Conservative Ideology, Economic Conservatism, and Causal Attributions for Poverty and Wealth

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to analyze the effects of different features of Conservative Ideology, measured via the Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Economic Conservatism (EC) scales, on Internal and External casual attributions for poverty and wealth. Participants were a group of 181 university students. Results of multiple regression analyses suggested that EC influenced Internal causal attributions for poverty and wealth positively but influenced the External ones negatively. Of the other measures, only SDO showed a negative effect on External causal attributions. Theoretical and practical implications of results are discussed.Whereas several studies dealing with the definition of poverty, its causes and consequences can be found in economics, political science and sociology, in social psychology there are studies which specifically deal with lay explanations for this phenomenon. As regards wealth and affluence, there is a comparative paucity of psychological studies. This is no doubt due to the fact that whereas poverty is considered to be a major social problem, wealth is not, despite the fact that many recognized social problems (for example, drug and alcohol abuse, family disorganization) are associated with increased wealth (Lewis et al. 1995).Research into lay explanations of poverty is interesting for at least two reasons. First, it has important implications for political actions: indeed, attitudes towards welfare legislation are related to the attributions of poverty . Second, the study of how attributions for poverty and wealth are made offers an opportunity to examine some of the assumptions of the attribution theory in relationship to socially relevant phenomena.

Moral Foundations and Attitudes Towards the Poor

“…Republicans/Conservatives held more negative feelings and stereotypes about the poor; they are also more likely to make internal attributions for poverty. Another survey by Bobbio et al (2010) examined the effects of various aspects of Conservative Ideology, as measured through the Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), Right Wing Authoritarian (RWA) and Economic Conservatism (EC) scales, on the causal attributions (Internal-Individualistic versus External-Structuralist) for poverty and wealth. Multiple regression analyses showed that EC is the most significant predictor of attributions for poverty and wealth.…”

“…It will use the Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) to present a more nuanced understanding of individuals' attitudes towards the poor, as well as extend the existing studies that have utilized moral intuitions as psychological mechanism to explain people's positions and attitudes on social issues (Koleva et al 2012). Additionally, the paper aims to enrich the current literature examining public's perception of the poor which has been dominantly analyzed via the variable of socio-political ideologies (e.g., Bobbio et al 2010;Rudolph and Evans 2005;Zucker and Weiner 1993). At the outset, the current study will discuss MFT and how it has been used to explain people's opinions on polarizing issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research (Koleva et al 2012); socio-political beliefs (Federico et al 2013); and moral rhetoric of decision-makers and interest groups (Clifford and Jerit 2013).…”

The Conscientious Responders Scale

“…The 14-item SRWA (Manganelli Rattazzi, Bobbio, & Canova, 2007) was created by factoring Altemeyer's (1996) 30-item RWA scale into two subscales measuring Authoritarian Aggression and Submission (SRWA-A) and Conservatism (SRWA-C). Each subscale has acceptable reliability and correlates highly with the original 30-item RWA scale (Bobbio, Canova, & Manganelli, 2010). Higher scores on either subscale reflect greater levels of RWA.…”

The role of right‐wing authoritarianism and political sophistication in shaping attitudes toward redistribution

“…While several studies have shown that authoritarian individuals tend to support conservative economic policies (Bobbio, Canova, & Manganelli, 2010;Cornelis & Van Hiel, 2006;Everett, 2013;Jost, Blount, Pfeffer, & Hunyady, 2003;Napier & Jost, 2008;Van Hiel, Pandelaere, & Duriez, 2004), other studies have found that authoritarianism is associated with greater support for interventions related to the economy (Radkiewicz, 2017;Van Hiel & Kossowska, 2007), protectionism (Johnston, 2013), government redistribution in the general population (Calzada, G omez-Garrido, Moreno, & Moreno-Fuentes, 2014;Staerkl e, Likki, & Scheidegger, 2012), and government redistribution in favor of ethnic in-groups (Mewes & Mau, 2012). While several studies have shown that authoritarian individuals tend to support conservative economic policies (Bobbio, Canova, & Manganelli, 2010;Cornelis & Van Hiel, 2006;Everett, 2013;Jost, Blount, Pfeffer, & Hunyady, 2003;Napier & Jost, 2008;Van Hiel, Pandelaere, & Duriez, 2004), other studies have found that authoritarianism is associated with greater support for interventions related to the economy (Radkiewicz, 2017;Van Hiel & Kossowska, 2007), protectionism (Johnston, 2013), government redistribution in the general population (Calzada, G omez-Garrido, Moreno, & Moreno-Fuentes, 2014;Staerkl e, Likki, & Scheidegger, 2012), and government redistribution in favor of ethnic in-groups (Mewes & Mau, 2012).…”