SAMPLE ANSWERPublic Attributions for Poverty in Canada – Reutt.docx

SAMPLE ANSWER
Public Attributions for Poverty in Canada – Reutter et al (2006)
1. What is the main argument presented by the author?
Surveys and interviews reveal that respondents are most likely
to attribute poverty to structural factors (such as lack of
education, low wages, discrimination, and lack of social safety
net benefits) and least likely to favour individualistic
attributions (such as laziness). The education and income levels
of the respondents were the most consistent predictors of types
of attributions.
2. What is the author’s research method? (i.e. how does he/she
collect the data?) What are the size and characteristics of the
sample?
Method: phase one involved interviews and phase two involved
telephone surveys.
Sample size: 119 interviews; 1671 surveys (839 in Edmonton;
832 in Toronto).
Sample characteristics: These surveys and interviews were
conducted in Toronto and Edmonton. These cities have
approximately the same rate of poverty (16%). Equal numbers
of participants were chosen in each neighbourhood. Table 1
lists the characteristics of the survey sample in some detail (7).
59 low income and 60 higher income people were interviewed.
2/3 of respondents were women, 30 – 54 years old. The low-
income participants were younger. Low-income people were
more likely to have high-school education or less. In the sample

of 34 low-income people in the six group interviews, 67.6%
were female and 60.6% had a high-school education or less.
Almost half were 30-44 years of age. The main sources of
income were welfare and employment. (8)
3. List two pieces of data/information that the author uses to
support his/her argument that is drawn from their research .
Explain how the evidence is related to the main idea.
a) “I think that lack of education is probably one of the biggest
factors. If you're not educated then you don't get the jobs that
provide you with an income that you can live on (female,
higher-income participant)” (12).
Explanation of relationship to the main idea: this quote supports
the theme related to education – respondents indicated that they
see education as a major structural factor related to poverty.
b) “I think most people who are living on a low income, many
of them work just as hard as people who are making a high
income. It's just for some reason their job does not pay them an
adequate wage . . . they're unfortunate enough to be in a job that
only pays eight bucks an hour (male, higher-income
participant)” (10).
Explanation of the relationship to the main idea: this quote
supports the theme related to the impact of structural factors
such as low wages, inadequate social safety net or
discrimination on causes of poverty.
4. Is the information provided verifiable and well-researched?
How do you know? List the factors that you used to make your
evaluation.
The authors provide a verifiable paper based on the following:

· The authors all work at one of the following universities:
University of British Columbia, University of Alberta, York
University, of University of Toronto
· The authors provide a thorough literature review that outlines
the background issues in the study of public and individualistic
attributions for poverty.
· The 3-page literature review is supported by a 3-page (single-
spaced) bibliography of academic sources.
· The authors provide a thorough explanation of their research
process, including the size and composition of sample. They
point out that the sample contains more females. They indicate
that they have only studied 2 cities but give a rationale for it
(that these cities have similar poverty rates).
· The tables are clearly presented, and the authors explain the
most important points demonstrated in each table. The authors
also present interview quotes to support the themes listed in the
results section.
· The authors report the limitations of the study. The
respondents were all English-speaking and all had a landline
telephone. This may have excluded recent immigrants and
others who are more likely to be poor. The study also did not
explore people’s attributions related to different types of people
(i.e. single men vs. single mothers vs. welfare recipients vs.
working poor). There may be differences of perspective related
to different groups of people. This demonstrates that the authors
acknowledge that the research findings are not completely
generalizable to the entire population and that further research
could provide more detailed information.
How to analyze an academic article
This presentation will help you to complete the paper #1 and #2
assignments

Intro and purpose
The purpose of these assignments is to teach you how to quickly
find an analyze certain parts of an academic article
This is a transferable skill – meaning that it is isn’t limited to
this class or to Sociology as a discipline
Structure of an academic article
NOTE: not all articles use these specific headings for each
section, but the ORDER and CONTENT will be similar.
Abstract (this provides an overview of the article)
Introduction (introduces the topic and why the author thinks it
is important)
Literature review (includes a review of previous studies and
may include a discussion about theoretical perspectives. This is
where the author shows you that they have done their homework
and know the background)
Method and sample (tells you how and from whom the data has
been collected)
Data/results (tells you the author’s own research findings)
Discussion and conclusion (discusses the findings and may
make recommendations for the future)
What are we looking for?
The main argument based on the research findings/results

Information about the research method and sample
Examples of data that is presented to support the main argument
Evidence of academic rigor – i.e. how do I know this is
trustworthy information?
Tip – do questions 2 and 3 FIRST
Why?
Because #2 is probably the easiest question to answer (I’ll tell
you why in a minute)
and
#3 gets you to explore the data that the main argument is based
on (which will help you answer question #1 accurately)
Answering the questions: #2
The information about method and sample can usually be found
in a section called ‘research methods” or “methodology”.
It’s usually really easy to identify this section and the
information in it.
Let’s look at a couple of excerpts from academic articles
Method:
How did they get the information?

Methods <this is the title of the section>
“This research is part of a multi-year study of urban change in
the DTES of Vancouver, including multiple field visits to
Vancouver between 2011 and 2015 and key informant
interviews with planners, service providers and others who were
connected to the lives and work of informal recyclers in
Vancouver. The data for this article were collected in 2012 in a
series of interviews with 17 informal recyclers and workers at
the United We Can recycling depot, which was located in the
DTES at the time (it has since moved to a larger site just
outside of the neighbourhood). Of the 17 respondents, seven
identified as both workers at the depot and informal recyclers,
nine were recyclers only, and one was a depot worker only.”
Interviews are the method
This is how they collected the data for the study
Sample:
Who did they study? How many did they study?
Methods
This research is part of a multi-year study of urban change in
the DTES of Vancouver, including multiple field visits to
Vancouver between 2011 and 2015 and key informant
interviews with planners, service providers and others who were
connected to the lives and work of informal recyclers in
Vancouver. The data for this article were collected in 2012 in a
series of interviews with 17 informal recyclers and workers at
the United We Can recycling depot, which was located in the
DTES at the time (it has since moved to a larger site just
outside of the neighbourhood). Of the 17 respondents, seven
identified as both workers at the depot and informal recyclers,
nine were recyclers only, and one was a depot worker only.
Who: recyclers and workers at a recycling depot
How many: 17
This study doesn’t give us a lot of information about the
sample.

Sample: Example #2 (more detailed information)
Methodology <this is the title of the section>
I conducted forty-two <sample size> interviews <method> with
participants who met the sampling criteria based on educational
attainments and career aspirations (university educated and
looking to enter the ICT sector), family status (married with
preschool-aged children), and nationality (Indian).
All participants were between thirty and fifty years of age.
Twelve participants discussed their caste— four persons
identified as Brahmins and three as Rajputs. The remaining five
participants identified as non-Brahmins but distinguished
themselves from lower-caste groups.
The majority (36) identified as Hindus, and the remaining six as
Sikh.
All families lived in large, urban metropolitan areas in India
(Ahmedabad [5], Chandigarh [4], Kolkata [8], New Delhi [7],
Pune [4],Mumbai [6], Bangalore [4], and Chennai [4]) prior to
moving to the Waterloo Region.
Example #2 – sample characteristics (continued)
Eight couples, only two of whom had preschool-aged children,
lived with other family members, including parents and
siblings.
Twenty-four participants had a bachelor’s of science or
bachelor’s of engineering degree, and eighteen had a master’s
of science or master’s of business administration degree.
Twenty participants were working as computer/information
technology engineers, twelve were computer/software
programmers, eight were computer/software analysts, and two
worked as systems testers.
Ten couples had one preschool-aged child, six couples had two
preschool-aged children, one couple had one preschool-aged
child and two school-aged children, and four couples had no

children. Although these four couples were outside of the
sampling frame, they provided an interesting comparison for the
gendered division of household work, which I discuss briefly in
a separate section
SO – in this example, the author has told us about the following
characteristics:
Age
Caste
Religion
Marital status
Family structure (living arrangements; number of children)
Nationality and city of origin
Current city (all from Waterloo, Ontario)
Education
Occupation
In your answer to number 2, you would give the details of the
characteristics
The information about the research data or results is the central
part of the article.
This is where the authors tell you what they found in their
research study

In question #3, you are providing two pieces of data and
relating them to themes/findings that are part of the main
argument
There will be more than 2 examples of data in the findings, so
choose 2 that you thinkl are important or the you find
interesting.
continued
If the research is based on interviews, the data or results section
will be organized into themes and quotes from participants are
the data that is used to illustrate/support the themes.
continued
In the case of quantitative studies (such as large surveys or

secondary data analysis), the data is often expressed in tables.
If you don’t know how to read the mathematical analysis, don’t
worry. The Author should explain the important points in the
text of the article.
Now that you know what the authors found in their research
study, you can address question 1. Here you will report the main
findings/argument in a CONCISE way.
Answering the questions: #1 continued
In order to provide an answer for #1, you should:
Consider the overall findings of the study (i.e. what were the
themes in an interview study? What were the data that the
author emphasized in the larger quantitative study?)
Look for places in the article that summarize the findings
This may be in the abstract, or discussion/conclusion sections

This section explores the information provided by the authors
and the transparency of the research
These are the things you should look for to answer #4
Author’s credentials - what degrees do they have?
Authors’ institutional affiliations – where do they work?
Adequacy of the literature review – did they do their homework
(background research)?
Adequacy of the bibliography – are many sources included? Do
they come from academic publications?
Outline of the research – does the author clearly explain how
the research was done? Does the author include the necessary
information about the sample? Does the author discuss the
limitations of the research? (NOTE: give details, not just yes or
no answers)
Summary: where do you look for the answers in the article?
Answers to number 1 will be based on the data presented by the
authors in their results and may be summarized in some places
in the article like the conclusion or abstract
Answers for #2 will be found in the method section
Answers for #3 will be found in the data/results section (NOTE:
do not report information from the literature review here)
Answers for #4 require you to examine all the parts of the
article in order to answer as many of the questions listed in the
hint sheet as you can

.MsftOfcThm_Accent1_Fill {
fill:#B71E42;
}
.MsftOfcThm_Accent1_Stroke {
stroke:#B71E42;
}
.MsftOfcThm_Accent1_Fill {
fill:#B71E42;
}
.MsftOfcThm_Accent1_Stroke {
stroke:#B71E42;
}
SAMPLE ANSWER
Public Attributions for Poverty in Canada – Reutter et al (2006)
1. What is the main argument presented by the author?
Surveys and interviews reveal that respondents are most likely
to attribute poverty to structural factors (such as lack of
education, low wages, discrimination, and lack of social safety
net benefits) and least likely to favour individualistic
attributions (such as laziness). The education and income levels
of the respondents were the most consistent predictors of types
of attributions.
2. What is the author’s research method? (i.e. how does he/she
collect the data?) What are the size and characteristics of the

sample?
Method: phase one involved interviews and phase two involved
telephone surveys.
Sample size: 119 interviews; 1671 surveys (839 in Edmonton;
832 in Toronto).
Sample characteristics: These surveys and interviews were
conducted in Toronto and Edmonton. These cities have
approximately the same rate of poverty (16%). Equal numbers
of participants were chosen in each neighbourhood. Table 1
lists the characteristics of the survey sample in some detail (7).
59 low income and 60 higher income people were interviewed.
2/3 of respondents were women, 30 – 54 years old. The low-
income participants were younger. Low-income people were
more likely to have high-school education or less. In the sample
of 34 low-income people in the six group interviews, 67.6%
were female and 60.6% had a high-school education or less.
Almost half were 30-44 years of age. The main sources of
income were welfare and employment. (8)
3. List two pieces of data/information that the author uses to
support his/her argument that is drawn from their research .
Explain how the evidence is related to the main idea.
a) “I think that lack of education is probably one of the biggest
factors. If you're not educated then you don't get the jobs that
provide you with an income that you can live on (female,
higher-income participant)” (12).
Explanation of relationship to the main idea: this quote supports
the theme related to education – respondents indicated that they
see education as a major structural factor related to poverty.

b) “I think most people who are living on a low income, many
of them work just as hard as people who are making a high
income. It's just for some reason their job does not pay them an
adequate wage . . . they're unfortunate enough to be in a job that
only pays eight bucks an hour (male, higher-income
participant)” (10).
Explanation of the relationship to the main idea: this quote
supports the theme related to the impact of structural factors
such as low wages, inadequate social safety net or
discrimination on causes of poverty.
How do you know? List the factors that you used to make your
evaluation.
The authors provide a verifiable paper based on the following:
· The authors all work at one of the following universities:
University of British Columbia, University of Alberta, York
University, of University of Toronto
· The authors provide a thorough literature review that outlines
the background issues in the study of public and individualistic
attributions for poverty.
· The 3-page literature review is supported by a 3-page (single-
spaced) bibliography of academic sources.
· The authors provide a thorough explanation of their research
process, including the size and composition of sample. They
point out that the sample contains more females. They indicate
that they have only studied 2 cities but give a rationale for it
(that these cities have similar poverty rates).
· The tables are clearly presented, and the authors explain the
most important points demonstrated in each table. The authors
also present interview quotes to support the themes listed in the
results section.
· The authors report the limitations of the study. The

respondents were all English-speaking and all had a landline
telephone. This may have excluded recent immigrants and
others who are more likely to be poor. The study also did not
explore people’s attributions related to different types of people
(i.e. single men vs. single mothers vs. welfare recipients vs.
working poor). There may be differences of perspective related
to different groups of people. This demonstrates that the authors
acknowledge that the research findings are not completely
generalizable to the entire population and that further research
could provide more detailed information.
Paper #1 Answer SheetDownload and type your answers into
this form.
YOUR NAME: Xinyan Wang(10122708)
Article: Wiese, J. L., Loomis, C. & T. Mitchell (2019). Shifting
Societal Attitudes: Examining the Effects of Perspective Taking
on Attitudes toward and Derogation of the Poor.
1. What is KEY ARGUMENT being communicated by the
author based on their main research findings). (This is not a
summary of the article; this is not what the article is “about”; it
is the central argument based on the research evidence provided
by the author). (3 marks)
2. What is the author’s research method? (i.e. how do they
collect the data?) Indicate the size (number of participants) and
characteristics of the sample participants (i.e. gender, race, age,
etc.). (2 marks)
Method:
Sample size:

Sample characteristics:
3. Outline two pieces of data that the author uses to support
his/her argument that are drawn from his/her research (Not just
2 random facts from the article - this must be data from the
research that the author uses to support the main idea that you
identify above.). Explain how the evidence is related to the
main idea.(2 X 2 = 4 marks)
a) Data:
Relation to the main argument:
b) Data:
Relation to the main argument:
Use the factors listed on the hint sheet to make your evaluation.
(3 marks)
A mark out of 3 will be assigned for
grammar/spelling/communication.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journal
Code=wpov20
Journal of Poverty
ISSN: 1087-5549 (Print) 1540-7608 (Online) Journal homepage:
https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wpov20
Shifting Societal Attitudes: Examining the Effects

of Perspective Taking on Attitudes toward and
Derogation of the Poor
Jessica Louise Wiese, Colleen Loomis & Terry Mitchell
To cite this article: Jessica Louise Wiese, Colleen Loomis &
Terry Mitchell (2019) Shifting Societal
Attitudes: Examining the Effects of Perspective Taking on
Attitudes toward and Derogation of the
Poor, Journal of Poverty, 23:1, 1-20, DOI:
10.1080/10875549.2018.1496375
To link to this article:
https://doi.org/10.1080/10875549.2018.1496375
Published online: 25 Jul 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 292
View related articles
View Crossmark data
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journal
Code=wpov20
https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wpov20
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.10
80/10875549.2018.1496375
https://doi.org/10.1080/10875549.2018.1496375
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalC
ode=wpov20&show=instructions
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalC
ode=wpov20&show=instructions
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/10875549.2018.1

496375
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/10875549.2018.1
496375
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/10875549.20
18.1496375&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2018-07-25
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/10875549.20
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
Solution
s, 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
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3740-3607
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1595-3376
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5506-9641
https://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/10875549.2
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

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.
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
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.

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).

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).
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 …

SAMPLE ANSWERPublic Attributions for Poverty in Canada – Reutt.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to SAMPLE ANSWERPublic Attributions for Poverty in Canada – Reutt.docx

Similar to SAMPLE ANSWERPublic Attributions for Poverty in Canada – Reutt.docx (14)

More from rtodd599

More from rtodd599 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

SAMPLE ANSWERPublic Attributions for Poverty in Canada – Reutt.docx