Investigating the Interplay Between Race, Work Ethic Stereotypes, and Attitudes Toward Welfare Recipients and Policies

Abstract

The current research investigates the role of racialized work ethic stereotypes on attitudes toward welfare. We hypothesized that work ethic stereotypes shape both people’s attitudes toward welfare and their perceptions of who benefits from these policies. Consistent with hypotheses, when the demographic composition of welfare recipients was majority Black (vs. White), participants thought recipients were lazier and were less positive to welfare programs and policies (Study 1). Describing welfare recipients as hardworking (vs. no information control) mitigated this effect, even when the demographic composition of welfare recipients was majority Black (Study 2). Finally, we investigated whether work ethic stereotypes shape both attitudes toward welfare and spontaneous mental images of recipients. Images generated when participants were asked to envision hardworking (vs. lazy) recipients were rated by a separate sample as more representative of White Americans and garnered more support for providing welfare benefits (Study 3).

Perspective taking reduces intergroup bias in visual representations of faces

“…To our knowledge, no formal power analysis procedures exist for the image-generation phase in reverse-correlation paradigms (see also Brown-Iannuzzi, Cooley, Marshburn, McKee, & Lei, 2021). Thus, we set our target sample size for the image-generation experiment using a heuristic of at least 60 participants per cell in a 2 × 2 between-subjects design; data were collected until this target number was surpassed.…”

“…Decomposing the interaction differently, the outgroup CIs generated by perspective takers (M = 3.39, SD = 1.15) were rated as more likable than were the outgroup CIs generated by control participants (M = 3.07, SD = 1.20), t(136) = 2 In all the image-assessment experiments, we conducted analyses reported in the main text at the level of the participant (i.e., image rater) by collapsing across CIs, rather than at the level of the CI by collapsing across image raters. This analysis strategy is the only one reported in studies using subgroup CIs (Brown-Iannuzzi et al, 2021;Cone et al, 2020); however, both analysis strategies have been reported in studies using individual CIs. Notably, Cone et al (2020) conducted their analyses at the level of the individual CI.…”

“…Second, we used a new procedure for creating subgroup CIs from random subsets of individual CIs (see also Brown-Iannuzzi et al, 2021). This decision was motivated by concerns about the inflation of Type I error in group CIs and by preliminary evidence indicating that using subgroup CIs adequately controls Type I error (Cone et al, 2020;Lei et al, 2020).…”

The policy implications of feeling relatively low versus high status within a privileged group.

“…Finally, because laziness stereotypes about the poor may justify opposition toward policies aimed at helping the poor, such as welfare policies (Brown-Iannuzzi et al, 2021; Bryan et al, 2009; Cooley, Brown-Iannuzzi, & Boudreau, 2019; see also McCoy & Major, 2007; Savani & Rattan, 2012), within-group status comparisons may play a unique role in White Americans’ welfare attitudes. Namely, White Americans who feel left behind by their racial group may be more likely to think welfare recipients are hardworking and, in turn, may be more likely to support welfare policies.…”

“…As stated in the preceding text, our research program explores the interplay of race/class stereotypes (Brown-Iannuzzi, Dotsch, et al, 2017, 2019, 2021; Cooley, Brown-Iannuzzi, & Boudreau, 2019; Cooley, Brown-Iannuzzi, Lei, et al, 2019; Cooley et al, 2020), subjective perceptions of status (Brown-Iannuzzi et al, 2014, 2015, 2020; Cooley et al, 2020), and racial privilege (Cooley, Brown-Iannuzzi, & Cottrell, 2019; Cooley, Brown-Iannuzzi, Lei, et al, 2019). Thus, the purpose of the final study was two-fold: (a) investigate whether ownership of racial privilege may shift perceptions of within-group status and (b) investigate the consequences of such a shift on laziness stereotypes of welfare recipients and support for welfare policies.…”