional finding was that men (n = 57) were more likely
to derogate/distance than women, showed greater agreement
with personal deficiency explanations for poverty, and
reported stronger stereotypic attitudes toward people who
are impoverished.
KEYWORDS
attitudes; Canada; low-
income; perspective taking;
poverty; social distance
Research regarding attitudes toward those living in poverty hasmany implications
regarding the health and well-being of people who are impoverished and their
participation in society (Langille-Hoppe, Gonzalez, & Maxey, 2011; Murry,
Heflinger, Suiter, & Brody, 2011), and understanding experiences of those living
in poverty is essential to social service providers, educators, and researchers
(Caplan, Purser, & Kindle, 2017). Previous research has found that negative
attitudes toward people who are impoverished are held not only by the general
public but by people in positions of trust and power (e.g., social service personnel,
medical professionals and law enforcement) and are routinely expressed—in both
covert and overt ways—during interactions with disadvantaged populations
(Rogers, 2017). Through repeated experiences with discrimination, these negative
attitudes and beliefs are then internalized by people who are impoverished
themselves (Langille-Hoppe et al., 2011; Murry et al., 2011; Reutter et al., 2009)
and serve as a significant source of discouragement for seeking help (Murry et al.,
2011). For more than 30 years, the anticipation of negative responses has been
observed to have harmful psychological consequences (see Link, 1987) and con-
tinues to be related to those experiencing poverty further withdrawing from or
limiting their occupational and social functioning (Pachankis et al., 2018).
CONTACT Colleen Loomis cloomis@wlu.ca Balsillie School of International Affairs, 67 Erb Street West,
Waterloo ON N2L 6C2
JOURNAL OF POVERTY
2019, VOL. 23, NO. 1, 1–20
https://doi.org/10.1080/10875549.2018.1496375
© 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3740-3607
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1595-3376
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5506-9641
https://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/10875549.2018.1496375&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2018-12-25
Widely held societal attitudes influence the degree to which poverty is
considered an important issue in a particular society, and likewise, inferences
can be made about prevalent attitudes in a particular society based on the
economic and social models they employ. For example, Nordic countries
consider issues of equality critical and generously fund social welfare systems
through public taxation. The primary objective of Nordic universalist welfare
states is to combat poverty. As a society, they place less blame on the
individual and remain firmly committed to goals of equality through
increased social cohesion and support (Toikko & Rantanen, 2017). As a
result, these countries enjoy some of the lowest poverty rates in the world
(United Nations Development Programme, 2013).
The Nordic model can be contrasted with that of the United States—and
to a lesser extent Canada—nations that are seemingly less concerned with
equality and support social democracy to a lesser extent. Further, widely held
public attitudes guide politicians and party platforms and the types of
poverty-related legislation that is enacted. In a nation that does not first
value equality through increased social cohesion and support, it is unlikely
that social welfare policies aimed to help vulnerable populations will receive
the necessary public and political support. Accordingly, attitudes are con-
sidered to be a causal factor in the perpetuation of poverty, which is why it is
essential to understand the nature of these attitudes to find ways to effectively
shift them (Murry et al., 2011; Rogers, 2017).
Attitudes toward the poor
People living in poverty are often regarded as dissimilar and as part of an
outgroup by those not living in poverty (Krumer-Nevo, Weiss-Gal, &
Monnickendam, 2009; Pachankis et al., 2018). Such categorizations serve
the purpose of legitimizing the devaluation and rejection of the group by
the majority. Stereotypes are broadly employed. Again, the past 30 years
have not shown substantial changes in attitudes. People living in poverty
have long been thought of as lazy, irresponsible, and seen as unkempt
(Lauter, 2016; Momeni, 1990), and these attitudes have been reported from
the general population and social service workers in many countries. A
study of 198 university students in the United States expressed individua-
listic attributions for poverty much more than structural causes (Taglar &
Cozzarelli, 2013). Research examining beliefs about the causes of poverty
in 28 European countries found that individuals in less developed nations
explain poverty as a social injustice whereas those living in the most
economically advantaged nations attribute poverty to individualistic and
fatalistic causes (da Costa & Dias, 2015). Even within Nordic countries,
varying beliefs among social workers regarding the causes of poverty have
been found such that in Finland 17% agreed with the cause of individual
2 J. L. WIESE ET AL.
blame and 52% of individual fate whereas, in Norway, Denmark, and
Sweden 3% to 4% of workers agreed with statements ascribing individual
blame (Blomberg, Kroll, Kallio, & Erola, 2013). Individualistic and dispo-
sitional explanations of poverty are problematic because they mostly
ignore systemic causes of poverty (e.g., racism, sexism, and classism) and
the disproportionate prevalence of untreated mental illness, poor physical
health, drug and alcohol addiction, histories of violence and abuse, and
weak or absent family/social support among those experiencing poverty.
Furthermore, there are different degrees of poverty, some more visible
than others. Those in absolute poverty (i.e., the homeless and those lacking
necessities) are the most visible whereas those in relative poverty (i.e., the
working poor, those living on social assistance) are less visible. The general
public has long held negative attitudes about both groups.
Psychological distancing
A large body of research over decades has identified several reasons why
people maintain negative attitudes and incorrect beliefs about outgroups
(e.g., McIntyre, Paolini, & Hewstone, 2016). One main reason is that
negative attitudes and discrimination allow persons to psychologically
distance themselves from disadvantaged outgroups which in turn helps
them maintain a belief that the world is fair and just. The belief in a
just world is a theory developed three decades ago (see Lerner, 1980) that
posits that the world is a fair and just place and one where people get what
they deserve and deserve what they get. Findings from contemporary
studies provide support for this theory still today. People are highly
motivated to maintain a strong belief in a just world (Sutton, Stoeber, &
Kamble, 2017) and when confronted with examples that contradict this
belief (e.g., a homeless person begging on the street), they experience
negative and unpleasant emotions. To reduce this mental discomfort,
they then engage in psychological distancing strategies such as othering,
derogation, and blaming. Much of the research in the past 40 years has
examined people’s explanations of poverty using Feagin’s (1972) now
classical three categories: individualistic, structural, or fatalistic. Merolla,
Hunt, and Serpe (2011) found that the majority of North American people
utilize individualistic/dispositional explanations for poverty rather than
structural/systemic explanations. By placing the blame directly on people
who are impoverished, people absolve the dissonance created by examples
that contradict their beliefs about the fairness of the world. As such,
stigmatization, discrimination and other forms of psychological distancing
from the poor are considered to be causal factors in the perpetuation of
poverty that downplay its true antecedents (e.g., systemic injustices, mental
illness and addiction).
JOURNAL OF POVERTY 3
Direct contact effects
People receive information about relative and absolute poverty from various
media sources. This information is usually negative and tends to focus on
extreme exemplars (e.g., targets exhibiting violent and unpredictable behavior)
or stereotypes (e.g., the “lazy addict”) effectively characterizing the groups
unfavourably. Furthermore, due to the specific nature of absolute poverty,
peoples’ personal problems and struggles are often public and on display;
contact tends to evoke unpleasant emotions (e.g., sadness, pity) in the observer
which in turn leads to a strong motivation to avoid future contact (Halik &
Webley, 2011). As noted by Allport (1954) in his seminal work on the contact
hypothesis, there is a fundamental difference between superficial forms of
contact (i.e., via the media or brief interaction on the street) and more authentic
forms of contact, such as having a meaningful conversation or working together
toward a common goal. Research over a span of more than 60 years examining
the effects of authentic contact with marginalized groups on attitudes has shown
that people who work or volunteer with members of these groups have more
positive attitudes and a reduced desire for social distance compared to those who
have less direct contact with them (Allport, 1954). The same is true for those
who have friends or family members who belong to these groups (Corrigan,
Backs, Green, Lickey, & Penn, 2001). One recent study found that using
computer-mediated contact was also an effective tool in reducing negative
stereotypes between conflicting groups (Cao & Lin, 2017). Although the positive
effects of direct contact are well documented and robust, it is not always practical
or feasible to bring people into direct or indirect contact with members of
marginalized groups. This limitation is why it is important to examine cognitive
strategies that could instead induce ‘psychological contact’ to produce similar
benefits. A strategy designed to do just this is perspective taking.
Perspective taking
Perspective taking entails an active consideration of another’s perspective or point
of view that involves contemplating the various facets of their life and the thoughts
and feelings they may be experiencing. Research on perspective taking has found
that it is associated with increased justice (Rasmussen, Ramos, Han, Pettit, &
Margolin, 2018), empathy (Beussink, Hackney, & Vitacco, 2017), and prosocial
behavior (Christ, Carlo, & Stoltenberg, 2016). Perspective taking has also been
linked to conflict resolution between groups and found to be a more effective
strategy than stereotype suppression for reducing outgroup derogation (Galinsky
& Moskowitz, 2000). Somewhat ironically, perspective taking is said to exact its
positive influence on attitudes by creating cognitive “overlap” between the self and
the target. This self-other merging leads the perspective taker to focus on shared
characteristics and commonalities rather than differences while taking advantage
4 J. L. WIESE ET AL.
of peoples’ propensity to view the self positively (Miller & Ross, 1975). As a result,
the target is then regarded less stereotypically and more favorably via self-relevant
cognitive associations. Further speaking to the strength of the strategy, the effects
have been found to extend to a target’s entire group, even if that group is a
previously disliked outgroup (Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000).
Because those living in poverty are often regarded as dissimilar and as part of
an outgroup by those not living in poverty (Krumer-Nevo et al., 2009; Pachankis
et al., 2018), it is likely that a perspective-taking exercise could encourage self-
other overlap and reduce typical dissociation and distancing behavior.
Perspective takers may be less willing to derogate the target if they are intrinsi-
cally tied to the self. Work done on the self-serving bias shows that people tend
to acknowledge external influences when explaining negative outcomes for
themselves to a higher degree than they do for others (Blaufus, Braune,
Hundsdoerfer, & Jacob, 2015). Thus, through the effects of a merged self-
concept, people may be less likely to derogate the poor and more inclined to
consider structural and systemic factors when thinking about poverty.
The present study and hypotheses
This study is part of the body of research investigating peoples’ implicit attitudes
toward peoplewho are impoverished through an examination of their responses to
images of people in absolute and relative poverty. An initial studywas conducted at
a university in southwest Ontario with 113 undergraduate students (Mitchell,
Loomis, Polillo, Fry, & MacKeigan, under review). Their attitudes toward people
living in poverty were assessed in two ways. First, participants were shown a series
of images that depicted either relative poverty (e.g., the working poor, those
living on social assistance) or absolute poverty (i.e., the homeless and individuals
lacking necessities). Participants were then given five minutes to write a story
answering four questions: “Who is this?What led up to the event?Howdo you feel
about them? What happens next?” As part of the larger study, another study
(N = 162) analyzed the content of stories for key themes that would reveal their
beliefs about people in poverty and the kinds of attributions (i.e., internal and
external) peopleweremaking to explain the target’s situation (Mitchell et al., under
review). Participants’ degree of psychological distancing was then assessed using a
word association task where they were asked to rate the self (reference), an average
university student (similar other), a parent at a food bank (relative poverty), and a
street person (absolute poverty) on characteristics that were either positive (e.g.,
happy) or negative (e.g., dishonest). The ratings were scored in such a way that
higher numbers indicated more negative ratings and social distancing from the
target. Findings of this study indicate that participants made generally individua-
listic attributions for poverty, had a difficult time identifying images of relative
poverty as actual poverty, and were distancing from/derogating those in absolute
poverty the most.
JOURNAL OF POVERTY 5
The aim of the present research is to experimentally replicate the findings
of this first study and test a perspective-taking strategy that could theoreti-
cally eliminate peoples’ propensity to distance themselves from disadvan-
taged people and instead encourage empathic responding and more positive
attitudes. This study draws on two areas of research. First, it acknowledges
work that has examined the positive effects of direct contact on attitudes
toward those with mental illness and those who are homeless. Second, it
considers research in social psychology on the positive effects of perspective
taking on attitudes toward outgroups (Galinsky & Ku, 2004; Gino &
Galinsky, 2012) and extends it to the realm of poverty research.
To test the idea that perspective taking could reduce psychological dis-
tancing and improve attitudes toward the poor, participants were presented
with images of people in either relative or absolute poverty and then ran-
domly assigned to complete either a perspective-taking writing exercise, the
original writing exercise, or no-writing exercise (control condition) in
response to the images. After this, participants completed measures of dis-
tancing/derogation, self-other overlap/closeness, and attitudes toward pov-
erty. It is expected that participants who completed the perspective-taking
exercise will derogate and distance less and report more positive attitudes
toward people who are impoverished than participants who received the
original instructions or wrote nothing (control condition). It is also expected
that due to self-concept overlap, participants in the perspective-taking con-
dition will distance the least from the type of target of which they took the
perspective. Those asked to write a story from the perspective of someone in
relative poverty (low-wage worker, person using the food bank) should rate a
target in relative poverty less negatively than those who took the perspective
of someone in absolute poverty or someone who wrote no story. The same
would be true for those who wrote a story from the perspective of someone
in absolute poverty; they should rate a street person less negatively than
someone who took the perspective of someone in relative poverty or some-
one who wrote no story.
Participants
Two hundred and eighteen participants took part in the online study; however,
10 participants self-selected themselves out of the sample by indicating that their
data was not reliable and failed both of the data quality check items embedded in
the survey. The final sample consisted of 208 university undergraduate students
(151 females, 57 males) between the ages of 17 and 24 (M = 18.98 years,
SD = 1.09 years) who participated in exchange for course credit. Participants
were enrolled in a first-year psychology course at a university in a suburban city
6 J. L. WIESE ET AL.
with a population of approximately 200,000 in southwestern Ontario, Canada.
The overall enrollment of approximately 15,000 undergraduate students is
predominantly comprising young people from urban, suburban, and rural
areas of Ontario; students were planning on majoring in various disciplines
such as psychology, business, geography and health sciences.
Procedure
Participants were recruited using an online scheduling system for a study
said to be examining societal attitudes. After sign up, participants were
directed to an online consent statement. After consenting to participate,
participants were led to the survey that contained all of the instructions
and measures.
Images of poverty
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two image conditions. In the
relative poverty condition, participants were presented with an image of a
man working in a characteristically low paying job (i.e., sales clerk) with a
caption reading “The individual pictured above is a sales clerk at a grocery
store.” In the absolute poverty condition, participants were presented with an
image of a homeless man sleeping on the street with a caption reading, “The
individual pictured above is homeless and lives on the street.”
Story writing
After being presented with an image, all participants were then randomly
assigned to one of three story writing conditions. In the original story writing
condition, participants were asked to write a brief story about the individual in
the photo and provided with four questions to guide their story writing (i.e.,
“Who is this? What led up to this situation? How do you feel about him? What
happens next?”). In the perspective-taking condition, participants were also
asked to write a brief story about the individual in the photo and provided
with some additional instructions. They completed an amended version of
Galinsky and Moskowitz’s (2000) perspective-taking exercise as part of their
story writing. While writing their stories, they were instructed to,
try to view things from the perspective of this man and see things as
though you were walking in his shoes and seeing the world through his eyes.
Furthermore, we ask that you write your story in the first person (i.e., using
“I” and “me” instead of “he” or “him”). That is, put yourself in his shoes and
write from the perspective of this man as if you are him.
Participants were then provided with four questions to guide their story
writing (i.e., “Who am I? What led up to my situation? How am I feeling?
What happens next?”). In the control condition, participants proceeded
directly to the dependent measures after viewing either image.
JOURNAL OF POVERTY 7
Dependent measures
Distancing/derogation Participants’ degree of psychological distancing was
assessed using a dichotomous word-pair association task on 20 traits.
Opposite traits (e.g., happy vs. sad) were presented on a continuum, sepa-
rated by a 7-point Likert-type scale with higher scores indicating more
negative ratings and derogation. Participants responded to 20 questions for
each of the following five people: self (reference, α = .94, M = 2.58, SD = .85),
an average person in society (similar other, α = .93, M = 3.40, SD = .66), a
person with a low-wage job (relative poverty, α = .95, M = 3.22, SD = .76), a
person at the food bank (relative poverty α = .97, M = 2.88, SD = .97), and a
homeless person (absolute poverty, α = .93, M = 4.38, SD = .80).
Final measures. Using the ratings of the self as a reference point, the final
measures of distancing/derogation were computed by subtracting the self-
ratings from the ratings of absolute, relative (food bank) and relative
(low-wage worker) poverty. The resulting three difference scores designate
distance from the self, with higher values indicating more distance between
the self and target.
Self-concept overlap
Distancing was also measured using the Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale
(IOS; Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992). Participants were presented with the image
of poverty they saw at the beginning of the study and then completed the single-
item, pictorial measure of closeness to the target with higher scores indicating
greater feelings of subjective closeness and self-other overlap. Participants in the
story writing control condition did not complete this question.
Attitudes toward poverty
Attitudes toward poverty were measured using the 20-item Attitudes toward
Poverty Scale (ATP; Yun & Weaver, 2010). The scale consists of three
subscales that tap peoples’ beliefs about poverty.
Personal deficiency. This subscale assesses the degree to which people
believe poverty is the result of personal deficiencies (e.g., intelligence, moti-
vation). Using a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), parti-
cipants rated their agreement with seven statements that tapped these beliefs
(e.g., “Poor people generally have lower intelligence than nonpoor people”).
The items were significantly correlated and averaged to form an index with
higher scores indicating greater agreement with personal deficiency explana-
tions for poverty (α = .78, M = 2.32, SD = .60).
8 J. L. WIESE ET AL.
Stigma. This subscale assesses the degree to which people hold stereotypical
attitudes toward the poor (e.g., the belief that poor people are lazy and “play
the system”). Using a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree),
participants rated their agreement with seven statements that tapped these
beliefs (e.g., “Unemployed poor people could find jobs if they tried harder”).
The items were significantly correlated and averaged to form an index with
higher scores indicating stronger stereotypic attitudes toward people who are
impoverished (α = .77, M = 2.84, SD = .60).
Structural perspective. This subscale assesses the degree to which people defer
to larger, structural explanations for poverty (e.g., classism, racism). Using a
scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), participants rated their
agreement with six statements that tapped these beliefs (e.g., “People are poor
due to circumstances beyond their control”). The items were significantly
correlated and averaged to form an index with higher scores indicating greater
agreement with structural explanations for poverty (α = .70,M = 3.43, SD = .55).
Individual differences
The final section of the questionnaire included measures of participants’
degree of empathy, belief in a just world and social dominance orientation.
These personality factors concern peoples’ beliefs about people and the world
and were included as potential covariates and/or moderating variables.
Empathy
Empathy was measured using the empathic attitudes subscale of the Empathy
Assessment Index (EAI; Lietz et al., 2011). Using a scale from 1 (never) to 5
(always), participants rated their agreement with six statements that tapped
their empathic attitudes toward those in poverty (e.g., “I believe adults who
are poor deserve social assistance”). The items were significantly correlated
and averaged to form an index with higher scores indicating more empathic
attitudes (α = .79, M = 3.66, SD = .50).
Belief in a just world
Belief in a just world was measured using the Just World Scale for Others
(JWS; Lipkus, Dalbert, & Siegler, 1996). Using a scale from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 6 (strongly agree), participants rated their agreement with eight
statements that tapped this belief (e.g., “I feel that the world treats people
fairly”). The items were significantly correlated and averaged to form an
index with higher scores indicating a greater belief that the world is fair and
just (α = .84, M = 3.14, SD = .75).
JOURNAL OF POVERTY 9
Social dominance orientation
Social dominance orientation was measured using the 4-item Short Social
Dominance Orientation Scale (SSDO; Pratto et al., 2012). Using a scale from
1 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree), participants rated their agreement
with four statements that tapped this orientation (e.g., “Superior groups
should dominate inferior groups”). The items were significantly correlated
and averaged to form an index with higher scores indicating a greater social
dominance orientation (α = .74, M = 3.13, SD = 1.34).
Lastly, participants completed a demographics section where they indi-
cated their age, gender, year and program of study.
Preliminary analyses indicated that there were no significant condition dif-
ferences on participant age, gender, or program of study, however, gender
was found to be negatively correlated with the primary dependent variables
such that being male was associated with more derogation/distancing, greater
agreement with personal deficiency explanations for poverty, stronger stereo-
typic attitudes toward people who are impoverished, a greater social dom-
inance orientation and a reduced belief in a just world. As such, gender was
included as a covariate in all analyses.
Preliminary analysis showed that the assumptions for an ANCOVA were
met, so we tested the hypotheses, each dependent measure was submitted to a
2 (image: absolute vs. relative) × 3 (story: original story writing vs. perspec-
tive taking vs. control) ANCOVA (see Tables 1 and 2).
Derogation/distancing
Initial analyses of the ratings reveals an expected pattern; participants derogated
themselves (M = 2.58, SD = .85) the least and derogated the street person
(M = 4.38, SD = .80) the most. Interestingly, it was also the case that participants
rated an average person in society (M = 3.40, SD = .66) more negatively than a
person at the food bank (M = 2.88, SD = .97), however, upon further investiga-
tion, this turned out to be the result of ambiguous wording of the question.
Specifically, several participants noted in the comment section at the end of the
survey that they were not sure whether “person at the food bank”meant a person
was volunteering/working at the food bank or a person using the food bank. It is
likely that many participants interpreted the target as a volunteer, which would
explain the higher ratings; a person who was volunteering at a food bank would
be rated more positively than an average person in society.
Our first hypothesis was that participants in the perspective taking con-
dition would report less distancing from the targets than those in the original
story writing and control conditions.
10 J. L. WIESE ET AL.
Low-wage worker
As hypothesized, the ANCOVA revealed a marginally significant main effect of
story, F(2, 201) = 2.79, p = .06, η2 = .03. Post hoc comparisons using the Fishers
Least Significant Difference (LSD) test indicated that participants in the perspec-
tive taking condition (M = .62, SD = .83) reported less distancing from the low-
wage worker than those in the original story writing condition (M = .92,
SD = .82), p = .08, d = .36, and control condition (M = 1.11, SD = .92),
p = .07, d = .56. Ratings in the original story and control conditions did not
differ significantly, p = .19, d = .22. No other significant main effects or interac-
tions emerged.
Person at the food bank
Although the pattern of results was in the expected direction, the ANCOVA
did not reveal a significant main effect of story writing, F(2, 201) = 1.81,
p = .17, η2 = .02. No other significant main effects or interactions emerged.
Street person
As hypothesized, the ANCOVA revealed a significant main effect of story, F
(2, 201) = 2.88, p = .05, η2 = .03. Post hoc comparisons using the LSD test
indicated that participants in the perspective-taking condition (M = 1.74,
SD = .93) reported less distancing from the street person than those in the
control condition (M = 2.20, SD = .81), p = .02, d = .52. Ratings in the
Table 1. Distancing, Derogation, Closeness, Attitudes, and Individual Differences by Story Writing
Original Perspective Taking Control
Relative – Low wage M .95 .85 1.20
SD .79 .79 .83
Relative – Food bank M .65 .28 .59
SD 1.15 .96 1.07
Absolute – Street person M 1.98 1.74 2.20
SD 1.01 .93 .81
IOS M 3.06 3.30 3.34
SD 1.53 1.59 1.49
Attitudes
Personal deficiency M 2.34 2.28 2.45
SD .66 .60 .53
Stigma M 2.98 2.71 3.04
SD .54 .66 .61
Structural M 3.43 3.38 3.29
SD .59 .45 .63
Individual differences
Empathy M 3.81 3.52 3.69
SD .51 .42 .51
BJW M 3.17 3.23 3.29
SD .73 .79 .75
SDO M 3.10 3.49 3.09
SD 1.33 1.43 1.26
n 65 68 75
Note. IOS = Inclusion of Other in the Self; BJW = Belief in a Just World; SDO = Social Dominance Orientation.
JOURNAL OF POVERTY 11
Ta
bl
e
2.
Co
rr
el
at
io
ns
am
on
g
D
ep
en
de
nt
Va
ria
bl
es
an
d
In
di
vi
du
al
D
iff
er
en
ce
M
ea
su
re
s
Re
la
tiv
e
(L
ow
w
ag
e)
Re
la
tiv
e
(F
oo
d
ba
nk
)
AP
S
–
Pe
rs
on
al
D
ef
ic
ie
nc
y
AP
S
–
St
ig
m
a
AP
S
–
St
ru
ct
ur
al
Em
pa
th
y
BJ
W
SD
O
IO
S
Ab
so
lu
te
(S
tr
ee
t
pe
rs
on
)
.6
9*
*
.5
2*
*
.1
3†
.1
7*
−
.1
8*
−
.1
4*
.1
9*
*
−
.0
3
−
.2
3*
*
Re
la
tiv
e
(L
ow
w
ag
e)
.6
5*
*
.1
3
.1
6*
−
.1
0
−
.0
7
.1
4†
.0
6
−
.0
9
Re
la
tiv
e
(F
oo
d
ba
nk
)
.0
2
.0
7
−
.0
2
.0
4
.0
5
.0
5
−
.1
4
AP
S
–
Pe
rs
on
al
D
ef
ic
ie
nc
y
.5
5*
*
−
.3
7*
*
−
.5
7*
*
.2
7*
*
.3
9*
*
.1
9
AP
S
–
St
ig
m
a
−
.4
7*
*
−
.5
8*
*
.2
9*
*
.3
0*
*
.0
8
AP
S
–
St
ru
ct
ur
al
.6
4*
*
−
.3
3*
*
−
.3
4*
*
−
.1
3
Em
pa
th
y
−
.2
9*
*
−
.4
6*
*
.2
0*
*
BJ
W
SD
O
−
.2
3*
*
−
.0
2
-.0
7
N
ot
e.
AP
S
=
At
tit
ud
es
to
w
ar
ds
Po
ve
rt
y;
BJ
W
=
Be
lie
f
in
a
Ju
st
W
or
ld
;S
D
O
=
So
ci
al
D
om
in
an
ce
O
rie
nt
at
io
n;
IO
S
=
In
cl
us
io
n
of
O
th
er
in
th
e
Se
lf.
†p
≤
.1
0,
*p
<
.0
5,
**
p
<
.0
1.
12 J. L. WIESE ET AL.
perspective-taking and original story (M = 1.98, SD = 1.01) conditions did
not differ significantly, p = .19, d = .23. Additionally, ratings in the original
story and control condition did not differ significantly, p = .20, d = .24. No
other significant main effects or interactions emerged.
It was also expected that participants in the perspective taking condition would
distance the least from the type of target that they wrote about. Despite the pattern
of results being in the hypothesized direction, no significant differences emerged
within the perspective taking condition. See Table 1 for the means.
Self-other overlap
The ANCOVA revealed a significant main effect of image such that partici-
pants felt more self-overlap with the target in relative (M = 3.53, SD = 1.55)
versus absolute (M = 2.77, SD = 1.48) poverty, F(1, 131) = 5.41 p = .02,
η2 = .04. Conversely, the ANCOVA did not reveal a significant main effect of
story writing on ratings of self-other overlap, F(1, 131) = .13, p = .72,
η2 < .001, or interaction, F(1, 131) = .17, p = .68, η2 < .001.
Attitudes toward poverty
Personal deficiencies
The ANCOVA revealed a significant main effect of image, F(2, 201) = 4.36,
p = .04, η2 = .04. Post hoc comparisons using the LSD test indicated that
participants in the absolute poverty image condition (M = 2.45, SD = .58)
reported greater agreement with personal deficiency explanations for poverty
than those in the relative poverty image condition (M = 2.28, SD = .63).
Furthermore, although the ANCOVA did not reveal a significant main effect
of story, the results were trending, F(2, 201) = 1.95, p = .15, η2 = .02. As
expected, participants in the perspective taking condition (M = 2.28,
SD = .60) and original story writing condition (M = 2.34, SD = .66) reported
less agreement with personal deficiency explanations for poverty than the
control condition (M = 2.45, SD = .53). No other significant main effects or
interactions emerged.
Stigma
The ANCOVA revealed a significant main effect of story, F(2, 201) = 3.54,
p = .03, η2 = .03. Post hoc comparisons using the LSD test indicated that
participants in the perspective taking condition (M = 2.71, SD = .66) reported
fewer stereotypic attitudes toward people who are impoverished than partici-
pants in the original story condition (M = 2.98, SD = .54), p = .03, d = .45, and
those in the control group (M = 3.04, SD = .61), p = .01, d = .52. Reported
attitudes in the original story and control conditions did not differ significantly,
p = .31, d = .10. No other significant main effects or interactions emerged.
JOURNAL OF POVERTY 13
Structural
The ANCOVA did not reveal a significant main effect of story writing,
F (2, 201) = .42, p = .66, η2 < .001. No other significant main effects or interactions
emerged.
Individual differences
The ANCOVAs did not reveal a significant main effect of story writing or other
significant main effects or interactions on the indexes of empathy, belief in a
just world and social dominance orientation (p > .30). Additional analyses were
performed to test whether each of these factors moderated the effects, but no
significant interaction effects emerged (p > .50). Additionally, the pattern of
results did not change if these indexes were controlled for.
Correlations
When considering the relationships between the main dependent variables and
individual difference measures, it was found that distancing/derogation was
positively associated with personal deficiency explanations for poverty and
stereotypic attitudes about the poor. On the other hand, distancing/derogation
was found to be negatively associated with more positive attitudes about the
poor (i.e., structural explanations for poverty) as well as empathy. Further,
although no significant differences emerged on the measure of self-other over-
lap, it was the case that higher scores on this measure were associated with
reduced derogation and greater empathy. Additionally, a greater belief in a just
world was associated with more distancing/derogation of the target in absolute
—but not relative—poverty: something that supports cognitive dissonance
explanations for just world belief maintenance. Lastly, measures of just world
beliefs and social dominance orientation were associated with greater negative
attitudes about the poor, lowered positive attitudes about the poor, and less
empathy. See Table 2 for the correlations between all dependent variables and
individual difference measures.
Our findings offer some hope that perspective taking can be one way of
shifting attitudes toward individuals living in poverty. Consistent with
Allport (1954) contact hypothesis, we propose that perspective taking may
approximate a more authentic form of contact that can counter negative
stereotypes. When circumstances prevent us from engaging in sustained,
meaningful contact, structured perspective taking exercises may be an effec-
tive strategy for advancing population-level shifts toward a more just world.
One way to develop perspective taking regarding people living in poverty is
14 J. L. WIESE ET AL.
through educational activities in which students are invited to imagine
themselves in the situation and experience of others. In this study, it was
expected that participants who completed a perspective taking exercise in
response to images of relative and absolute poverty would derogate/distance
the least and report more positive attitudes toward people who are impover-
ished. Further, it was expected that they would derogate/distance the least
from the targets that they wrote about in the first person. Partial support for
the first hypothesis was found. Perspective takers were found to distance/
derogate the least from the low-wage worker relative to those in the original
story writing and control conditions. However, concerning the absolute
poverty image, participants in the original story writing and perspective-
taking condition reported less derogation/distancing than those in the con-
trol condition. No effect was found on ratings of a person at the food bank
possibly due to the ambiguity of the question noted by several participants or
because increasingly university students are noted to access campus food
banks.
Considering the potential mechanism of self-other overlap, though it was
the case that self-other overlap was associated with less derogation/distan-
cing, it was not the case that perspective takers reported more overlap
between their self-concepts and the target than those in the other conditions.
This finding was surprising considering past literature and the nature of the
perspective taking exercise. A possible explanation for this lack of effect was
that the target in both conditions was an adult male and our sample was
composed of mostly female (73%) university students younger than age 25.
Future research will be sure to include additional measures of closeness to
the target; it could be the case that the overlap only occurs for certain
characteristics and traits rather than the target as a whole. For example,
participants may feel closeness to the target in the sense that they are both
human, and both face struggles and hardships—which is likely the most
important aspect that would drive the effects—but may not focus on these
similarities when asked to respond to a single-item measure of closeness
(where age, gender, situation may trump such gradations). Future research
can extend this line of research by including additional measures of closeness
to the target and trying to tap into these nuances.
The feminization of poverty may also have contributed to a lack of finding
related to the images of men depicted in poverty. It may be that perspective
taking is more difficult when doing so counters reality; in this case, because
more women and children are among the poor, it may have been difficult for
young adults to envision a man in poverty. Above we suggested a need to
consider the effect of a match (or not) of the gender of the research
participant and the gender of the person depicted in the research stimulus
image. Future research also needs to test the effect of gender matching of the
stimulus to reality on perspective taking.
JOURNAL OF POVERTY 15
Concerning attitudes, it was expected that perspective takers would report
fewer stigmatizing attitudes, rely less on individualistic attributions and
concede more structural explanations for poverty than participants in the
other groups. Indeed, it was found that the two story-writing conditions
reduced personal deficiency explanations for poverty relative to the control
group. It was also the case that perspective takers reported less stereotypic
attitudes than the original story writers and control group. However, even
though structural explanations were significantly negatively correlated with
derogation of those in absolute poverty—and perspective takers derogated
this group the least—they did not report greater agreement with structural
explanations for poverty (though the means for the story writing conditions
were slightly higher than those in the control condition). This observation
suggests that though perspective taking disrupts peoples’ initial negative
responses to people who are impoverished (e.g., blaming, derogation),
more complex attitudes concerning the world (i.e., structural attitudes) may
require more intervention. Perhaps following perspective taking, participants
would be more receptive to information concerning structural and systemic
factors (e.g., racism, sexism and classism, neoliberalism) that contribute to
poverty. Future analyses of the data will include coding of the written
responses based on Feagin’s (1972) model of attributions (i.e., individualistic,
structural and fatalistic). Again, individualistic attributions are those that
place the blame on people who are impoverished themselves whereas struc-
tural attributions concede social and economic factors as sources of poverty
(e.g., the failure of a society to properly educate and provide employment).
Finally, fatalistic attributions are those that explain poverty using uncontrol-
lable factors (e.g., sickness or disability). In the present study, it could be the
case that even though they did not report more endorsement of structural
causes of poverty using our quantitative measure, perspective taking may
have led participants to identify fewer individualistic causes of poverty and
focus on structural and fatalistic causes in their qualitative story responses.
Indeed, coding of the qualitative stories in previous work found that parti-
cipants made generally individualistic attributions for poverty (Mitchell et al.,
under review). We suggest that future research attempt to find ways to
broaden participants’ understanding of structural explanations for poverty.
Lastly, the effects of perspective taking on the dependent measures
remained even after controlling for individual differences such as empathy,
belief in a just world, and social dominance orientation, and this finding
speaks to the generalizability of the effect. However, it was the case that males
tended to derogate the most and maintain the worst attitudes; a troubling
finding considering the high degree to which men are represented in govern-
ment and policy development. This gender effect suggests that intervention
strategies targeting boys and men are inarguably crucial.
16 J. L. WIESE ET AL.
Concerning limitations of the present study, it is the case that a university
sample was used so the results may not be generalizable to an older popula-
tion. However, it can be argued that because university students will hold
positions of power in society once they enter the workforce, understanding
their attitudes and ways to shift them is still a valid endeavor. From this
study, we cannot say what students’ baseline attitudes were or if attitudes
were changed because this was a posttest-only study. Another limitation is
the target images that were used. Because the targets in both conditions were
adult White males, the results of the perspective-taking exercise cannot
be extended to all ages or impoverished women or ethnic minorities.
Future research will consider these additional factors while also employing
a two-part design with a followup to examine the strength and durability of
perspective-taking effects. Another limitation of the study is not having
collected research participants’ socioeconomic status. If future studies assess
education and income level (or parents’ income, in the case of dependents),
then the examination of an interaction effect of one’s position with perspec-
tive taking will tell us more about factors contributing to underlying attitudes
toward people living in poverty. Lastly, though it was not the main focus of
the present research, it is true that the face of worldwide poverty is changing;
instances of worldwide absolute poverty are decreasing whereas relative
poverty is on the rise (Chen & Ravillion, 2012). Relative poverty is notor-
iously difficult to identify and understand, and people in this situation are
often subject to the worst scrutiny (e.g., examples of food stamp recipient
shaming in the United States). Future research will work to identify strategies
that encourage people to focus on the structural and systemic factors that
cause relative poverty specifically.
To close, the overall goal of this research is to identify attitudes toward
Canadians living in poverty and to find ways to encourage understanding and
empathy instead of distancing and blame. This study identified a potential
strategy—perspective taking—that was shown to reduce derogation, distancing,
and negative stereotypic attitudes toward the poor. It is thought that by shifting
collective attitudes toward the poor, society can begin to engage in new beha-
viors that will encourage individual responses to poverty (e.g., empathic
responding, volunteering) and direct policymakers and politicians to concede
the successes of the Nordic model and enact legislation that targets systemic
(e.g., racism, sexism, and classism) and individual (e.g., mental illness, poor
physical health, drug addiction, and weak or absent social support) factors to
help significantly reduce the poverty level in Canada. Additionally, observing in
this study that men derogate more than women provides further support that
the feminization of poverty is a contemporary problem. If poverty is maintained
JOURNAL OF POVERTY 17
by attitudes that do not support a systemic analysis toward a Nordic model of
social justice, including income re-distribution, then the people who will suffer
the most are the women. Overall, we think that our research provides a glimmer
of hope to shift attitudes toward people living in poverty and others who are
marginalized and derogated in society.
We gratefully acknowledge Mary MacKeigan, former Executive Director of a regional not-
for-profit organization dedicated to ending poverty. Her passion for and commitment to
shifting societal attitudes toward people living in poverty was the impetus for this study. She
asked us to use research to uncover unconscious biases against people living in poverty.
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada (SSHRC). We thank the SSHRC grant Principal Investigator Ted Jackson for mobi-
lizing resources for this research through a National Poverty Reduction Hub, Communities
First: Impacts of Community Engagement (CF:ICE) co-lead by Vibrant Communities Canada
and Carleton University (SSHRC Grant Number: 895-2011-1003).
ORCID
Jessica Louise Wiese http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3740-3607
Colleen Loomis http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1595-3376
Terry Mitchell http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5506-9641
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the
structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4),
596–612. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596
Beussink, C. N., Hackney, A. A., & Vitacco, M. J. (2017). The effects of perspective taking on
empathy-related responses for college students higher in callous traits. Personality and
Individual Differences, 119, 86–91. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.07.005
Blaufus, K., Braune, M., Hundsdoerfer, J., & Jacob, M. (2015). Self-serving bias and tax
morale. Economics Letters, 131, 91–93. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2015.03.041
Blomberg, H., Kroll, C., Kallio, J., & Erola, J. (2013). Social workers’ perceptions of the causes
of poverty in the Nordic countries. Journal of European Social policy, 23(1), 68–82.
18 J. L. WIESE ET AL.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.07.005
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2015.03.041
Cao, B., & Lin, W.-Y. (2017). Revisiting the contact hypothesis: Effects of different modes of
computer-mediated communication on intergroup relationships. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 58, 23–30. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2017.03.003
Caplan, M. A., Purser, G., & Kindle, P. A. (2017). Personal accounts of poverty: A thematic
analysis of social media. Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work, 14(6), 433–456.
doi:10.1080/23761407.2017.1380547
Chen, S., & Ravillion, M. (2012). More relatively poor people in a less absolutely poor world
(Working Paper No. 6114). Retrieved from The World Bank Data and Research website
http://goo.gl/Xr5yZ4
Christ, C. C., Carlo, G., & Stoltenberg, S. F. (2016). Oxytocin receptor (OXTR) single
nucleotide polymorphisms indirectly predict prosocial behavior through perspective taking
and empathic concern. Journal of Personality, 84(2), 204–213. doi:10.1111/jopy.12152
Corrigan, P. W., Backs, A., Green, A., Lickey, S. E., & Penn, D. L. (2001). Prejudice, social
distance, and familiarity with severe mental illness. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 27(2), 219–225.
da Costa, L. P., & Dias, J. G. (2015). What do Europeans believe to be the causes of poverty?
A multilevel analysis of heterogeneity within and between countries. Social Indicators
Research, 122(1), 1–20.
Feagin, J. R. (1972, November). Poverty: We still believe that God helps those who help
themselves. Psychology Today, 6(6), 101–129.
Galinsky, A. D., & Ku, G. (2004). The effects of perspective-taking on prejudice: The
moderating role of self-evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 594–
604. doi:10.1177/0146167203262802
Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype
expression, stereotype accessibility, and ingroup favoritism. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 73, 708–724. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.708
Gino, F., & Galinsky, A. (2012). Vicarious dishonesty: When psychological closeness creates
distance from one’s moral compass. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 119, 15–26. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.03.011
Halik, M., & Webley, P. (2011). Adolescents’ understanding of poverty and the poor in rural
Malaysia. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32, 231–239. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2009.02.006
Krumer-Nevo, M., Weiss-Gal, I., & Monnickendam, M. (2009). Poverty-aware social work
practice: A conceptual framework for social work education. Journal of Social Work
Education, 45, 225–243. doi:10.5175/JSWE.2009.200600144
Langille-Hoppe, M., Gonzalez, J. R., & Maxey, M. (2011). From both sides of the desk: A
qualitative analysis of social service workers’ perceptions of poverty in the Ozarks. Journal
of Poverty, 15(2), 164–183. doi:10.1080/10875549.2011.563172
Lauter, D. (2016, August 14). How do Americans view poverty? Many blue-collar whites, key
to Trump, criticize poor people as lazy and content to stay on welfare. Los Angeles Times.
Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-poverty-poll/
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York, USA:
Plenum.
Lietz, C. A., Gerdes, K. E., Sun, F., Mullins Geiger, J., Wagaman, M. A., & Segal, E. (2011).
The empathy assessment index (EAI): A confirmatory factor analysis of a multidimen-
sional model of empathy. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 2, 104–124.
doi:10.5243/jsswr.2011.6
Link, B. G. (1987). Understanding labelling effects in the area of mental disorders: An
assessment of the effects of expectations of rejection. American Sociological Review, 52,
96–112. doi:10.2307/2095395
JOURNAL OF POVERTY 19
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2017.03.003
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23761407.2017.1380547
http://goo.gl/Xr5yZ4
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12152
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167203262802
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.708
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.03.011
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2009.02.006
http://dx.doi.org/10.5175/JSWE.2009.200600144
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10875549.2011.563172
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-poverty-poll/
http://dx.doi.org/10.5243/jsswr.2011.6
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2095395
Lipkus, I. M., Dalbert, C., & Siegler, I. C. (1996). The importance of distinguishing the belief
in a just world for self versus for others: Implications for psychological well-being.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(7), 666–677. doi:10.1177/0146167296227002
McIntyre, K., Paolini, S., & Hewstone, M. (2016). Changing people’s views of outgroups
through individual-to-group generalisation: Meta-analytic reviews and theoretical consid-
erations. European Review Of Social Psychology, 27(1), 63–115. doi:10.1080/
10463283.2016.1201893
Merolla, D. M., Hunt, M. O., & Serpe, R. T. (2011). Concentrated disadvantage and beliefs
about the causes of poverty: A multi-level analysis. Sociological Perspectives, 54(2), 205–
228. doi:10.1525/sop.2011.54.2.205
Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or
fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82(2), 213–225. doi:10.1037/h0076486
Mitchell, T., Loomis, C., Polillo, A., Fry, B., & MacKeigan, M. (under review). Projective
technique reveals unconscious attitudes about poverty in Canada.
Momeni, J. A. (1990). Homelessness in the United States: Data and issues. Westport, CT:
Greenwood.
Murry, V. M., Heflinger, C. A., Suiter, S. V., & Brody, G. H. (2011). Examining perceptions about
mental health care and help-seeking among rural African American families of adolescents.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 1118–1131. doi:10.1007/s10964-010-9627-1
Pachankis, J. E., Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Wang, K., Burton, C. L., Crawford, F. W., Phelan, J. C.,
& Link, B. G. (2018). The burden of stigma on health and well-being: A taxonomy of
concealment, course, disruptiveness, aesthetics, origin, and peril across 93 stigmas.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(4), 451–474.
Pratto, F., Cidam, A., Stewart, A. L., Zeineddine, F. B., Aranda, M., Aiello, A., . . . Henkel, K.
E. (2012). Social dominance in context and in individuals: Contextual moderation of
robust effects of social dominance orientation in 15 languages and 20 countries. Social
Psychological and Personality Science, 4(5), 587–599. doi:10.1177/1948550612473663
Rasmussen, H. F., Ramos, M. C., Han, S. C., Pettit, C., & Margolin, G. (2018). How
discrimination and perspective-taking influence adolescents’ attitudes about justice.
Journal of Adolescence, 62, 70–81. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.11.005
Reutter, L. I., Stewart, M. J., Veenstra, G., Love, R., Raphael, D., & Makwarimba, E. (2009).
“Who do they think we are, anyway?”: Perceptions of and responses to poverty stigma.
Qualitative Health Research, 19(3), 297–311. doi:10.1177/1049732308330246
Rogers, L. E. (2017). “Helping the helpless help themselves”: How volunteers and employees
create a moral identity while sustaining symbolic boundaries within a homeless shelter.
Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 46(2), 230–260. doi:10.1177/0891241615603450
Sutton, R. M., Stoeber, J., & Kamble, S. V. (2017). Belief in a just world for oneself versus
others, social goals, and subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 113,
115–119. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.03.026
Taglar, M. J., & Cozzarelli, C. (2013). Feelings toward the poor and beliefs about the causes of
poverty: The role of affective-cognitive consistency in help-giving. The Journal of
Psychology, 147(6), 517–539. doi:10.1080/00223980.2012.718721
Toikko, T., & Rantanen, T. (2017). How does the welfare state model influence social
political attitudes? An analysis of citizens’ concrete and abstract attitudes toward
poverty. Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy, 33(3), 201–224.
doi:10.1080/21699763.2017.1302892
United Nations Development Programme. (2013). Human development report 2013: The rise
of the South. Kanata, ON: Gilmore Printing Services Incorporated.
Yun, S. H., & Weaver, R. D. (2010). Development and validation of a short form of the
attitude toward poverty scale. Advances In Social Work, 11(2), 174–187.
20 J. L. WIESE ET AL.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167296227002
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2016.1201893
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2016.1201893
http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/sop.2011.54.2.205
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0076486
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9627-1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550612473663
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.11.005
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732308330246
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0891241615603450
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.03.026
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2012.718721
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21699763.2017.1302892
- Abstract
Attitudes toward the poor
Psychological distancing
Direct contact effects
Perspective taking
The present study and hypotheses
Method
Participants
Procedure
Images of poverty
Story writing
Dependent measures
Self-concept overlap
Attitudes toward poverty
Individual differences
Empathy
Belief in a just world
Social dominance orientation
Results
Derogation/distancing
Low-wage worker
Person at the food bank
Street person
Self-other overlap
Attitudes toward poverty
Personal deficiencies
Stigma
Structural
Individual differences
Correlations
Discussion
Conclusion
Acknowledgments
Disclosure statement
Funding
References
Paper #1 Answer Sheet
Download and type your answers into this form.
YOUR NAME: Xinyan Wang(10122708)
Article: Wiese, J. L., Loomis, C. & T. Mitchell (2019). Shifting Societal Attitudes: Examining the Effects of Perspective Taking on Attitudes toward and Derogation of the Poor.
1. What is KEY ARGUMENT being communicated by the author
based on their main research findings). (This is not a summary of the article; this is not what the article is “about”; it is the central argument based on the research evidence provided by the author). (3 marks)
2. What is the author’s research method? (i.e. how do they collect the data?) Indicate the size (number of participants) and characteristics of the sample participants (i.e. gender, race, age, etc.). (2 marks)
Method:
Sample size:
Sample characteristics:
3. Outline two pieces of data that the author uses to support his/her argument that are drawn from his/her research (Not just 2 random facts from the article – this must be data from the research that the author uses to support the main idea that you identify above.).
Explain how the evidence is related to the main idea. (2 X 2 = 4 marks)
a) Data:
Relation to the main argument:
b) Data:
Relation to the main argument:
4. Is the information provided verifiable and well-researched? Use the factors listed on the hint sheet to make your evaluation. (3 marks)
A mark out of 3 will be assigned for grammar/spelling/communication.
SAMPLEANSWER
Public Attributions for Poverty in Canada – Reutter et al (2006)
1. What is the main argument presented by the author?
Surveys and interviews reveal that respondents are most likely to attribute poverty to structural factors (such as lack of education, low wages, discrimination, and lack of social safety net benefits) and least likely to favour individualistic attributions (such as laziness). The education and income levels of the respondents were the most consistent predictors of types of attributions.
2. What is the author’s research method? (i.e. how does he/she collect the data?) What are the size and characteristics of the sample?
Method: phase one involved interviews and phase two involved telephone surveys.
Sample size: 119 interviews; 1671 surveys (839 in Edmonton; 832 in Toronto).
Sample characteristics: These surveys and interviews were conducted in Toronto and Edmonton. These cities have approximately the same rate of poverty (16%). Equal numbers of participants were chosen in each neighbourhood. Table 1 lists the characteristics of the survey sample in some detail (7).
59 low income and 60 higher income people were interviewed. 2/3 of respondents were women, 30 – 54 years old. The low-income participants were younger. Low-income people were more likely to have high-school education or less. In the sample of 34 low-income people in the six group interviews, 67.6% were female and 60.6% had a high-school education or less. Almost half were 30-44 years of age. The main sources of income were welfare and employment. (8)
3. List two pieces of data/information that the author uses to support his/her argument
that is drawn from their research
. Explain how the evidence is related to the main idea.
a) “I think that lack of education is probably one of the biggest factors. If you’re not educated then you don’t get the jobs that provide you with an income that you can live on (female, higher-income participant)” (12).
Explanation of relationship to the main idea: this quote supports the theme related to education – respondents indicated that they see education as a major structural factor related to poverty.
b) “I think most people who are living on a low income, many of them work just as hard as people who are making a high income. It’s just for some reason their job does not pay them an adequate wage . . . they’re unfortunate enough to be in a job that only pays eight bucks an hour (male, higher-income participant)” (10).
Explanation of the relationship to the main idea: this quote supports the theme related to the impact of structural factors such as low wages, inadequate social safety net or discrimination on causes of poverty.
4. Is the information provided verifiable and well-researched? How do you know? List the factors that you used to make your evaluation.
The authors provide a verifiable paper based on the following:
· The authors all work at one of the following universities: University of British Columbia, University of Alberta, York University, of University of Toronto
· The authors provide a thorough literature review that outlines the background issues in the study of public and individualistic attributions for poverty.
· The 3-page literature review is supported by a 3-page (single-spaced) bibliography of academic sources.
· The authors provide a thorough explanation of their research process, including the size and composition of sample. They point out that the sample contains more females. They indicate that they have only studied 2 cities but give a rationale for it (that these cities have similar poverty rates).
· The tables are clearly presented, and the authors explain the most important points demonstrated in each table. The authors also present interview quotes to support the themes listed in the results section.
· The authors report the limitations of the study. The respondents were all English-speaking and all had a landline telephone. This may have excluded recent immigrants and others who are more likely to be poor. The study also did not explore people’s attributions related to different types of people (i.e. single men vs. single mothers vs. welfare recipients vs. working poor). There may be differences of perspective related to different groups of people. This demonstrates that the authors acknowledge that the research findings are not completely generalizable to the entire population and that further research could provide more detailed information.
How to analyze an academic article
This presentation will help you to complete the paper #1 and #2 assignments
Intro and purpose
The purpose of these assignments is to teach you how to quickly find an analyze certain parts of an academic article
This is a transferable skill – meaning that it is isn’t limited to this class or to Sociology as a discipline
Structure of an academic article
NOTE: not all articles use these specific headings for each section, but the ORDER and CONTENT will be similar.
Abstract (this provides an overview of the article)
Introduction (introduces the topic and why the author thinks it is important)
Literature review (includes a review of previous studies and may include a discussion about theoretical perspectives. This is where the author shows you that they have done their homework and know the background)
Method and sample (tells you how and from whom the data has been collected)
Data/results (tells you the author’s own research findings)
Discussion and conclusion (discusses the findings and may make recommendations for the future)
What are we looking for?
The main argument based on the research findings/results
Information about the research method and sample
Examples of data that is presented to support the main argument
Evidence of academic rigor – i.e. how do I know this is trustworthy information?
Tip – do questions 2 and 3 FIRST
Why?
Because #2 is probably the easiest question to answer (I’ll tell you why in a minute)
and
#3 gets you to explore the data that the main argument is based on (which will help you answer question #1 accurately)
Answering the questions: #2
The information about method and sample can usually be found in a section called ‘research methods” or “methodology”.
It’s usually really easy to identify this section and the information in it.
Let’s look at a couple of excerpts from academic articles
Method:
How did they get the information?
Methods
Interviews are the method
This is how they collected the data for the study
Sample:
Who did they study? How many did they study?
Methods
This research is part of a multi-year study of urban change in the DTES of Vancouver, including multiple field visits to Vancouver between 2011 and 2015 and key informant interviews with planners, service providers and others who were connected to the lives and work of informal recyclers in Vancouver. The data for this article were collected in 2012 in a series of interviews with 17 informal recyclers and workers at the United We Can recycling depot, which was located in the DTES at the time (it has since moved to a larger site just outside of the neighbourhood). Of the 17 respondents, seven identified as both workers at the depot and informal recyclers, nine were recyclers only, and one was a depot worker only.
Who: recyclers and workers at a recycling depot
How many: 17
This study doesn’t give us a lot of information about the sample.
Sample: Example #2 (more detailed information)
Methodology
All participants were between thirty and fifty years of age.
Twelve participants discussed their caste— four persons identified as Brahmins and three as Rajputs. The remaining five participants identified as non-Brahmins but distinguished themselves from lower-caste groups.
The majority (36) identified as Hindus, and the remaining six as Sikh.
All families lived in large, urban metropolitan areas in India (Ahmedabad [5], Chandigarh [4], Kolkata [8], New Delhi [7], Pune [4],Mumbai [6], Bangalore [4], and Chennai [4]) prior to moving to the Waterloo Region.
Example #2 – sample characteristics (continued)
Eight couples, only two of whom had preschool-aged children, lived with other family members, including parents and siblings.
Twenty-four participants had a bachelor’s of science or bachelor’s of engineering degree, and eighteen had a master’s of science or master’s of business administration degree.
Twenty participants were working as computer/information technology engineers, twelve were computer/software programmers, eight were computer/software analysts, and two worked as systems testers.
Ten couples had one preschool-aged child, six couples had two preschool-aged children, one couple had one preschool-aged child and two school-aged children, and four couples had no children. Although these four couples were outside of the sampling frame, they provided an interesting comparison for the gendered division of household work, which I discuss briefly in a separate section
SO – in this example, the author has told us about the following characteristics:
Age
Caste
Religion
Marital status
Family structure (living arrangements; number of children)
Nationality and city of origin
Current city (all from Waterloo, Ontario)
Education
Occupation
In your answer to number 2, you would give the details of the characteristics
Answering the questions: #3
The information about the research data or results is the central part of the article.
This is where the authors tell you what they found in their research study
In question #3, you are providing two pieces of data and relating them to themes/findings that are part of the main argument
There will be more than 2 examples of data in the findings, so choose 2 that you thinkl are important or the you find interesting.
Answering the questions: #3
continued
If the research is based on interviews, the data or results section will be organized into themes and quotes from participants are the data that is used to illustrate/support the themes.
Answering the questions: #3
continued
In the case of quantitative studies (such as large surveys or secondary data analysis), the data is often expressed in tables. If you don’t know how to read the mathematical analysis, don’t worry. The Author should explain the important points in the text of the article.
Answering the questions: #1
Now that you know what the authors found in their research study, you can address question 1. Here you will report the main findings/argument in a CONCISE way.
Answering the questions: #1 continued
In order to provide an answer for #1, you should:
Consider the overall findings of the study (i.e. what were the themes in an interview study? What were the data that the author emphasized in the larger quantitative study?)
Look for places in the article that summarize the findings
This may be in the abstract, or discussion/conclusion sections
Answering the questions: #4
This section explores the information provided by the authors and the transparency of the research
These are the things you should look for to answer #4
Author’s credentials – what degrees do they have?
Authors’ institutional affiliations – where do they work?
Adequacy of the literature review – did they do their homework (background research)?
Adequacy of the bibliography – are many sources included? Do they come from academic publications?
Outline of the research – does the author clearly explain how the research was done? Does the author include the necessary information about the sample? Does the author discuss the limitations of the research? (NOTE: give details, not just yes or no answers)
Summary: where do you look for the answers in the article?
Answers to number 1 will be based on the data presented by the authors in their results and may be summarized in some places in the article like the conclusion or abstract
Answers for #2 will be found in the method section
Answers for #3 will be found in the data/results section (NOTE: do not report information from the literature review here)
Answers for #4 require you to examine all the parts of the article in order to answer as many of the questions listed in the hint sheet as you can
.MsftOfcThm_Accent1_Fill {
fill:#B71E42;
}
.MsftOfcThm_Accent1_Stroke {
stroke:#B71E42;
}
.MsftOfcThm_Accent1_Fill {
fill:#B71E42;
}
.MsftOfcThm_Accent1_Stroke {
stroke:#B71E42;
}
SAMPLEANSWER
Public Attributions for Poverty in Canada – Reutter et al (2006)
1. What is the main argument presented by the author?
Surveys and interviews reveal that respondents are most likely to attribute poverty to structural factors (such as lack of education, low wages, discrimination, and lack of social safety net benefits) and least likely to favour individualistic attributions (such as laziness). The education and income levels of the respondents were the most consistent predictors of types of attributions.
2. What is the author’s research method? (i.e. how does he/she collect the data?) What are the size and characteristics of the sample?
Method: phase one involved interviews and phase two involved telephone surveys.
Sample size: 119 interviews; 1671 surveys (839 in Edmonton; 832 in Toronto).
Sample characteristics: These surveys and interviews were conducted in Toronto and Edmonton. These cities have approximately the same rate of poverty (16%). Equal numbers of participants were chosen in each neighbourhood. Table 1 lists the characteristics of the survey sample in some detail (7).
59 low income and 60 higher income people were interviewed. 2/3 of respondents were women, 30 – 54 years old. The low-income participants were younger. Low-income people were more likely to have high-school education or less. In the sample of 34 low-income people in the six group interviews, 67.6% were female and 60.6% had a high-school education or less. Almost half were 30-44 years of age. The main sources of income were welfare and employment. (8)
3. List two pieces of data/information that the author uses to support his/her argument
that is drawn from their research
. Explain how the evidence is related to the main idea.
a) “I think that lack of education is probably one of the biggest factors. If you’re not educated then you don’t get the jobs that provide you with an income that you can live on (female, higher-income participant)” (12).
Explanation of relationship to the main idea: this quote supports the theme related to education – respondents indicated that they see education as a major structural factor related to poverty.
b) “I think most people who are living on a low income, many of them work just as hard as people who are making a high income. It’s just for some reason their job does not pay them an adequate wage . . . they’re unfortunate enough to be in a job that only pays eight bucks an hour (male, higher-income participant)” (10).
Explanation of the relationship to the main idea: this quote supports the theme related to the impact of structural factors such as low wages, inadequate social safety net or discrimination on causes of poverty.
4. Is the information provided verifiable and well-researched? How do you know? List the factors that you used to make your evaluation.
The authors provide a verifiable paper based on the following:
· The authors all work at one of the following universities: University of British Columbia, University of Alberta, York University, of University of Toronto
· The authors provide a thorough literature review that outlines the background issues in the study of public and individualistic attributions for poverty.
· The 3-page literature review is supported by a 3-page (single-spaced) bibliography of academic sources.
· The authors provide a thorough explanation of their research process, including the size and composition of sample. They point out that the sample contains more females. They indicate that they have only studied 2 cities but give a rationale for it (that these cities have similar poverty rates).
· The tables are clearly presented, and the authors explain the most important points demonstrated in each table. The authors also present interview quotes to support the themes listed in the results section.
· The authors report the limitations of the study. The respondents were all English-speaking and all had a landline telephone. This may have excluded recent immigrants and others who are more likely to be poor. The study also did not explore people’s attributions related to different types of people (i.e. single men vs. single mothers vs. welfare recipients vs. working poor). There may be differences of perspective related to different groups of people. This demonstrates that the authors acknowledge that the research findings are not completely generalizable to the entire population and that further research could provide more detailed information.