Poverty Vs. Education: 4-6 pg essay

The Impact of a Poverty Simulation on Educators’ Attributions and Behaviors

Jennifer N. Engler , Carla G. Strassle , and Laura W. Steck

School of Behavioral Sciences and Education, York College of Pennsylvania, York, Pennsylvania, USA

ABSTRACT Many educators subscribe to poverty myths that can negatively impact teaching practices. This study examined whether poverty simulation participation would lead to sustained changes in poverty attributions and whether these changes would predict subsequent behavioral differences. Participants (n ¼ 161) were educators from three schools in the mid- Atlantic region who participated in a poverty simulation. Results indicated that attributions do significantly change in the long-term following a simulation and these modified attribu- tions predict some intended future behaviors. The poverty simulation is an effective tool for challenging poverty myths and may provide an important opportunity for teacher and staff professional development.

KEYWORDS Poverty; simulation; training; education; professional development

Despite two years of decline in the United States’ poverty rate (US Census Bureau 2017), poverty continues to be a significant social problem, impacting 12.7% of the general population and 18% of children under the age of 18. An increas- ing number of educators will find themselves working with students who experience poverty and yet the average salary of most teachers places them within the middle-class (Loewus 2017; US Department of Education 2018), which may leave them with a limited understanding regarding the experience and impact of poverty (Payne 2005). Although an extensive body of research has con- sistently refuted the existence of a “culture of poverty” (Lewis 1966), many individuals, includ- ing preservice and experienced teachers, still sub- scribe to this myth that posits that all those in poverty share several inferior values, including a lack of motivation, an inability to defer gratifica- tion, and a poorly defined work ethic, that con- tribute to their poverty (Amatea, Cholewa, and Mixon 2012; Aragon et al. 2014; Gorski 2008).

Educators, however, are not alone in their ten- dency to make inaccurate or incomplete explana- tions for poverty. Early work to examine people’s attributions for what causes poverty yielded three factors: (1) structural, which emphasizes

influences external to the individual, (2) individu- alistic, which comprises an individual’s personal character or behavior, and (3) fatalistic, which include those unpredictable factors that are neither foreseeable nor controllable by any individual or institution (Feagin 1975). According to these ori- ginal findings and the vast majority of follow-up investigations over a 35-year span, the individual- istic factor is most favored (e.g., Cozzarelli, Tagler, and Wilkinson 2002; Cozzarelli, Wilkinson, and Tagler 2001; Kleugel and Smith 1986; Robinson 2009; Singh 1989; Smith and Stone 1989). Unfortunately, the strong focus on individualism in American culture may contribute to teachers believing that individual students are solely responsible for their success in school (Ladson- Billings 2006) and might make teachers vulnerable to adopting the negative and stigmatizing views of children in poverty (Ullucci and Howard 2015). In the education system, these individual explanations ignore the ample evidence that students in schools and school districts with higher concentrations of impoverished families often perform worse than their peers in wealthier districts and that these poorer schools face a variety of structural chal- lenges that can influence academic outcomes (Rich, Cox, and Bloch 2016).

CONTACT Jennifer N. Engler [email protected] School of Behavioral Sciences and Education, York College of Pennsylvania, York, PA 17403, USA. � 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

THE CLEARING HOUSE 2019, VOL. 92, NOS. 4–5, 174–182 https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2019.1648233

This tendency to emphasize personal responsi- bility as the cause of poverty can impact one’s feelings and actions toward individuals in poverty (Williams 1984) and can also affect how individ- uals make decisions about how to address pov- erty-related issues (Bullock, Williams, and Limbert 2003; Tagler and Cozzarelli 2013). Specific to the education field, when educators make explanations about poverty that are based on individual deficit, this can contribute to a shirking of responsibility to address inequities in the education system and reduced support of sys- temic efforts to address poverty (Gorski 2008). Within the classroom, these biases can influence teachers’ interactions with and expectations for their students, perhaps resulting in a “pedagogy of poverty” (Haberman 2010), where instructors are more focused on giving information and con- trolling behavior rather than challenging students to take a more active role in their learning. Over time, this could lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy of academic failure whereby students are only motivated to accomplish the lowest levels of per- formance expected of them by their teachers. To combat this, it is important that teachers develop class-consciousness, whereby they reject various poverty myths and do not allow these to nega- tively impact their teaching practices (Ullucci and Howard 2015). Specifically, teachers must move away from a deficit-based view of children in poverty to a more balanced perspective that incorporates both the heightened challenges these children experience and the underlying potentials they have.

The education literature has provided a clear call for improved professional development to assist teachers to work effectively with their diverse student populations. One of the most important challenges for preservice teachers is to move them from an internal, individual-based view of poverty, which includes assumptions that people with poverty backgrounds are unmoti- vated and have poor work ethics (Gorski 2008), to an institutional or structural view of poverty (Ullucci and Howard 2015). In addition, Ullucci and Howard (2015) have highlighted the import- ance of developing empathy for those children in poverty and identifying assets that can be present in low-income communities.

One tool that has been found to influence both poverty attributions and empathy is partici- pation in a poverty simulation. The Missouri Association for Community Action copyrighted the Community Action Poverty Simulation (CAPS n.d.) in 2002. Simulation materials can be purchased in kits and have been used to bring the poverty simulation experience to over 300 organizations. For the simulation, participants arrive at the simulation location, a large room with many large tables and chairs, and are pro- vided with a packet of information which desig- nates their roles. Those roles vary by several elements including age, sex, family constellation (e.g. single adult, married with children). Those assigned to be in the same family meet at a table and review their materials which include social characteristics, such as whether they have a car, any money in the bank, jobs, and possessions. The facilitator then addresses the group to pro- vide instructions for the simulation. Participants experience four simulated “weeks” lasting 15 minutes each during which they try to meet everyday living goals, such as working for their assigned employer or applying for government support, taking children to school, and buying groceries. Interactions with the “staff” of the agencies where these goals take place is designed to be cursory and highlight existing bureaucracies that impede successful completion of these goals. During the simulation a facilitator distributes “luck of the draw” cards which indicate an unex- pected boon or negative event, such as winning a small lottery or having a sick child who must unexpectedly be picked up from school. Failure to take care of certain responsibilities carries con- sequences, such as eviction for nonpayment of rent, truancy charges for children who did not go to school, jail for participants who tried to get ahead by theft or drug-dealing. After each “week”, participants return to their home table and have a chance to ask questions and to try to plan for the following week. When the simulation concludes, participants are debriefed by the facili- tators who ask participants to describe their expe- riences in the simulation. The entire experience takes approximately three hours.

This type of simulated encounter can result in a meaningful examination and reconstruction of

THE CLEARING HOUSE 175

one’s cultural assumptions and has been sup- ported as an effective training tool for preservice teachers to examine their assumptions about the experience of poverty (Zygmunt-Fillwalk and Clark 2007). Research has demonstrated that par- ticipation in the poverty simulation results in improved views toward poverty (Noone et al. 2012; Vandsburger et al. 2010; Yang et al. 2014), increased empathy toward families in poverty (Catapano and Huisman 2010), reduced stigma related to poverty (Patterson and Hulton 2012; Yang et al. 2014), and greater understanding of the state and negative consequences of poverty (Cohen et al. 2010), including the barriers faced by those in poverty (Strasser et al. 2013). Recent research (Engler et al. 2019) has also now dem- onstrated that causal attributions of poverty within both student and professional samples can be modified, at least in the short-term, by experi- ential learning activities like the poverty simula- tion. Much existing research, however, has utilized human service or healthcare samples. There has been relatively little examination of how this simulation could be used for profes- sional development among educators.

Demonstrating a change in attributions about poverty based on participating in a poverty simu- lation indicates that explanations about poverty can be changed. Simply changing attributions, however, should be considered the beginning step toward modifying the impact of these underlying assumptions. An immediate need is to evaluate whether these changes in attributions are main- tained (Browne and Roll 2016). In addition, it is also important to determine whether these attri- butions can predict behavioral change. Although some prior research (e.g., Bullock et al. 2003; Tagler and Cozzarelli 2013) has demonstrated that attributions can predict simulated decisions toward poverty initiatives, there has not been an examination into whether or how these attribu- tions contribute to actual advocacy efforts. The purposes of the current study, then, are twofold: (a) to contribute specifically to the education field by exploring poverty attribution change and sta- bility across three points in time (prior to a pov- erty simulation, immediately after a poverty simulation, and approximately six months after the poverty simulation) for a sample of primary

and secondary educators and staff, and (b) to assess whether the resulting attribution changes predict behavioral differences following participa- tion in a poverty simulation.

Method

Participants

Participants were 161 staff and administrators from three primary and secondary schools in the mid-Atlantic region who participated in a facili- tated Community Action Poverty Simulation. Poverty rates within these schools ranged from 18% to 66%. One hundred twenty-one of these participants completed the pretest and posttest questionnaire. Seventy completed the six-month follow-up survey.

Measures

Poverty attributions

Explanations for poverty were assessed using the attribution questionnaire (Cozzarelli et al. 2001) prior to the simulation (“pretest”), immediately following the simulation (“posttest”), and six months after to simulation (“follow-up”). We created a “belief index,” which is calculated as the difference between respondents’ external and internal subscale scores (Tagler and Cozzarelli 2013). Positive belief index scores reflect greater relative external attributions while negative scores reflect greater relative internal attributions.

Intended behavior

In the informed consent for the six-month fol- low-up survey, participants were informed that they would be entered into a drawing for one of two $50 gift cards. In addition to the poverty attribution questionnaire, this survey also con- tained three additional questions to assess intended future behaviors.

Monetary donations In the survey, we explained that our research group was pursuing a fundraising partnership with Feeding America (http://www.feedingamer- ica.org/) and asked participants if we could count

176 J. N. ENGLER ET AL.

on them to donate in the future. Response options were “I will definitely donate,” “I may donate,” and “I know that I will not be able to donate.” We also asked participants if they were the winner of one of the $50 gift cards would they be willing to donate it to Feeding America (Yes/No)?

Volunteerism In the follow-up survey we stated that the giving of time is a very effective way to offer help to those in poverty and offered to link participants to an organization for which they would be able to offer their time, either by working online, or going to a location to provide volunteer hours. We then asked participants how many total hours of their time they would be willing to offer, entering 0 if none.

Results

We did a statistical analysis to determine if par- ticipants’ belief indices would change over time. The analysis indicated that we can credibly say that participants’ six-month follow-up belief index was significantly more external than their mean pretest belief index (see Appendix), which indicates that they were more likely to explain causes of poverty as due to factors external to the individual (e.g., prejudice and discrimination, inadequate job market).

We also conducted a statistical analysis to determine whether these modified attributions would predict behavioral differences. That ana- lysis suggested that participants with external attributions would be likely to volunteer a signifi- cantly greater number of hours than those partic- ipants with internal attributions, but that they were no more likely to donate their gift card or indicate that they would donate money in the future than individuals with an internal attribu- tion style (see Appendix).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to determine whether participation in a poverty simulation would yield long-term, enduring changes in edu- cators’ attributions for poverty and whether those

modified attributions would predict differences in behaviors toward those in poverty. Our findings indicate that participants shifted toward increas- ingly external attributions following a poverty simulation and that they became significantly more external by the six-month follow-up. It is possible that this more significant shift is facili- tated when participants are able to take and apply their transformational simulation experience within a real-world, day-to-day setting (i.e., the classroom or school environment). Perhaps as they reflect on their simulation experience as they relate to the living, breathing students that they serve, they begin to modify attributions through these interactions. Some work within the teacher education literature seems to support this notion as it has demonstrated only short-lived outcomes of individual non-poverty simulation or training experiences when students leave, return to their schoolwork, and are no longer confronted with the challenges inherent in these experiences (McKinney et al. 2008; Mullen, Beilke, and Brooks 2007). Similarly, others have acknowledged the importance prolonged expos- ure in field experiences (Hyland and Heuschkel 2010) and of subsequent discussion or reflection opportunities to facilitate the meaning-making of these experiences and support the restructuring of participants’ beliefs (Zygmunt-Fillwalk and Clark 2007).

The fact that attitudes about poverty change over time as indicated by the follow-up data is heartening, particularly because demonstrating the effectiveness of an intervention over time has been challenging within societal issue literature (Corrigan, Michaels, and Morris 2015; Howell 2011; 2014).

With regard to our second question, our results indicate that attributions do appear to predict some intended future behaviors (i.e., vol- unteer time), but not others (i.e., monetary dona- tions). Others have reported similar results regarding the link to volunteerism (Tagler and Cozzarelli 2013), but found that it was attitudes (positive or negative evaluations) toward individ- uals in poverty and not the attributions for why individuals were in poverty that predicted volun- teerism. While the finding that change in poverty attributions did not predict all behaviors is

THE CLEARING HOUSE 177

disappointing, it is not entirely surprising. Often referred to as the “attitude-behavior discrepancy” (Webb and Sheeran 2006), numerous studies across different disciplines involved in societal issues indicate that change in attitudes does not necessarily lead to change in behavior (D’Onofrio, Moskowitz, and Braverman 2002; Geng et al. 2017; Howell 2014; Vermeir and Verbeke 2006). Our discovery of a relationship between attributions and expressed willingness to work toward combatting poverty then is notable. Perhaps among an educator population this intention for volunteerism is particularly relevant. They work daily within settings where they use their skills to help others and their approach to solving problems may be more centered on help- ing rather than funding. And as these educators experience modified attributions about poverty through participation in a simulation, the most immediate need is not that they donate money to a charity, but that they use this new perspective to effectively work with students in their schools.

Implications for schools

The education system is increasingly alert to the impact of poverty on their students (Bashaw 2018) and the results of the present study indi- cate that a poverty simulation can yield signifi- cant and meaningful changes in an educator’s beliefs about poverty. A greater understanding of the culture of poverty might help educators refute some of the commonly held stereotypes about individuals in poverty (Gorski 2013) and temper some of the frustrations and misunderstandings they experience when working with low-income students and families (Payne 2005). Previous research has demonstrated that participation in a poverty simulation can improve this understand- ing and empathy building and generate an enthu- siasm to apply these new insights during work with students and families who live in poverty (Rice, McCall, and Ogden 2017). In addition to empathy, participation in a poverty simulation might generate a greater awareness of the assets associated with families who are managing pov- erty and a sensitivity to the challenges that impact their involvement with the school, two traits that are characteristic of some of the most

successful teachers of low-income students (Gorski 2013). This enhanced perspective and sensitivity can facilitate the development of rela- tionships between teachers and their students and families from poverty, a key component in stu- dent achievement (Payne 2005).

In addition to enabling teachers to establish stronger relationships with their low-income stu- dents and families, a greater understanding of pov- erty can also strengthen their ability to incorporate sensitive, strategic, and effective strategies to facili- tate the success of these students. One of the most fundamental strategies educators can utilize is to serve as role models for their students. With a greater understanding of the challenges students from poverty face, including an increased likeli- hood of being late and having more limited paren- tal involvement, teachers can model respect, emphasize social skills, and be inclusive in the classroom setting (Jensen 2009). They can also demonstrate effective strategies for problem solv- ing, coping, and planning/time management (Payne 2005). Reports from teachers who have par- ticipated in previous poverty simulations have indicated that following the experience they were prompted to consider practical ways to support their students struggling with poverty (Rice, McCall, and Ogden 2018). Some of the ideas they have generated following the simulation experience have included avoiding punishing students for things that they now understood were out of their control (i.e., being late to school) and being more patient and understanding of these students, recog- nizing that education may not be the first priority for a child or family struggling with poverty (Rice, McCall, and Ogden 2017). In addition to these efforts generated by past-simulation participants, other strategies to make classrooms more validat- ing for low-income students have been suggested. Some of these include holding high expectations for all students, emphasizing higher-order and rigorous educational approaches, and infusing a greater understanding of poverty into the curricu- lum (Gorski 2013).

Limitations and future directions

There are a few limitations in the current study that are worth noting. Although there was a

178 J. N. ENGLER ET AL.

range in poverty rates across the three schools we sampled, our sample size did not allow us suffi- cient power to examine differences by school or poverty rate. It is possible that there may be meaningful differences in both preexisting beliefs about poverty and/or the degree of change in those beliefs that occurs following a simulation as a function of the extent of poverty one is faced with each day. It is also possible that the future advocacy or volunteer efforts of individuals in urban schools who are already addressing the challenges of poverty on a regular basis might differ in meaningful ways from those who work in financially stronger schools.

It is also important to note that in this study we were still measuring intended future behavior. As indicated in the literature, although self-report data is easier to collect, it may not correspond to actual observed behavior (Howell 2014; Irvine et al. 2004). An important, but largely absent, step in all behavioral change literature would be to examine actual measurable behaviors to observe the potential impact of attributions and attribution change. In addition, we acknowledge that the behavioral outcomes used in the current study were fairly generic. Because this sample was part of a larger study where multiple profes- sions were assessed, the measures needed to be broad enough to apply to many individuals. Despite this limitation, this study provides some encouraging evidence that attitude change can predict behavioral change in the area of poverty. More general work with educators and poverty is necessary and these efforts might more clearly identify meaningful behavior changes that would be relevant in the classroom or school setting. This study has provided empirical support for those ventures.

Conclusion

The present study contributes meaningfully to an understanding of how a poverty simulation can be utilized to significantly modify educators’ explanations for poverty and how those explana- tions can predict their future behaviors. The results indicate that the poverty simulation increases participants’ appreciation of institu- tional and structural causes of poverty and that

participants experience significant long-term changes in their attributions six months following this experience. In addition, this study helps move the state of this literature from a mere focus on attitudinal change to measuring behav- ioral change related to poverty, which is an important step that parallels the work being con- ducted in other societal-issue areas. It is critical for educators to better understand the nature of poverty and the challenges that their low-income students face (Jensen 2009).

We strongly encourage schools to use this intervention for both new and experienced teach- ers. It is possible that local agencies might offer the simulation at low or no-cost. If such an option is not available, schools should explore the feasibility of purchasing a kit (currently priced at $2,150 according to CAPS n.d.) and establishing an internal simulation team to facili- tate regular poverty simulations. A particularly powerful aspect of the simulation happens when the “staff” of the agencies in the simulation have themselves experienced poverty and the type of interactions that they now have as “staff” in the simulation. Sharing these personal experiences of poverty as part of the debriefing can make a strong impact on people who might otherwise think of it as “just a simulation”; they are primed to consider things differently by having been through the experience and then they are reminded that those experiences are the reality for at least some of their students and families. Of course, purchasing the kit and incorporating facilitators who themselves live in poverty will require clear commitment of both time and resources, although most, but not all, of the costs associated with the simulation are borne upfront with the purchase of the kit. In our simulations, for example, we have offered the “staff” $20 gift cards for their help with the simulation. Providing that, or a meal and child care, for example, are ways to potentially increase partici- pation by individuals who experience poverty, thus making for a richer experience for the edu- cators as they go through the simulation. As schools continue to try and best address the unique challenges that come with serving chil- dren in poverty, the poverty simulation experi- ence may provide an important, and relatively

THE CLEARING HOUSE 179

cost-effective, opportunity for teacher and staff professional development.

Funding

Funding for the preparation of the article was provided by York College of Pennsylvania through a Summer Research Fellowship grant.

ORCID

Jennifer N. Engler http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5548-5338 Carla G. Strassle http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3503-7028

References

Amatea, E. S., B. Cholewa, and K. A. Mixon. 2012. Influencing preservice teachers’ attitudes about working with low-income and/or ethnic minority families. Urban Educ. 47 (4):801–834. doi: 10.1177/00042085912436846.

Aragon, A., S. A. Culpepper, M. W. McKee, and M. Perkins. 2014. Understanding profiles of preservice teach- ers with different levels of commitment to teaching in urban schools. Urban Educ. 49 (5):543–573. doi: 10.1177/ 0042085913481361.

Barrett, K. 2018. Poverty simulation raises awareness for educators. neaToday http://neatoday.org/2018/09/11/pov- erty-simulation-raises-awareness-for-educators/

Bashaw, W. 2018. Teacher center’s simulation explores effects of poverty. The Daily Star. https://www.thedailystar. com/news/local_news/teacher-center-s-simulation-explores- effects-of-poverty/article_b7bdd415-9c1c-5c1a-bf25- 34bf7b8988ce.html

Browne, L. P., and S. Roll. 2016. Toward a more just approach to poverty simulations. J. Experiential Educ. 39 (3):254–268. doi: 10.1177/1053825916643832.

Bullock, H. E., W. R. Williams, and W. M. Limbert. 2003. Predicting support for welfare policies: The impact of attributions and beliefs about inequality. J. Poverty 7 (3): 35–56. doi: 10.1300/J134v07n03_03.

Catapano, S., and S. Huisman. 2010. Preparing teachers for urban schools: Evaluation of a community-based model. Penn GSE Persp. Urban Educ. 7 (1):80–90.

Cohen, E., D. F. Fullerton, R. Retkin, D. Weintraub, P. Tames, J. Brandfield, and M. Sandel. 2010. Medical-legal partnership: Collaborating with lawyers to identify and address health disparities. J. General Int. Med. 25 (S2): 136–139. doi: 10.1007/s11606-009-1239-7.

Community Action Poverty Simulation. n.d. Accessed December 28, 2018. http://www.povertysimulation.net/ about/

Corrigan, P., P. J. Michaels, and S. Morris. 2015. Do the effects of antistigma programs persist over time? Findings from a meta-analysis. Psych. Serv. 66 (5):543–546. doi: 10. 1176/appi.ps.201400291.

Cozzarelli, C., M. J. Tagler, and A. V. Wilkinson. 2002. Do middle-class students perceive poor women and poor men differently? Sex Roles 47 (11/12):519–529. doi: 10. 1023/A:1022038200071.

Cozzarelli, C., A. V. Wilkinson, and M. J. Tagler. 2001. Attitudes toward the poor and attributions for poverty. J. Soc. Iss. 57 (2):207–228. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00209.

D’Onofrio, C. N., J. M. Moskowitz, and M. T. Braverman. 2002. Curtailing tobacco use among youth: Evaluation of project 4-health. Health Educ. Behav. 29:656–682. doi: 10. 1177/109019802237937.

Engler, J. N., P. B. Druen, L. W. Steck, M. Ligon, S. Jacob, and L. J. Arseneau. 2019. Enhancing advocacy for indi- viduals in poverty: The role of a poverty simulation train- ing. Psychological Services. doi: 10.1037/ser0000348.

Feagin, J. R. 1975. Subordinating the poor: Welfare and American beliefs. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Geng, J., R. Long, H. Chen, and W. Li. 2017. Exploring the motivation-behavior gap in urban residents’ green travel behavior: A theoretical and empirical study. Resour. Conserv. Recycling 125:282–292. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec. 2017.06.025.

Gorski, P. 2008. The myth of the “culture of poverty.” Educ. Leadership 65 (7):32–36.

Gorski, P. C. 2013. Reaching and teaching students in pov- erty: Strategies for erasing the opportunity gap. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Haberman, M. 2010. The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan 92 (2):81–87. doi: 10.1177/ 003172171009200223.

Howell, R. A. 2011. Lights, camera … action? Altered atti- tudes and behaviour in response to the climate change film The Age of Stupid. Global Environ. Change 21 (1): 177–187. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.09.004.

Howell, R. A. 2014. Investigating the long-term impacts of climate change communications on individuals’ attitudes and behavior. Environ. Behav. 46 (1):70–101. doi: 10. 1177/0013916512452428.

Hyland, N. E., and K. Heuschkel. 2010. Fostering under- standing of insititutional oppression among U.S. pre-ser- vice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Educ. 26 (4): 821–829. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.019.

Irvine, A. B., D. V. Ary, D. A. Grove, and L. Gilfillan- Morton. 2004. The effectiveness of an interactive multi- media program to influence eating habits. Health Educ. Res. 19 (3):290–305. doi: 10.1093/her/cyg027.

Jensen, E. 2009. Teaching with poverty in mind: What being poor does to kids’ brains and what schools can do about it. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Kleugel, J. R., and E. R. Smith. 1986. Beliefs about inequal- ity: Americans’ view of what is and what ought to be. New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter. doi: 10.1093/sw/33.1. 85-b.

Ladson-Billings, G. 2006. It’s not the culture of poverty, it’s the poverty of culture: The problem with teacher educa- tion. Anthropol. Educ. Quart. 37:104–109. doi: 10.1525/ aeq.2006.37.2.104.

180 J. N. ENGLER ET AL.

Lewis, O. 1966. The culture of poverty. Sci. Am. 215 (4): 19–25.

Loewus, L. 2017. The nation’s teaching force is still mostly white and female. Education Week https://www.edweek. org/ew/articles/2017/08/15/the-nations-teaching-force-is-still- mostly.html

McKinney, S. E., M. Haberman, D. Stafford-Johnson, and J. Robinson. 2008. Developing teachers for high-poverty schools: The role of the internship experience. Urban Educ. 43 (1):68–82. doi: 10.1177/0042085907305200.

Mullen, L., J. Beilke, and N. J. Brooks. 2007. Redefining field experiences: Virtual environments in teacher educa- tion. Int. J. Hum. Soc. Sci. 2 (1):22–28.

Noone, J., S. Sideras, P. Gubrud-Howe, H. Voss, and L. R. Mathews. 2012. Influence of a poverty simulation on nursing student attitudes toward poverty. J. Nurs. Educ. 51 (11):617–622. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20120914-01.

Patterson, N., and L. J. Hulton. 2012. Enhancing nursing students’ understanding of poverty through simulation. Public Health Nurs. 29 (2):143–151. doi: 10.1111/j.1525- 1446.2011.00999.x.

Payne, R. 2005. A framework for understanding poverty. Highland, TX: Aha! Process, Inc.

Rice, A. G., L. A. McCall, and J. E. Ogden. 2017. The pov- erty simulation: Increasing teacher sensitivity for students living in poverty. National Youth-At-Risk J. 2:107–127. doi: 10.20429/nyarj.2017.020208.

Rich, M., A. Cox, and M. Bloch. 2016. Money, race and success: How your school district compares. The New York Times. Accessed December 28, 2018. https://nyti.ms/ 1T9Idyl.

Robinson, J. W. 2009. American poverty cause beliefs and structured inequality legitimization. Sociol. Spectr. 29 (4): 489–518. doi: 10.1080/02732170902904681.

Singh, A. K. 1989. Attribution research on poverty: A review. Psychologia 32:143–148.

Smith, K. B., and L. H. Stone. 1989. Rags, riches, and boot- straps: Beliefs about the causes of wealth and poverty. Sociol. Quart. 30 (1):93–107. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525. 1989.tb01513.x.

Strasser, S., M. O. Smith, D. P. Denney, M. C. Jackson, and P. Buckmaster. 2013. A poverty simulation to inform public health practice. Am. J. Health Educ. 44 (5): 259–264. doi: 10.1080/19325037.2013.811366.

Tagler, M. J., and C. Cozzarelli. 2013. Feelings toward the poor and beliefs about the causes of poverty: The role of affective-cognitive consistency in help-giving. J. Psychol. 147 (6):517–539. doi: 10.1080/00223980.2012. 71821.

U. S. Census Bureau 2017. Income and poverty in the United States: 2016. Report Number P60-259. Accessed December 28, 2018. https://www.census.gov/library/publi- cations/2017/demo/p60-259.html

U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 2018. Digest of education statistics, 2016. Report Number NCES 2017-094. Accessed June 5, 2019. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=28

Ullucci, K., and T. Howard. 2015. Pathologizing the poor: Implications for preparing teachers to working in high- poverty schools. Urban Educ. 50 (2):170–193. doi: 10. 1177/0042085914543117.

Vandsburger, E., R. Duncan-Daston, E. Akerson, and T. Dillon. 2010. The effects of poverty simulation, an experi- ential learning modality, on students’ understandings of life in poverty. J. Teaching Soc. Work 30 (3):300–316. doi: 10.1080/08841233.2010.497129.

Vermeir, I., and W. Verbeke. 2006. Sustainable food con- sumption: Exploring the consumer “attitude - behavioral intention” gap. J. Agricult. Environ. Ethics 19 (2):169–194. doi: 10.1007/s10806-005-5485-3.

Webb, T. L., and P. Sheeran. 2006. Does changing behav- ioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-ana- lysis of the experimental evidence. Psychol. Bull. 132 (2): 249–268. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.249.

Williams, S. 1984. Left-right ideological differences in blaming victims. Political Psychol. 5 (4):573–581. doi: 10.2307/3791228.

Yang, K., G. R. Woomer, K. Agbemenu, and L. Williams. 2014. Relate better and judge less: Poverty simulation promoting culturally competent care in community health nursing. Nurse Educ Pract 14 (6):680–5. doi: 10. 1016/j.nepr.2014.09.001.

Zygmunt-Fillwalk, E., and P. Clark. 2007. Becoming multi- cultural: Raising awareness and supporting change in teacher education. Childhood Educ. 83 (5):288–293. doi: 10.1080/00094056.2007.10522934.

Appendix

A one-way repeated-measures ANOVA was calculated to compare participants’ belief indices over time and a signifi- cant effect was found (F(2.60) ¼ 3.56, P ¼ 0.035, g2 ¼ 0.11). According to post hoc t-tests using a Bonferroni correction of P ¼ 0.016, the participants’ mean 6-month follow-up belief index (M ¼ 0.30, SD ¼ 0.98) was significantly more external than their mean pretest belief index (M ¼ �0.06, SD ¼ 0.94; t(30) ¼ �2.78, P ¼ 0.009, d ¼ 0.37), resulting in a small to medium effect size. However, the posttest mean belief index (M ¼ 0.13, SD ¼ 1.18) did not significantly dif- fer from scores at pretest (t(112) ¼ �2.12, P ¼ 0.036) or six-month follow-up (t(30) ¼ �1.24, P ¼ 0.23)2.

To determine whether these modified attributions would predict behavioral differences, all participants were classified as internal (scores less than or equal to 0) or external (scores greater than 0) based on their belief index scores at six-month follow-up. An independent-samples t-test was calculated com- paring the mean amount of time participants would be willing to volunteer in the future to assist poverty-related initiatives. The mean of the external group was significantly higher (m¼ 1.96, sd¼ 3.75) than the mean of the internal group (m¼ 0.25, sd¼ 0.58; t(26.9) ¼ �2.29, P¼ 0.03, d¼ 0.64) and resulted in a medium to large effect size. Participants in the external group indicated that they would volunteer a

THE CLEARING HOUSE 181

significantly greater number of hours than those in the internal group.

Chi-squared tests of independence were calculated comparing the frequency of gift card donation and likeli- hood of future monetary donations for external and internal participants. No significant relationship was

found for either variable (v2(1) ¼ 0.11, P ¼ 0.75 and v2(2) ¼ 2.08, P ¼ 0.35, respectively). Individuals with an external attribution style were no more likely to donate their gift card or indicate that they would donate money in the future than individuals with an internal attribu- tion style.

182 J. N. ENGLER ET AL.

Copyright of Clearing House is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.