1. RESEARCH POSTER PRESENTATION DESIGN © 2012
www.PosterPresentations.com
The stigmatization of individuals from lower social class groups in the
US is well-documented.1 The American Dream has shaped the
collective narrative about the causes of financial success and failure,
emphasizing the individualistic nature of success, and portraying
wealth as the highest virtue and poverty as a character flaw.2
Individuals living in poverty are often characterized as uneducated,
lazy, violent, and as substance abusers— characteristics understood
to “explain” their social class.3 Whereas adult beliefs and attitudes
regarding social class are well documented,4 children’s beliefs and
attitudes are less well investigated5,6. The current study explores
how children in early elementary school understand the causes of
wealth and poverty. In particular, we focused on how children’s
attributions vary by grade and by the method used to assess their
beliefs.
Introduction
We draw upon baseline data collected as part of a larger curriculum
intervention study focused on poverty and inequality. Participants were:
• N = 86
• 37 kindergarten students,
• 49 primary students (24 first grade, 25 second grade)
• 5.41 years old - 8.99 years old (M = 6.81, SD = .93)
• 51% females
• 37% White, 36% multi-racial/ethnic, 10% Asian American, 7% African
American, 6% Latino/a American, & 4% other
Participants
1. What causal attributions do elementary school-age children give when
explaining poverty?
Overall, children in the current study gave attributions similar to those in prior
research in this area. These categories were consistent across both prompts that
asked about the causes of poverty.
2. Do children’s causal attributions vary by their grade in school?
Yes, across both prompts, primary grade students gave more structural and fatalistic
attributions than did kindergarten students. Additionally, kindergarten students gave
more descriptive responses than did primary grade students when answering the
vignette prompt and primary grade students gave more non-specific attributions than
did kindergarten students when asked answering the open-ended prompt.
This suggests that older children were able to produce more attributions for poverty,
but that this did not vary by the linguistic demands of the task.
3. Do children’s causal attributions vary by the type of prompt
used?
Yes, all children produced more descriptive responses when asked using the vignette
prompt than the open-ended prompt. Also, primary grade students were more likely
to produce a non-specific attribution when answering the open-ended prompt.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank SPSSI – Fall 2013 Grants-in-Aid Program and the UCLA – Trans-
disciplinary Seed Grants program for funding and the CUESI Lab for their feedback.
Please feel free to contact us with questions or feedback:
Katherine M Griffin: katherinemg@ucla.edu
Katherine M. Griffin, Lindsey Nenadal, Laveet Aulakh, Demitri Camperos, Eric Lin, & Rashmita S. Mistry
University of California, Los Angeles
Children’s causal attributions for poverty
Research Questions
1. What causal attributions do elementary school-age children give
when explaining poverty?
2. Do children’s causal attributions vary by their grade in school?
3. Do children’s causal attributions vary by the type of prompt
used?
Causal Attribution Taxonomy (Feagin, 1972; Weiner, Osborne, &
Rudolph, 2010 )
Children were asked about the causes of poverty twice in the interview. First, children were asked: How does someone become poor?
Later, the children were read the below gender-matched vignette and pictures were presented.
Methods
“I’m going to tell you about a little girl named Jessica. Jessica’s family is poor and has very little money. Here is a picture of the
house she lives in with her family– it is small and old. Because Jessica’s family doesn’t have a lot of money, she can’t buy a lot
of things she wants or needs. Here is a picture of her backpack and shoes. The backpack and shoes used to belong to
Jessica’s older sister but now they are too small for her so Jessica uses them. They are old and worn out but her parents don’t
have enough money to buy her new shoes or a new backpack. Jessica doesn’t get to take a lot of trips or visit new places, but
enjoys playing games like tag and hide-and-seek with her brother and sister. Sometimes Jessica’s family doesn’t have enough
money for all of the food they want, so she doesn’t get to buy many treats or snacks.”
Following the vignette, the participants were asked: Why is Jessica’s family poor?
Research Question 3: Do children’s causal
attributions vary by the type of prompt used?
Research Question 2: Do children’s causal attributions vary by their grade in school?
Research Question 1: What causal attributions do elementary school-age children give when explaining
poverty?
References
Results
Theoretical Framework
Individualistic Structural Fatalistic
• Laziness
• Sickness
• Physical handicap
• Poor money
management
• Lack of job
opportunities
• Lack of opportunities
for a good education
• Low wages
• Prejudice and
discrimination
• Bad luck
1 Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality (1st ed). New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
2 Williams, W. R. (2009). Struggling with poverty: Implications for theory and policy of increasing research on
social class-based stigma. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy (ASAP), 9(1), 37–56.
3 Gorski, P. C. (2012). Perceiving the problem of poverty and schooling: Deconstructing the class stereotypes
that mis-shape education practice and policy. Equity & Excellence in Education, 45(2), 302–319.
4 Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, E. R. (1986). Beliefs about inequality: Americans’ views of what is and what ought
to be., x, 332.
5 Leahy, R. L. (1983). Development of the conception of economic inequality: II. Explanations, justifications,
and concepts of social mobility and change. Developmental Psychology, 19(1), 111–125.
6 Sigelman, C. K. (2012). Rich man, poor man: Developmental differences in attributions and perceptions.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113(3), 415–429.
7 Flanagan, C. A., Kim, T., Pykett, A., Finlay, A., Gallay, E. E., & Pancer, M. (2014). Adolescents’ theories
about economic inequality: Why are some people poor while others are rich? Developmental Psychology,
50(11), 2512–2525.
8 Flanagan, C. A., & Tucker, C. J. (1999). Adolescents' explanations for political issues: Concordance with
their views of self and society. Developmental Psychology, 35(5), 1198.
9 Mistry, R. S., Brown, C. S., Chow, K. A., & Collins, G. S. (2012). Increasing the Complexity of Young
Adolescents’ Beliefs About Poverty and Inequality: Results of an 8th Grade Social Studies Curriculum
Intervention. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(6), 704–716.
Type of
Attribution
How does someone become poor? Why is Jessica’s family poor?
Descriptive “They don’t have lots of money.” “Because um maybe his house is really really old, like they lived
in it for a long time”
Individualistic “Cause they wasted all their money and they can't
get their money back”
“Not do good in college.”
“Because they don't save up their money.”
“Maybe one day they had like a really big birthday party and
they used up all their money”
Fatalistic “Maybe get robbed”
“Maybe like their house was on fire… So they like
ran out of their house without grabbing their
money, like their house was on fire”
“Because maybe someone stole a wallet from the dad or mom”
“Maybe they his mom and dad grew up poor maybe they
became poor cause someone in their family got sick and they
had to waste their money on a doctor’
Structural “Someone lives somewhere where there isn't um
many places you could get jobs”
“Maybe if their job doesn't get them a lot of
money”
“Cause her parents' job the boss doesn't pay them a lot of
money.”
“The dad doesn't have a good job and he can't afford enough
money for a lot of things.”
Non-Specific
Attribution
“They don't go to school.” “Maybe they didn't have a job.”
“Because they don't go to work a lot.”
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Descriptive Individualistic Fatalistic Structural Non-Specific
Attribution
Mean
Why is Jessica’s family poor?
Kindergarten Primary
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Descriptive Individualistic Fatalistic Structural Non-Specific
Attribution
Mean
How does someone become poor?
Kindergarten Primary
*
*
*
*
*
*
Conclusions
Kindergarten:
• Children gave more descriptive responses when answering the
vignette prompt (M= .54 SD= .51) than the open-ended prompt (M=
.08, SD= .28), t(36)= -5.01, p < .001.
Primary Grade:
• Children gave more descriptive responses when answering the
vignette prompt (M= .20 SD= .41) than the open-ended prompt (M=
.02, SD= .14), t(48)= -2.91, p = .005.
• Children gave more non-specific attributions when answering the
open-ended prompt (M= .39 SD= .49) than the vignette prompt (M=
.16, SD= .37), t(48)= 2.52, p = .015.