question

Cognitive and Behavioral Distancing From the Poor

Bernice Lott University of Rhode Island

The author argues that distancing is the dominant response to poor people on the part of those who are not poor and that distancing, separation, exclusion, and devaluing op- erationally define discrimination. Such responses, together with stereotypes and prejudice, define classism. The article focuses on classism in the United States. Classism is ex- amined in the context of theoretical propositions about the moral exclusion of stigmatized others and is illustrated by cognitive distancing, institutional distancing (in education, housing, health care, legal assistance, politics, and public policy), and interpersonal distancing. The adoption of the Resolution on Poverty and Socioeconomic Status by the American Psychological Association Council of Represen- tatives in August 2000 is cited as an important step in the direction of eliminating the invisibility of low-income per- sons in psychological research and theory.

This article is about classism in the United States andexamines particularly responses to poor people andpoverty by those who are not poor. I propose that a dominant response is that of distancing, that is, separation, exclusion, devaluation, discounting, and designation as “other,” and that this response can be identified in both institutional and interpersonal contexts. In social psycho- logical terms, distancing and denigrating responses opera- tionally define discrimination. These, together with stereo- types (i.e., a set of beliefs about a group that are learned early, widely shared, and socially validated) and prejudice (i.e., negative attitudes) constitute classism.

My objective in this article is to encourage an exam- ination of how psychologists and psychology collude with others in maintaining classism. I hope this article, which focuses on the general manifestations of classism in the United States, can serve as a starting point for such an examination. Illustrations of distancing responses to the poor in institutional and interpersonal contexts, taken from an interdisciplinary literature, are presented in the context of relevant theoretical propositions to provide background and encouragement for more specific discussions in psy- chology’s various academic, research, and clinical settings.

The work of researchers, teachers, and practitioners will surely be enriched and increased in validity by knowl- edge of the social class contexts of people’s lives. But although social class distinctions in general have significant consequences for everyone, the focus here is on poor people’s lives, because it is their treatment as other that has the most widespread consequences for society as a whole. Psychologists committed to social justice must carefully

document and analyze the barriers erected by classist bias that maintain inequities and impede access to the resources necessary for optimal health and welfare. Further, for psy- chologists to be maximally effective in their theories, re- search, and practice, such an examination needs to be followed by serious discussion of the role they might play in the reduction or elimination of classist discrimination.

The magnitude of economic disparities in the United States has taken on crisis proportions. Other articles (Bul- lock & Lott, 2001; Lott & Bullock, 2001b) have docu- mented the dramatic and increasing inequity in economic resources between the rich and the poor in the United States. For example, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (Shapiro, Greenstein, & Primus, 2001) reported that between 1979 and 1997, the after-tax income of the poorest fifth of U.S. households decreased from $10,900 to $10,800, while that of the top 1% of households increased from $263,700 to $677,900. With respect to childhood poverty, the latest Census Bureau figures are roughly the same today as they were in 1979: Over 12 million chil- dren— one in six—live in poverty. Thus, “compared to the rest of the industrialized world, this country remains at the bottom of the heap” (Sengupta, 2001, p. WK3). For fami- lies of single working mothers, the poverty rate is 19.4%, the same in 1999 as it was in 1995 (“Single Mothers,” 2001).

The American Psychological Association (APA) has taken a bold first step in recognizing the relationship of such data to the work of psychologists by adopting the Resolution on Poverty and Socioeconomic Status (APA, 2000). This well-referenced resolution ends with the prom- ise of advocacy for research, education, training, and public policy in the interest of low-income members of the na- tional community. It is hoped that this resolution will make a difference, but as Brown (1990) noted earlier, by gener- ally accepting the assumption that U.S. society is classless, psychologists in science and practice have made invisible those who are not middle class. Reid (1993), too, has called attention to psychology’s exclusion and silencing of those

Editor’s note. Heather Bullock served as action editor for this article.

Author’s note. Portions of this article were read at the National Multi- cultural Conference and Summit II, Santa Barbara, California, on January 25, 2001, as part of the panel in the session entitled “Social Class, Poverty, and Affluence,” and at a Psychology Department colloquium at the University of California, Santa Cruz, on January 30, 2001.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ber- nice Lott, Department of Psychology, Woodward 10, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881. E-mail: [email protected]

100 February 2002● American Psychologist Copyright 2002 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0003-066X/02/$5.00

Vol. 57, No. 2, 100 –110 DOI: 10.1037//0003-066X.57.2.100

outside the White middle class and to its relative lack of interest in “ lives different from our own” (Reid, 1993, p. 134). A more recent search of the literature (Saris & Johnston-Robledo, 2000) revealed again “ a dearth of liter- ature on poor women” (p. 235). When national attention was finally given to violence against women in the United States, an analysis by Richie (2000) suggested that public sympathy for victims and survivors and a concern with their needs were largely focused on those who were not poor and not minorities of color. The White middle-class woman “ consumed the greater proportion of attention in the literature . . . she was featured in public awareness cam- paigns, and she was represented by national leaders” (Richie, 2000, p. 1135).

The near invisibility of the poor in psychology as well as psychologists’ lack of attention to social class in general continues even when there is a direct focus on multicultur- alism and diversity. For example, at the first multicultural summit sponsored by APA in 1999, poverty and social class were rarely mentioned. Announcements for the Public Interest Directorate’ s miniconvention, entitled “ Valuing Diversity,” at APA’ s 108th Annual Convention in August 2000 also omitted mention of social class (APA, n.d.-a). The printed announcement for the second multicultural conference, held in 2001, described it as a summit dealing with “ race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and dis- ability” (APA, n.d.-b). And the most recent announcement, for the third multicultural conference (APA, n.d.-c), enti- tled “ Celebrating Our Children, Families, and Seniors,” once again ignores social class, mentioning only race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and disability in the call for papers. It is now widely accepted that social cate- gories like gender and ethnicity intersect and that these intersections require study as psychologists examine each

category. Social class functions similarly in interaction with other social categories and as a distinct construct.

The glaring omission of social class in considerations of multicultural issues illustrates certain realities about the discipline of psychology. Psychological theories are preoc- cupied with people who are like those who construct the theories, that is, those in the middle class (and primarily European Americans). As just one recent example, Arnett (2000), in developing a theory about emerging adulthood in young people in their late teens through the 20s, talked about this period in industrialized societies as one of “ in- dependent role exploration” (p.478). Like other theorists, Arnett focused on the middle class. Unlike others, how- ever, he did note that his characterization was not likely to be true for the millions of working-class youth who do not attend college right after high school and who constitute the forgotten half in psychological research and theory.

In trying to understand this phenomenon, I came to the following realization. Although those who are middle class or affluent can experience the negative consequences of racism, sexism, ageism, and heterosexism or the stigma and exclusion associated with a disability, they do not person- ally experience the stigma and exclusion associated with being poor. A sizable minority within the discipline of psychology may come from a low-income or working-class background, but it is clearly not a salient feature of their current lives.

Theoretical Concepts and Context Categorization of groups of people into upper and lower strata, into superior and inferior, is done by those who require such categorization to maintain their power, pre- vent others from obtaining an equal share of resources, and sustain the myth of superiority (Williams, 1993). Thus, classism results from unequal “ class privilege (i.e., un- earned advantage and conferred dominance) and power” (Moon & Rolison, 1998, p. 132). Power, defined as access to resources, enables the group with greatest access to set the rules, frame the discourse, and name and describe those with less power. Members of high-power groups will be more able than those in low-power groups to maintain their power as they receive its benefits and increase their ability to maneuver within the society they control. As Unger (2000) has noted, “ Those who have the power to define the acceptable qualities of others benefit from their ability to label” (p. 166). And Sidanius and Pratto (1999) presented data and a convincing argument to support the conclusion that “ it is power . . . that enables one to discriminate” (p. 19).

People in the United States have invented labels to designate the poor both directly and indirectly. The words racial minority and inner city are often used as codes for low income, and it has been argued that rural poor Whites are also “ racialized” as “ a breed apart, a dysgenic race unto themselves” (Wray & Newitz, 1997, p. 2). Sweeney (1997) noted that “ White Trash . . . are defined by their proxi- mity . . . to Blacks; in housing projects, in sharecroppers’ shacks, on chaingangs” (p. 251). When White middle-class people use the term White trash, they are talking about

Bernice Lott

101February 2002 ● American Psychologist

“ them,” not “ us,” and are saying “ We are not that” (Har- tigan, 1997, p. 51). Derogatory terms, meant to be amusing, have been invented for these others: crackers from Georgia and Florida, lintheads from the Carolinas, okies from the west, and hillbillies or ridge runners from West Virginia.

The related theoretical constructs of moral exclusion and delegitimization have been introduced in the effort to explain the atrocious and inhumane treatment of stigma- tized people by those in power. Opotow (1990) argued that “ those who are morally excluded are perceived as nonen- tities, expendable, or undeserving; consequently harming them appears acceptable, appropriate, or just” (p. 1). Bar- Tal (1990) proposed that categorizing members of certain groups as having unacceptable values or norms serves to permit or justify excluding them, dehumanizing them, and treating them as outcasts.

Moral exclusion can take many forms. For example, some assume that certain emotions that are not shared with other animals, which are referred to as secondary emotions and include guilt, embarrassment, delight, disillusion, and sensitivity, are not experienced among members of out- groups. Leyens et al. (2000) presented evidence that indi- viduals “ regard out-groups as in some ways less human” (p. 194) or deficient in “ the human essence” (p. 195), thereby making discrimination easier, more rational, and even necessary. When people dehumanize others, they are not likely to experience empathy. Thus, those who dehu- manize other people can more easily behave in ways that run counter to such supposedly human values as sympathy and compassion (Schwartz & Struch, 1989).

Examples of moral exclusion are, sadly, numerous across historical periods, places, and circumstances, and the harm done to those designated as other ranges from direct and overt damage to the results of disregard and inaction. As Opotow (1990) has noted, “ Moral exclusion can occur in degrees, from overt evil to passive unconcern” (p. 13). Within such a theoretical framework, it can be argued, as Fine and Weis (2000) have done, that “ today- . . . working-class and poor women (and men) have been tossed from our collective moral community” (p. 1140).

Treating poor people as other and lesser than oneself is central to the concept and practice of classism. Through cognitive distancing and institutional and interpersonal dis- crimination, the nonpoor succeed in separating from the poor and in excluding, discounting, discrediting, and dis- enabling them.

Cognitive Distancing Although psychologists distance themselves and the disci- pline from the poor by generally ignoring social class as a significant variable in research and theory, cognitive dis- tancing more typically takes the form of stereotyping. The dominant images of poor people in the United States in- clude negative beliefs about their characteristics, negative expectations about their behavior, and the attribution that their poverty is caused by their own failings.

Middle-class people tend to respond to issues about poverty with ignorance, because they are largely insulated from and do not know poor people. As noted by Berrick

(1995), the two groups “ shop in different stores, travel on different streets, . . . eat in different restaurants, and their children [often] attend different . . . schools” (p. 3). The mass media tend to reinforce this ignorance. A review of media images of the poor by Bullock and her colleagues (Bullock, Wyche, & Williams, 2001) found that, for the most part, the poor are either not presented at all or por- trayed as outsiders who are deficient in character or morality.

Stereotypes about the poor abound and appear to be communicated with little hesitancy or embarrassment by those who ascribe to them, including members of Congress and state legislators who shape public policy. For example, an analysis of congressional hearings on The Family Sup- port Act of 1988 by Naples (1997) revealed a view of poor women, in particular, as in “ need [of] sanctions and other coercive behavioral measures to ensure their cooperation in moving from welfare to work” (p. 917). In 1996, this was a dominant theme in the enthusiastic support for the insult- ingly worded Personal Responsibility and Work Opportu- nity Reconciliation Act championed by both major political parties. One study (Beck, Whitley, & Wolk, 1999) exam- ined the beliefs of members of the Georgia General As- sembly, which, like all state legislatures, is now given block grants by the federal government to use in assisting poor people for limited time periods (no longer than two consecutive years, and five years over a lifetime). What the investigators found was “ consensus . . . that the poor do exhibit behaviors that . . . perpetuate their poverty. These behaviors include a lack of effort, ambition, thrift, talent and morals” (Beck et al., 1999, p. 98) and low intelligence.

A sizable literature on the subject of beliefs about the poor and poverty is found primarily within sociology and social work. As summarized by Bullock (1995), research indicates that, in general, “ the poor are perceived as failing to seize opportunities because they lack diligence and ini- tiative . . . . Poor people and welfare recipients are typically characterized as dishonest, dependent, lazy, uninterested in education, and promiscuous” (p. 125). By and large, the research literature supports the conclusion of Halpern (1993) that the tendency in the United States is to see poverty as an individual problem and to be preoccupied “ with poor people’ s behavior, rather than the social and economic arrangements that perpetuate poverty, inequality, and social exclusion” (p. 160). One example comes from a study by Fiske and her colleagues (Fiske, Xu, Cuddy, & Glick, 1999) in which respondents made judgments about 17 groups often stereotyped in the United States. Welfare recipients were found to be the only group that was both disliked and disrespected and whose members were per- ceived to lack both warmth and competence.

Researchers conducting a recent investigation with a midwestern college sample compared beliefs about poor people with beliefs about members of the middle class (Cozzarelli, Wilkinson, & Tagler, 2001). Respondents en- dorsed significantly more of the negative traits they were asked to respond to as being true of the poor than of the middle class. These negative descriptors included unedu- cated, unmotivated, lazy, unpleasant, angry, stupid, dirty,

102 February 2002 ● American Psychologist

immoral, criminal, alcoholic, abusive, and violent. Simi- larly, when a sample of college students in another study (Hoyt, 1999) was asked to list common stereotypes for lower-class (the study’ s terminology) and middle-class people, the most frequently listed traits for the former were uneducated, lazy, dirty, drug/alcohol user, and criminal.

In two studies (Lott & Saxon, in press) in which respondents made judgments about hypothetical target women, social class was found to be a powerful trigger for expectations. Whether presented as a potential parent– teacher organization (PTO) vice president in her children’ s school or as a possible girlfriend for the respondent’ s older brother or cousin, a working-class woman was judged to be more crude and more irresponsible than was a middle-class woman. In the PTO context, working-class women were also judged to be more unsuitable for the job of vice president. And Jacob (2000) found that a sample of African American women and men described a hypothetical low- income woman as being less intelligent than a higher- income woman.

The cognitive responses of middle-class children to poor people and poverty have been found to mirror those of adults. A review by Chafel (1997) of two decades of relevant national studies found a

remarkable similarity in the thinking of adults and children . . . . [B]oth view economic privation as a self-inflicted condition, emanating more from personal factors (e.g., effort, ability) than external–structural ones (e.g., an unfavorable labor market, rac- ism). Poverty is seen as inevitable, necessary, and just. (p. 434)

Adults consistently view the poor as “ morally deficient and personally responsible for their plight” (Chafel, 1997, p. 438), and, with age, children come more and more to accept the status quo and to view poverty as adults do, that is, “ as emanating from individual differences in merit” (Chafel, 1997, p. 456).

Weinger (1998) showed a sample of low-income White and Black children photos of two houses, one run- down and one a suburban ranch-style residence, and asked them to respond to questions about the people they thought might live in each. Responses were analyzed thematically, and the investigator concluded that the children expected others to describe members of the poor household as “ messy, dirty, stupid, crazy, ugly, nasty, disgusting, not good people, doing drugs, not taking care of their family, mean, troublemakers, cruel, unkind” (Weinger, 1998, p. 108). Although these low-income children perceived the nonpoor as scorning the poor, they did not share the neg- ative beliefs. Instead, “ they described poor people straight- forwardly as in need of resources: ‘ They need money, they need paint, . . . [and] a job’” (Weinger, 1998, p. 112).

Some research has found differences among groups in the degree to which they hold negative beliefs about the poor. For example, from national survey data across several decades, Clydesdale (1999) concluded that “ Americans with high social statuses, whether economic, occupational, or educational, are more likely to view the poor unfavor- ably” (p. 103). Those found to be most in favor of govern- ment efforts to eradicate poverty were non-White respon-

dents and low-income respondents, whereas political conservatives were least supportive of such efforts. That conservatives tend to see poverty in individualistic terms, that is, as failures of personal initiative, has been found by others (Zucker & Weiner, 1993). In another study, business students were found to have more negative beliefs about the poor than did undergraduates majoring in social work or sociology (Atherton, Gemmel, Haagenstad, & Holt, 1993).

In an important finding, a phone survey revealed that respondents who had personal contact with the poor were less likely than others to blame them for their circum- stances (Wilson, 1996). It is also of interest that beliefs about low-income people may vary as a function of their ethnicity and the ethnicity of respondents. Jacob’ s (2000) sample of African American adults described a White target woman earning $12,000 a year as lazy and ugly but described an African American woman with the same earnings as frustrated, determined, and stressed.

A telephone interview study of a large sample of adults in southern California (Hunt, 1996) found that Blacks and Latinos are more likely than Whites to attribute poverty to such societal factors as low wages, poor schools, and prejudice. And, not surprisingly, poor people are more likely to favor structural explanations for poverty than are middle-class people (Bullock, 1999). At the same time, however, Bullock found that the low-income women she studied were eager to distance themselves from the others on welfare by talking about how the others cheated and did not work hard enough to leave the welfare system. Simi- larly, an interview study of a sample of mothers receiving public assistance in Florida (Seccombe, James, & Walters, 1998) also found that both Black and White respondents tended to distance themselves from others on welfare. They “ distinguished between ‘ me’ and ‘ them’ . . . [pointing out] that, unlike other poor women, they were on welfare through no fault of their own” (pp. 856 –857). Although subscribing to the dominant constructions of women on welfare, the respondents evaluated their own circumstances quite differently.

Although cognitive responses to the poor are typically measured by survey methods, experimental techniques have also yielded data supporting the proposition that dis- tancing is a dominant middle-class reaction to low-income people. Darley and Gross (1983) had college students watch a videotape of a fourth-grade girl taking an oral achievement test. Cues about her social class were con- veyed visually by the child’ s clothes and the playground in the background and by verbal information about her par- ents’ occupations and education. Social class cues were varied, but observers always saw the same child and the same test performance. Viewers who were led to believe that the girl came from a low-income home judged that her test performance indicated a substantially lower level of ability than did those who were led to believe that she had a high socioeconomic background. In a replication with some variations, Baron, Albright, and Malloy (1995) found that, in two studies, participants who had no performance

103February 2002 ● American Psychologist

information rated the low-socioeconomic status target girl as lower in ability than the high-socioeconomic status girl.

Using a vignette approach, Kirby (1999) gave a sam- ple of college students information about potential neigh- bors who were considering the purchase of homes near them. These potential neighbors were described as differ- ing in source of income. Those described as receiving public assistance were “ always rated worse and objected to more than either those with some inherited income or those earning all of their income” (Kirby, 1999, p. 1503). These results were replicated in a study in which homeowners served as respondents. In both cases, there was strong evidence of “ prejudice based on economic class” (Kirby, 1999, p. 1508). In another vignette study, Phelan, Link, Moore, and Stueve (1997) asked telephone respondents how willing they were to hire a hypothetical 30-year-old man for odd jobs, for him to live in their community, for him to be a close friend, and for him to work at some job in their local school. When he was described as homeless, respondents expressed significantly greater social distance than when he was described as living in a small apartment.

Institutional Distancing Institutional distancing, exclusion, or discrimination may be deliberate and obvious or it may be subtle and indirect. Regardless of its form or the extent to which people are aware of it, institutional discrimination punishes members of low-status groups by erecting barriers to full societal participation. These groups, as noted by Moon and Rolison (1998), are either invisible, like janitors and maids or other “ nonpersons” and not worthy of recognition, or hypervis- ible “ as symbols of ridicule (e.g., ‘ rednecks,’ poor ‘ White trash’ ), disdain (e.g., welfare recipients), and/or fear (e.g., the underclass, gangs)” (p. 129).

Sidanius and Pratto (1999) described institutional dis- crimination as

the way that . . . schools, businesses, and government bureaucra- cies disproportionately allocate positive social value (e.g., high social status, good health care, good housing) to dominants and disproportionately allocate negative social value (low social sta- tus, poor housing, long prison sentences, . . . and executions) to subordinates. (p. 127)

What follows are some brief examples of ways and con- texts in which institutional distancing from low-income persons is accomplished now in the United States.

Education

The system of public education in the United States, fi- nanced primarily by community property taxes, has re- sulted in a two-tiered institution: One tier is well-equipped and maintained and serves mostly suburban, middle-class children, and another contains run-down and decaying schools in which there is generally a lack of everything but problems. Much has been written about this dramatic and dismal example of classism, but it remains a revealing and continuing feature of American life. As noted by Books (1998), “ Even as some students receive a world-class ed- ucation, others are ghettoized and forgotten in rundown,

markedly segregated, and often dangerous and over- crowded schools” (p. xxii).

The U.S. Department of Education recently examined how federal dollars in six different programs were being used in the public schools and reported (cf. Wong, 2000) that in schools with the most disadvantaged students, teach- ers aides rather than qualified teachers were being hired and paid with the federal money. Half of the instructors sup- ported by special programs designed to help poor children were teachers aides, among whom only 19% had a bache- lor’ s degree; this figure was 10% in the schools with the highest poverty rate. Forty-one percent of the teachers aides reported that half the time they were teaching stu- dents on their own, with no supervision. In addition, the report noted that low-poverty schools were gaining more access than high-poverty schools to federally funded com- puter technology.

Fine (1990) studied three urban high schools in three different eastern states in an effort to understand the mo- tives of students who dropped out and the community response to this problem. At one high school, students not doing well academically “ were viewed as inferior and perceptually transformed into a threat to the well-being [of the other students]” (Fine, 1990, p. 116). It is not surpris- ing, then, to learn that two thirds of the entering students left school before graduating and that these students were from low-income families and were minorities of color. Fine argued that if two thirds of the students in a White, middle-class school dropped out before graduation, the community would be outraged and would not accept the rationalizations offered. At another school, the “ threat” to middle-class students was seen to come from those with torn clothes, and keeping elite children away from them was seen as desirable. Fine concluded that the schools were teaching “ these young women and men to see public ex- clusion as natural, justifiable, and perhaps even necessary for the public good” (p. 118).

One investigator (Luttrell, 1997) solicited life stories from low-income women in adult education classes in both an urban and a rural community. In reflecting on their public school experiences, the women talked about having been “ degraded by teachers and school officials for their speech, styles of dress, deportment, physical appearance, skin color, and forms of knowledge” (Luttrell, 1997, p. 114). They remembered being treated with disdain and disrespect, looked down on, and given little encourage- ment. Such experiences have been discussed by others and validated in many studies. For example, Schultz (1999) interviewed a small sample of girls in their senior year at a comprehensive urban high school in northern California. These girls were survivors of an inhospitable educational system and were making it to graduation, but their stories provided many examples of how school personnel had responded to them with narrow and limited conceptions of who they were and what they were capable of becoming.

It has been argued that inequity in the schools is not accidental and that schools simply “ reproduce the social organization of inequality” (Smith, 2000, p. 1149) that exists in other institutions. Thus, some students learn that

104 February 2002 ● American Psychologist

their voices will be heard, that they count, and that they will be recognized. whereas other students learn the opposite lesson, reinforcing their general experience of exclusion from the world of mainstream expectations and achieve- ment. Margolin (1994) has discussed the gifted child edu- cation movement in the context of social class and inequal- ity and has argued that gifted child education is related to maintaining the power of the affluent. He describes gifted child education as “ a strategy to develop a class of people who lead, direct, and originate” (Margolin, 1994, p. 77), thus helping to support rank and privilege.

My own experience as a low-income high school student is relevant here. Despite an exemplary academic record and awards at graduation for highest achievement in mathematics and science, I had no teacher or counselor ever tell me about college scholarships or encourage me to apply for any college except the one that was tuition-free and that I could attend as a commuter. A few years ago, I ran into a former high school classmate whose academic record had not been extraordinary and who had married at graduation and followed her husband through a career in the navy. She had been middle class and Irish Catholic, unlike me but like most of the teachers in our high school. I learned from her that she had been recommended for and received a scholarship at a prestigious college that she ended up declining. This personal story is congruent with qualitative research data and illustrates how conceptions about social class can affect the guidance offered by school counselors and teachers and do not reflect an appreciation of the adult paths that the lives of young people may take.

For the most part, social class has a powerful influence on educational paths and opportunities in grade school, high school, and beyond. It has been reported that the rates at which low-income people are attending college have steadily declined (Hoyt, 1999). This is not surprising, given the ever-increasing costs of a college education. A recent report by a congressional panel (cf. “ College Aid,” 2001) found that in the year 2000, the cost of college was 62% of family income for low-income families, compared with 16% for middle-class families and 7% for the highest income families. Pell grants, currently at a maximum of $3,300, cover only about 39% of the annual costs at a public four-year college. It is noteworthy, as well, that the so-called welfare reform legislation enacted by Congress in 1996 (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Rec- onciliation Act, 1996) restricts access to higher education by persons receiving financial assistance, despite what is known about the positive relationship between education and the ability to get meaningful and better paying employ- ment. The new federal regulations permit no more than 30% of a state’ s caseload to count education as work, and an aid recipient may do so only for a maximum of 12 months if he or she is also engaged in some other work activity for 20 hours a week. Not surprisingly, college enrollment on the part of aid recipients has declined dra- matically (Gault & Um’ rani, 2000). That ethnicity matters as well as income is indicated by the results of a study of aid recipients in Virginia (cf. Savner, 2000). Forty-one percent of the White respondents reported being encour-

aged by their caseworkers to go to school, particularly to study for a general equivalency diploma, whereas not a single one of the Black recipients reported such encouragement.

Housing The subject of homelessness has been discussed and ana- lyzed elsewhere (e.g., see Rollins, Saris, & Johnston-Rob- ledo, 2001; Shinn, Baumohl, & Hopper, 2001; Shinn & Gillespie, 1994). A new element in the housing crisis is reluctance on the part of landlords to accept tenants who receive some form of governmental subsidy. In cities around the country, landlords are rejecting the applications of subsidized tenants (Bernstein, 2001). In addition, gen- trification and urban renewal succeed in uprooting about two and a half million low-income people in the United States each year from neighborhoods that are discovered by finance capital for new investment. Displacement—the ex- clusion of people from their communities—follows from forced evictions, as landlords sell their property for great profits and as poor people are unable to afford the dramat- ically increased rents. Carr (1994), who studied 400 poor families that were displaced for urban renewal from a privately owned apartment complex in a Virginia neigh- borhood, concluded that “ displacement, the act of casting out, is inescapably an assault on personhood” (p. 200).

It is generally the case that the majority of low-income families live in communities that are geographically and socially separate from middle-class communities. This is more often true of poor families who are also minorities of color (Halpern, 1993). The segregation of the poor into urban ghettoes and sections on the other side of the tracks in small towns across the United States reflects the desire and ability of the middle class to distance itself from the poor. The distancing is accomplished with physical space and also with language. As Moon and Rolison (1998) pointed out, “ White trash” live in trailer parks, whereas middle-class folks live in mobile home communities; the urban poor live in housing projects, whereas the nonpoor live in high-rise apartments! Of course, the differences are more than linguistic. Although the projects are dangerous and poorly maintained, apartment buildings for the more affluent are guarded around the clock.

It is well documented that communities in which poor people and minorities of color live are most likely to be put in environmental danger: They are most likely to be se- lected as the location for polluting industries as well as for hazardous waste sites. In one study (Stretesky & Hogan, 1998), researchers examined the communities surrounding 53 Florida Superfund sites, identified as containing hazard- ous waste, and found that these were more likely to be areas lived in by low-income African Americans and His- panics. As in other studies, income and ethnicity were identified as significant variables. Another investigator (Pinderhughes, 1996) has concluded that “ To save time and money, companies seek to locate environmentally hazard- ous industries in communities which will put up the least resistance, which are less informed and less powerful po- litically, and are more dependent upon local job develop-

105February 2002 ● American Psychologist

ment efforts” (p. 233). Costs for industries are lower in poor neighborhoods, and the residents have little influence on permit-granting city governments and few resources enabling them to move. The result is environmental ineq- uity, a clear consequence of social class, economic injus- tice, and unequal political power. As noted by Bullard and Johnson (2000), “ The environmental protection apparatus in the United States does not provide equal protection for all communities” (p. 574).

Health Care and Legal Assistance A World Health Organization analysis ranked the United States 37th in the world in its overall quality of health care because of the unfair treatment received by the poor and because of the huge number of persons in the United States who are uninsured (World Health Organization, 2000). In 2000, 45 million people were without any health insurance (“ Toward Universal Coverage,” 2000); 91% of the unin- sured were employed, dependents of an employed person, or retired (Coalition for Consumer Justice Education Project, Inc., 2001). To my knowledge, the report by the World Health Organization was never mentioned by the major party candidates in the recent presidential election, nor was much attention paid to the amply documented conclusion that health outcomes are strongly correlated with social class position. As summarized by Belle, Doucet, Harris, Miller, and Tan (2000), “ Poverty is asso- ciated with elevated rates of threatening and uncontrollable life events, noxious life conditions, marital dissolution, infant mortality, many diseases, violent crime, homicide, accidents, and deaths from all causes” (p. 1160). For ex- ample, in a study of cardiovascular disease (cf. “ Heart Risks,” 2001), researchers found that heart attacks were significantly more likely for people in poor neighborhoods than for those in affluent neighborhoods, a conclusion that was unaffected when cholesterol levels, exercise, and other risk factors were taken into account.

Mirowsky and Ross (2000) have reported that for people at the bottom of the economic distribution, the decline in physical functioning with age occurs at twice the rate as it does for the most wealthy, and that the “ gap in mortality between the economically advantaged and disad- vantaged is larger than that between smokers and nonsmok- ers” (p. 135). It is the egalitarian nature, not the wealth, of nations that is correlated with the longevity of their citi- zens, so it is no surprise that the United States, the most inequitable of the industrialized countries of the world, is behind 19 other nations in citizen life expectancy (cf. Belle et al., 2000). That these well-established facts have as yet had little or no influence on public policy has been pointed out by many (e.g., Lee, 1999; Newman, 1999; Tarlov, 1999). As noted by Lee (1999), “ inequalities in health status related to SES [socioeconomic status] remain and may have even grown larger in the past 100 years” (p. 296).

Social class affects health status through differences in access to health-promoting resources, differences in access to high-quality treatment, and differences in attitudes and beliefs held by health care workers. In a study of family practice residents, Price, Desmond, Snyder, and Kimmel

(1988) found that a sizable percentage believed that most poor people prefer to stay on welfare, that young women have babies to collect welfare checks, that most poor peo- ple are lazy, and that poor people cannot understand direc- tions about their health care. Thus, it is not surprising that investigations of physician–patient communication (cf. Roter, 1988) have revealed that low-income patients tend to receive less information, less positive talk, and less talk overall than higher income patients.

It is also not surprising to learn that out of 20,000 physicians who could be funded by a federal loan program that encourages doctors to work in poor areas, only 1,900 physicians are currently participating (cf. D. Z. Jackson, 2000). In this way, professional health workers put distance between themselves and the poor. Distancing is further illustrated by the well-documented phenomenon of “ patient dumping, . . . [the] denial or limitation of services for eco- nomic reasons” (Price et al., 1988, p. 618) resulting in low-income patients being transferred from facility to fa- cility. An investigation by Public Citizen, a consumer ad- vocacy group, found that more than 500 hospitals in the United States (10% of all hospitals) have been cited by the federal government between 1997 and 1999 for violating the “ antidumping” law passed in 1986 (cf. “ Hospitals Vi- olating Indigent Law,” 2001). One in five U.S. hospitals has been cited since the law was passed.

Mental health workers also do not feel comfortable with low-income clients and find it difficult to empathize with them, as indicated by the results of an extensive literature review (Davis & Proctor, as cited in Leeder, 1996). They see the poor as “ inarticulate and suspicious . . . resistant, apathetic and passive” (Leeder, 1996, p. 52).

Further, low-income clients are more likely than others to receive therapy that is brief and drug-centered and to be treated by students or low-status professionals.

Other empirical studies have documented the greater severity of punishment of poor juveniles for drug offenses, the greater likelihood that low-income women will be reported for drug use during pregnancy, and discrimination against poor women in their treatment for HIV and AIDS (cf. Bullock, 1995). Reid (2000) argued that “ the public feels little concern or affinity with the disadvantaged peo- ple who are now the predominant victims of AIDS” (p. 720). Also illustrating inequality in medical resources is the fact that the reproductive benefits of poor women receiving Medicaid assistance are different than those received by women who are covered by employer plans. King and Meyer (1997) found, in a national study, that “ reproductive benefits are distributed differentially on the basis of class” (p. 26). Poor women on Medicaid have mandated coverage of contraceptives but not for infertility, and they cannot obtain federally funded abortions.

Lawyers, as a group, are similarly reluctant to provide services for the poor. Less than a third of low-income people who need an attorney can get one (Merry, 1986). Merry (1986) studied the ways in which working-class and poor people in the United States think about and use the law and concluded that their attempts to have the legal system work on their behalf result in frustration. It “ turns

106 February 2002 ● American Psychologist

out to be a time-consuming, complicated, and uncertain process . . . [and] the court [is seen] . . . as unpredictable, confusing, and arbitrary” (Merry, 1986, p. 266). She pre- sented examples of attorneys whose words and actions reflected negative, stereotyped beliefs about low-income clients.

The tendency for crime victims who are poor or home- less to receive less attention in the justice system than those who are more affluent is a phenomenon that is mirrored in the media, which also gives less coverage to and shows less interest in such crimes (Viano, 1992). Although low-in- come victims receive less attention in the justice system, low-income defendants and those who are minorities of color are more likely to be convicted of a variety of crimes. Just one dramatic example comes from a report by the U.S. Justice Department (as cited in “ Deadly Disparities,” 2000). Eighty percent of the 682 defendants who have faced capital charges in the federal courts since 1995 have been minorities, and U.S. attorneys recommended the death penalty for 183 of these defendants, 74% of whom were minorities and poor.

Politics and Public Policy Middle-class taxpayers often see themselves as taken ad- vantage of by tax-supported programs for the poor, but it is really the case, as Rothblum (1996) has pointed out, that “ the higher one’ s income and status in the U.S., the more benefits, tax credits, and other free ‘ perks’ are available” (p. 7). And there are special benefits available to the very rich from “ corporate welfare.” Among the family-friendly advantages enjoyed by middle-class taxpayers that are not available to the poor, because their incomes are too low to qualify for them, are federal tax credits for child care and home ownership. Home owners receive direct financial assistance by being allowed to enter mortgage interest and property taxes in their list of itemized federal deductions. Although parents who accept public assistance are often criticized for what their critics perceive as inadequacies, Huston (1995) reminded readers that “ We do not consider parents inadequate if they accept direct aid through the tax system” (p. 310).

Careful attention to the recent presidential campaign would have led a visitor from another planet to conclude that there were no poor people in the United States, so seldom were they mentioned by the candidates from the two major parties. I was reminded of a Doonesbury cartoon (Trudeau, 1999) that featured an interview of a politician by a journalist about the similarities between the two par- ties. The journalist suggested to the politician a way of differentiating his party from the other one: “ How about the poor? You could always champion the poor!” The politi- cian replied, “ That’ s it—throw us your dregs!” Perhaps life does imitate art as well as vice versa. The Democratic Party candidate, from whom mention of the poor might have been expected, shifted during the campaign from use of the phrase working families to focus on and use the phrase middle class. This change in language and approach was noted by one journalist (“ Gore Pitches,” 2000), who counted the number of times each phrase was used in

speeches at different points of the campaign. For example, in his 52-minute convention speech, Gore used the phrase working families 9 times, compared with a single use in a 22-minute speech given in Cleveland while on the cam- paign trail; in the same speech, the phrase middle class was used 12 times. Neither the Democratic nor the Republican candidates for president championed raising the federal minimum wage, which at $5.15 an hour earns someone working 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week for 50 weeks, $10,300 a year.

Interpersonal Distancing What Bassuk (1993) referred to as “ our unwillingness as a nation to commit the necessary resources to . . . poor fam- ilies” (p. 346) is documented in a series of articles in an issue of the Journal of Social Issues (Lott & Bullock, 2001a). This issue focused on poor people’ s daily experi- ences of exclusion, of being demeaned and discounted. U.S. institutions reduce the effectiveness with which poor people can access mainstream opportunities and benefits, and, in addition, distancing reactions are experienced di- rectly from middle-class persons with whom low-income persons interact. As Bullock (1995) concluded from the research literature as well as from stories told by low- income people, “ poor people commonly experience face- to-face classist discrimination in their daily activities” (p. 142). They talk about being insulted or disregarded by others in shops, classrooms, and public offices, including those they must go to for public assistance. A sample of women interviewed in one study (Seccombe et al., 1998) spoke of the negative comments directed toward them by welfare workers and of the contempt shown toward clients. The respondents reported frequent disparagement and em- barrassment at the grocery store. “ Looking for evidence of fraud, cashiers and others closely scrutinize the food that . . . [is] purchase[d] . . . [looking] for women who buy steaks with food stamps” (Seccombe et al., 1998, p. 854).

Bullock (1995) reported seeing in her own neighbor- hood “ a long single row of children” (p. 143) lining the sidewalk outside of stores, into which only one or two were allowed at a time. The shop owners, she guessed, were “ concerned with stealing, and only allow a small number of children in the store at a time so they can be carefully observed. It is difficult to imagine children being treated with such suspicion in middle-class or affluent neighbor- hoods” (Bullock, 1995, p. 143). Another example comes from the recollections of children who grew up in trailer parks (Berube & Berube, 1997). Because they were White and poor, their “ Whiteness” was called into question, and they were continually challenged and provoked by the middle-class White kids who lived nearby in houses.

One study (Riemer, 1997) of a group of women who left the welfare rolls in their city and took jobs as nurse assistants in a geriatric facility reported on how the women were marginalized and stigmatized by their nurse supervi- sors. On the job, the low-income women found that their knowledge and experience were discounted, their sugges- tions were unwelcome, and their behavior was subject to continual negative scrutiny. Not only were they poorly

107February 2002 ● American Psychologist

paid, but their interactions with supervisors “ squashed their enthusiasm and motivation” (Riemer, 1997, p. 232).

Final Thoughts The central thesis of this article is that a dominant response to the poor by the nonpoor is that of distancing, and examples of such distancing in the form of exclusion, separation, devaluing, and discounting, which operational- ize classist discrimination, have been drawn from many areas. The literature on beliefs amply illustrates cognitive distancing and the fact that poor people tend to be seen as other and lesser in values, character, motivation, and po- tential. Such beliefs complement the deliberate or indirect exclusion of low-income people from full participation in social institutions. Examples have been presented from the areas of education, housing, health care, legal assistance, politics, and public policy. These document the reality behind the recent words of a New York Times columnist (Herbert, 2001): “ The poor are pretty well hidden from everyone except each other. You won’ t find them in the same neighborhoods . . . as the well-to-do. They’ re not on television, except for local crime-casts. And they’ ve van- ished from the nation’ s political discussion” (para. 1). Where poor people personally interact with the nonpoor in shops and offices, interpersonal distancing is a common experience. Elsewhere I have written about the responses to low-income parents by teachers and principals in the public schools (Lott, 2001).

What can be said of positive efforts on the part of human service professionals and others to help the poor improve their life circumstances and cope with the often devastating consequences of poverty? Do such efforts con- tradict the generalization that distancing is the dominant response to the poor? For those who do not see the poor as other, the answer is yes. But help is too often accompanied by beliefs in the dysfunctionality of poor families and the discounting of strengths, skills, and wisdom. Too often, professional efforts reflect insensitivity and paternalism. For example, Polakow (1995) has argued that “ countless middle-class people in the human service professions have built their careers as the direct beneficiaries of poverty . . . . [D]iagnosis and remediation are the essential ingredients of a proliferating deficit/pathology business” (p. 268).

As long as efforts on the behalf of low-income people are predicated on assumptions about their inferiority and difference from oneself, the behavior of those trying to help will reflect distance, be it psychological or physical. As argued by Schwalbe et al. (2000), the process of “ other- ing,” of defining a “ group as morally and/or intellectually inferior” (p. 423), provides advantages to the dominant group. These advantages are obtained by maintaining bar- riers that restrict access to resources by the others, thus easing access by those who are like oneself.

There is evidence that poverty is beginning to be taken seriously and that beliefs about the poor may change. A study of recent news stories (Bullock et al., 2001) found fewer negative stereotypes than in the past and more sym- pathetic portrayals. Real efforts to counteract the serious personal and social consequences of excluding the poor

from respectful consideration and concern may soon be seen. For example, a representative from the U.S. Depart- ment of Health and Human Services (Golden, 2000), in writing about child abuse, acknowledged that “ the most prevalent form of maltreatment in this country is neglect and that neglect is most often associated with poverty, isolation, and a lack of collateral support” (p. 1053). Psy- chologists can meet the challenge presented by such a conclusion by suggesting appropriate and potentially effec- tive interventions to those who shape public policy.

In conclusion, I urge readers to consult the Resolution on Poverty and Socioeconomic Status (APA, 2000) passed by APA, to read Bullock and Lott (2001) for ways to implement the resolution, and to begin a continuing con- versation about the role psychologists can play in disrupt- ing classism. Such a conversation might include attention to the speech given by Jesse Jackson (2000) at APA’ s 107th Annual Convention in 1999. He reminded us then that

Most poor people work every day. Most poor people in the U.S. are not Black, not Brown. Most poor people are White, female, young, invisible, and without national leaders. Most poor people are not on welfare. They raise other people’ s children . . . . They put food in our children’ s schools. . . . They clean our offices. . . . They cut grass. . . . They pick lettuce. . . . They work in hospitals, as orderlies . . . no job is beneath them. (p. 329)

To continue to exclude those for whom this is true from communities of concern and respect has serious negative consequences for us all.

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association. (n.d.-a). Valuing diversity: Public Interest Directorate miniconvention at the APA 108th annual conven- tion [Announcement]. Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychological Association. (n.d.-b). National multicultual con- ference and summit II [Announcement]. Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychological Association. (n.d.-c). The psychology of race/ ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and disability: Celebrating our children, families, and seniors [Announcement]. Washington, DC: Au- thor.

American Psychological Association. (2000, August 6). Resolution on poverty and economic status. Retrieved December 17, 2001, from the American Psychological Association Web site: HYPERLINK http:// www.apa/pi.org http://www.apa.org/pi/urban/povres.html

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469 – 480.

Atherton, C. R., Gemmel, R. J., Haagenstad, S., & Holt, D. J. (1993). Measuring attitudes toward poverty: A new scale. Social Work Re- search & Abstracts, 29(4), 28 –30.

Baron, R. M., Albright, L., & Malloy, T. E. (1995). Effects of behavioral and social class information on social judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 308 –315.

Bar-Tal, D. (1990). Cause and consequences of delegitimization: Models of conflict and ethnocentrism. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 65–81.

Bassuk, E. L. (1993). Social and economic hardships of homeless and other poor women. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 63, 340 –347.

Beck, E. L., Whitley, D. M., & Wolk, J. L. (1999). Legislators’ percep-

108 February 2002 ● American Psychologist

tions about poverty: Views from the Georgia General Assembly. Jour- nal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 26(2), 87–104.

Belle, D., Doucet, J., Harris, J., Miller, J., & Tan, E. (2000). Who is rich? Who is happy? American Psychologist, 55, 1160 –1161.

Bernstein, N. (2001, August 2). Use of shelters by families sets record in New York. The New York Times. Retrieved August 2, 2001, from The New York Times Web site: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/01

Berrick, J. D. (1995). Faces of poverty: Portraits of women and children on welfare. New York: Oxford University Press.

Berube, A., & Berube, F. (1997). “ Sunset Trailer Park.” In M. Wray & A. Newitz (Eds.), White trash: Race and class in America (pp. 15–40). New York: Routledge.

Books, S. (1998). Introduction: An invitation to listen. In S. Books (Ed.), Invisible children in the society and its schools: Sociocultural, political, and historical studies in education (pp. xix–xxxii). Mahwah, NJ: Erl- baum.

Brown, L. S. (1990). The meaning of a multicultural perspective for theory-building in feminist therapy. Women and Therapy, 9, 1–21.

Bullard, R. D., & Johnson, G. S. (2000). Environmental justice: Grass- roots activism and its impact on public policy decision making. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 555–578.

Bullock, H. E. (1995). Class acts: Middle-class responses to the poor. In B. Lott & D. Maluso (Eds.), The social psychology of interpersonal discrimination (pp. 118 –159). New York: Guilford Press.

Bullock, H. E. (1999). Attributions for poverty: A comparison of middle- class and welfare recipient attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psy- chology, 29, 2059 –2082.

Bullock, H. E., & Lott, B. (2001). Building a research and advocacy agenda on issues of social justice. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 1, 147–162.

Bullock, H. E., Wyche, K. F., & Williams, W. R. (2001). Media images of the poor. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 229 –246.

Carr, L. G. (1994). The can’ t move–must move contradiction: A case study of displacement of the poor and social stress. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 3, 185–201.

Chafel, J. A. (1997). Societal images of poverty: Child and adult beliefs. Youth & Society, 28, 432–463.

Clydesdale, T. T. (1999). Toward understanding the role of Bible beliefs and higher education in American attitudes toward eradicating poverty, 1964 –1996. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 38, 103–118.

Coalition for Consumer Justice Education Project, Inc. (2001). Health care today. (Available from the Coalition for Consumer Justice Edu- cation Project, Inc., [email protected])

College aid system leaving poor behind. (2001, February 22). The Prov- idence Journal, p. A9.

Cozzarelli, C., Wilkinson, A. V., & Tagler, M. J. (2001). Attitudes toward the poor and attributions for poverty. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 207–228.

Darley, J. M., & Gross, P. H. (1983). A hypothesis-confirming bias in labeling effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 20 –33.

Deadly disparities. (2000, September 17). The New York Times, Sect. 4, p. 18.

Fine, M. (1990). “ The public” in public schools: The social construction/ constriction of moral communities. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 107–119.

Fine, M., & Weis, L. (2000). Disappearing acts: The state and violence against women in the twentieth century. Signs, 25, 1139 –1146.

Fiske, S. T., Xu, J., Cuddy, A. C., & Glick, P. (1999). (Dis)respecting versus (dis)liking: Status and interdependence predict ambivalent ste- reotypes of competence and warmth. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 473–490.

Gault, B., & Um’ rani, A. (2000, July/August). The outcomes of welfare reform for women. Poverty & Race, 9, 1–2, 6.

Golden, O. (2000). The federal response to child abuse and neglect. American Psychologist, 55, 1050 –1053.

Gore pitches economic proposal to middle-class voters. (2000, September 7). The Providence Journal, p. A6.

Halpern, R. (1993). The societal context of home visiting and related services for families in poverty. Future of Children, 3, 158 –171.

Hartigan, J., Jr. (1997). “ Name calling.” In M. Wray & A. Newitz (Eds.),

White trash: Race and class in America (pp. 41–56). New York: Routledge.

Heart risks greater in poor areas, study says. (2001, July 12). The Prov- idence Journal, p. A5.

Herbert, B. (2001, July 30). Unmasking the poor. Retrieved July 31, 2001, from The New York Times Web site: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/ 07/30/opinion/

Hospitals violating indigent law. (2001, July 13). The Providence Journal, p. A6.

Hoyt, S. K. (1999). Mentoring with class: Connections between social class and developmental relationships in the academy. In A. J. Murrell & F. J. Crosby (Eds.), Mentoring dilemmas: Developmental relation- ships within multicultural organizations (pp. 189 –210). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

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.

Huston, A. C. (1995). Policies for children: Social obligation, not handout. In H. E. Fitzgerald & B. M. Lester (Eds.), Children of poverty: Re- search, health, and policy issues (pp. 305–326). New York: Garland.

Jackson, D. Z. (2000, September 20). Yes, let’ s have some real class warfare. The Providence Journal, p. D17.

Jackson, J. (2000). What ought psychology to do? American Psychologist, 55, 328 –330.

Jacob, J. M. (2000). Beliefs about women held by African American women and men differing in level of acculturation. Unpublished mas- ter’ s thesis, University of Rhode Island, Kingston.

King, L., & Meyer, M. H. (1997). The politics of reproductive benefits: U.S. insurance coverage of contraceptive and infertility treatments. Gender & Society, 11, 8 –30.

Kirby, B. J. (1999). Income source and race effects on new-neighbor evaluations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1497–1511.

Lee, P. R. (1999). Socioeconomic status and health: Policy implications in research, public health and medical care. In N. E. Adler & M. Marmot (Eds.), Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Vol. 896. Socio- economic status and health in industrial nations: Social, psychological, and biological pathways (pp. 294 –301). New York: New York Acad- emy of Sciences.

Leeder, E. (1996). Speaking rich people’ s words: Implications of a fem- inist class analysis and psychotherapy. In M. Hill & E. Rothblum (Eds.), Classism and feminist therapy: Counting costs (pp. 45–57). New York: Haworth.

Leyens, J. P., Paladino, P. M., Rodriguez-Torres, R., Vaes, J., Demoulin, S., Rodriguez-Torres, A., & Gaunt, R. (2000). The emotional side of prejudice: The attribution of secondary emotions to ingroups and out- groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 186 –197.

Lott, B. (2001). Low-income parents and the public schools. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 247–260.

Lott, B., & Bullock, H. E. (Eds.). (2001a). Listening to the voices of poor women [Special issue]. Journal of Social Issues, 57(2).

Lott, B., & Bullock, H. E. (2001b). Who are the poor? Journal of Social Issues, 57, 189 –206.

Lott, B., & Saxon, S. (in press). The influence of ethnicity, social class and context on judgments about American women. Journal of Social Psy- chology.

Luttrell, W. (1997). Schoolsmart and motherwise: Working-class wom- en’s identity and schooling. New York: Routledge.

Margolin, L. (1994). Goodness personified: The emergence of gifted children. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Merry, S. E. (1986). Everyday understanding of the law in working-class America. American Ethnologist, 13, 253–270.

Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (2000). Soceoeconomic status and subjective life expectancy. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 133–151.

Moon, D. G., & Rolison, G. L. (1998). Communication of classism. In M. L. Hecht (Ed.), Communicating prejudice (pp. 122–135). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Naples, N. A. (1997). The “ new consensus” on the gendered “ social contract:” The 1987–1988 U. S. Congressional hearing on welfare reform. Signs, 22, 907–945.

Newman, K. (1999). Summary: What is to be done? In N. E. Adler & M. Marmot (Eds.), Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Vol. 896. Socioeconomic status and health in industrial nations: Social, psycho-

109February 2002 ● American Psychologist

logical, and biological pathways (pp. 278 –280). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction. Jour- nal of Social Issues, 46(1), 1–20.

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104 –193, 110 Stat. 2105 (1997).

Phelan, J. C., Link, B. G., Moore, R. E., & Stueve, A. (1997). The stigma of homelessness: The impact of the label “ homeless” on attitudes toward poor persons. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 323–337.

Pinderhughes, R. (1996). The impact of race on environmental quality: An empirical and theoretical discussion. Sociological Perspectives, 39, 231–248.

Polakow, V.(1995). Epilogue: Naming and blaming: Beyond a pedagogy of the poor. In B. B. Swadener & S. Lubeck (Eds.), Children and families “at promise”: Deconstructing the discourse of risk (pp. 263– 270). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

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, 615–620.

Reid, P. T. (1993). Poor women in psychological research: Shut up and shut out. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17, 133–150.

Reid, P. T. (2000). Women, ethnicity, and AIDS: What’ s love got to do with it? Sex Roles, 42, 709 –722.

Richie, B. E. (2000). A Black feminist reflection on the antiviolence movement. Signs, 25, 1133–1137.

Riemer, F. J. (1997). Quick attachments to the workforce: An ethnogaphic analysis of a transition from welfare to low-wage jobs. Social Work Research, 21, 225–232.

Rollins, J. H., Saris, R. N., & Johnston-Robledo, I. (2001). Low-income women speak about housing: A high stakes game of musical chairs. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 277–298.

Roter, D. L. (1988). Commentary. The Journal of Family Practice, 27, 620 –621.

Rothblum, E. D. (1996). The rich get social services and the poor get capitalism. In M. Hill & E. D. Rothblum (Eds.), Classism and feminist therapy: Counting costs (pp. 7–12). New York: Haworth.

Saris, R. N., & Johnston-Robledo, I. (2000). Poor women are still shut out of mainstream psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 233– 235.

Savner, S. (2000, July/August). Welfare reform and racial/ethnic minor- ities: The questions to ask. Poverty & Race, 9(4), 3–5.

Schultz, K. (1999). Identity narratives: Stories from the lives of urban adolescent females. Urban Review, 31, 79 –106.

Schwalbe, M., Godwin, S., Holden, D., Schrock, D., Thompson, S., & Wolomir, M. (2000). Generic processes in the reproduction of inequal- ity: An interactionist analysis. Social Forces, 79, 419 –452.

Schwartz, S. H., & Struch, N. (1989). Values, stereotypes, and intergroup antagonism. In D. Bar-Tal, C. F. Grauman, A. Kruglanski, & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Stereotyping and prejudice: Changing conceptions (pp. 151–167). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Seccombe, K., James, D., & Walters, K. B. (1998). “ They think you ain’ t much of nothing” : The social construction of the welfare mother. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 849 –865.

Sengupta, S. (2001, July 8). How many poor children is too many? The New York Times, p. WK3.

Shapiro, I., Greenstein, R., & Primus, W. (2001, May 31). Pathbreaking

CBO study shows dramatic increases in income disparities in 1980s and 1990s: An analysis of CBO data. Retrieved December 17, 2001, from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Web site: http:// www.cbpp.org/5-31-01tax.htm

Shinn, M., Baumohl, J., & Hopper, K. (2001). The prevention of home- lessness revisited. Analysis of Social Issues and Public Policy, 1, 95–127.

Shinn, M., & Gillespie, C. (1994). The role of housing and poverty in the origins of homelessness. American Behavioral Scientist, 37, 505–521.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Single mothers off welfare are no better off, study finds. (2001, August 17). The Providence Journal, p. A8.

Smith, D. E. (2000). Schooling for inequality. Signs, 25, 1147–1151. Stretesky, P., & Hogan, M. J. (1998). Environmental justice: An analysis

of Superfund sites in Florida. Social Problems, 45, 268 –287. Sweeney, G. (1997). The king of White trash culture. In M. Wray & A.

Newitz (Eds.), White trash: Race and class in America (pp. 249 –266). New York: Routledge.

Tarlov, A. R. (1999). Public policy frameworks for improving population health. In N. E. Adler & M. Marmot (Eds.), Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Vol. 896. Socioeconomic status and health in industrial nations: Social, psychological, and biological pathways (pp. 281–293). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

Toward universal coverage. (2000, September 24). The New York Times, p. WK14.

Trudeau, G. (1999, March 7). Doonesbury [Cartoon]. Providence Sunday Journal, p. 1 [Comics].

Unger, R. K. (2000). Outsider inside: Positive marginality and social change. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 163–179.

Viano, E. C. (1992). The news media and crime victims: The right to know versus the right to privacy. In E. C. Viano (Ed.), Critical issues in victimology: International perspectives (pp. 24 –34). New York: Springer.

Weinger, S. (1998). Poor children “ know their place” : Perceptions of poverty, class and public messages. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 25, 100 –118.

Williams, M. D. (1993). Urban ethnography: Another look. In J. H. Stanfield II & R. M. Dennis (Eds.), Race and ethnicity in research methods (pp. 135–156). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Wilson, G. (1996). Toward a revised framework for examining beliefs about the causes of poverty. Sociological Quarterly, 37, 414 –428.

Wong, E. (2000, August 13). Poorest schools lack teachers and computers. The New York Times, p. NE14.

World Health Organization. (2000, June 21). World Health Organization assesses the world’ s health systems (World Health Organization Press Release WHO/44). Retrieved January 7, 2002, from the World Health Organization Web site: http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000- 44.html

Wray, M., & Newitz, A.(1997). White trash: Race and class in America. New York: Routledge.

Zucker, G. S., & Weiner, B. (1993). Conservatism and perceptions of poverty: An attributional analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychol- ogy, 23, 925–943.

110 February 2002 ● American Psychologist