4 questions about social science

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

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 [email protected] 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

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.

Method

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.

Results

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.

Discussion

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.

Conclusion

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.

Acknowledgments

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.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding

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

References

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.

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

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.