Race, prejudice and attitudes toward redistribution: A comparative experimental approach

Harell, Allison; Soroka, Stuart; Iyengar, Shanto

doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12158

Cited by 90 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 80 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This leads to the conclusion that both ethnicity and immigrantstatus matters. In the US, Canada and the UK, Harell et al (2016) measured attitudes to five different benefits (in a merged measure) after varying both verbally and non-6 verbally by white, black, Hispanic, Asian, South Asian and Aboriginal ethnicity. The main effects are surprisingly modest in the US but somewhat stronger in Canada and the UK.…”

Section: Empirical Findings From Survey Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

European Welfare Nationalism: A Democratic Forum Study in Five Countries

Larsen

Frederiksen

Nielsen

2018

Attitudes, Aspirations and Welfare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Empirical Findings From Survey Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

European Welfare Nationalism: A Democratic Forum Study in Five Countries

Larsen

Frederiksen

Nielsen

2018

Attitudes, Aspirations and Welfare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…If views like these remain pervasive, how can we expect to generate enough enthusiasm and buy-in to make meaningful and durable changes to parenting policies? The fundamental reason that it doesn't make sense to say things like, "don't worry about individuals' prejudices and stereotypes, just focus on changing structures," is that individuals' prejudices and stereotypes are some of the most powerful factors shaping their willingness to support (or oppose) political and structural change (Azevedo et al, 2019;Cooley et al, 2019;Harell et al, 2016;Monteith and Hildebrand, 2019;Mutz, 2018).…”

Section: Either/or Versus Both/andmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual and Structural Interventions

Madva¹

2020

An Introduction to Implicit Bias

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

not to be included in print version for metadata only): Given all that we have learned about bias and injustice, what can we do-and what should we do-to fight back? Chapter 12 introduces empirically-tested interventions for combating implicit (and explicit) bias and promoting a fairer world, from small daily-life debiasing tricks to larger structural interventions. Along the way, this chapter raises a range of moral, political, and strategic questions about these interventions, and stresses the importance of admitting that we don't yet have all the answers. We must encourage intellectual humility and dedicate ourselves to gathering as much knowledge as possible.Changing the world is hard. Changing it for the better is usually harder than changing it for the worse. But why is positive change so difficult? Some answers are familiar. First, it's hard to get people to care, especially about problems in different places (physically or socially distant neighborhoods or countries) that don't confront us every day. Second, people are, understandably, wrapped up in pursuing personal goals (careers, families, hobbies). Third, and closely related to the first two reasons, many people feel like their votes and voices don't matter because the system is rigged (by corporate donors, gerrymandered voting districts, etc.) to make their political efforts pointless. Fourth, making change to promote equality is especially hard, because the haves are typically motivated to hold onto their advantages, and even to see their advantages as fair. Even the have-nots are easily hoodwinked into thinking that their disadvantages are fair when they're not (Jost, 2015). We derive comfort from believing we live in a merit-based society where, as long as you work hard enough, put your head down, and don't rile up political trouble, then your personal and professional life will go well. Fifth, people may (especially for certain jobs: maybe I don't want to hire someone convicted of decades of accounting fraud to be my accountant). But the result is that ex-offenders have a very hard time finding gainful employment, which in turn makes them more likely to become desperate to make ends meet, and then to re-offend and end up back in prison.Some ex-offenders have it worse than others. In one field study in Milwaukee, the odds of getting a callback for an interview were 34% for white male applicants with no criminal record but only 17% for white men with a criminal record. Moreover, the odds were 14% for black male applicants without a record, but only 5% for black men with a record (Pager, 2003).The first finding to note is that white men with a record had slightly better odds than black men without. Two follow-up studies in New York City found much the same: white applicants who had literally just gotten out of prison were slightly more likely to get a callback or job offer than black and Latinx applicants with spotless records (Pager et al., 2009). These studies illustrate how devastating a criminal record can be for anyone's job prospects, but espec...

show abstract

“…) and predispositions that are not so closely related to welfare state principles like party attachments, political ideology (Carsey & Layman ; Gelissen ) or even racism (Harell et al. ). Of course, the predictive power of predispositions does not suggest anything about the causal direction between predispositions and attitudes.…”

Section: Unemployment and Lmp Attitudes: Causal And Non‐causal Mechanmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most widespread example is that people who prioritise egalitarian values are more prone to supporting specific government spending programmes for the disadvantaged (e.g., Calzada et al 2014;Jacoby 2006). Other examples for predictors of social policy attitudes are deservingness beliefs (Petersen et al 2010) and predispositions that are not so closely related to welfare state principles like party attachments, political ideology (Carsey & Layman 2006;Gelissen 2000) or even racism (Harell et al 2016). Of course, the predictive power of predispositions does not suggest anything about the causal direction between predispositions and attitudes.…”

Section: Political Predispositions: Another Look At Attitudesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The (ir)relevance of unemployment for labour market policy attitudes and welfare state attitudes

Wehl

2018

European J Political Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Typically, associations between being unemployed and policy attitudes are explained with reference to economic self‐interest considerations of the unemployed. Preferences for labour market policies (LMP) and egalitarian preferences are the prime example and the focus of this study. Its aim is to challenge this causal self‐interest argument: self‐interest consistent associations of unemployment with policy preferences are neither necessarily driven by self‐interest nor necessarily causal. To that end, this article first confronts the self‐interest argument with a broader perspective on attitudes. Given that predispositions (e.g., value orientations) are stable and influence more specific policy attitudes, it is at least questionable whether people change their policy attitudes simply because they get laid off. Second, the article derives a non‐causal argument behind associations between unemployment and policy attitudes, arguing that these might be spurious associations driven by individuals’ socioeconomic background. After all, the entire socioeconomic background of a person is simultaneously related to both the risk of getting unemployed (‘selection into unemployment’) and distinct political socialisation experiences from early childhood onwards. Third, this article uses methods inspired by a counterfactual account on causality to test the non‐causal claims. Analyses are carried out using the fourth wave of the European Social Survey and applying entropy balancing to control for selection bias. In only two of the 31 analysed countries do unemployment effects on egalitarian orientations remain significant after controlling for selection bias. The same holds for effects on active LMP attitudes with the exception of six countries. Attitudes towards passive LMP are to some degree an exception since effects remain in a third of the countries. Robustness checks and Bayes factor replications showing evidence for the absence of unemployment effects support the general impression from these initial analyses. After discussing this article's results and limitations, its broader implications are considered. On the one hand, the article offers a new perspective on the conceptualisation and measurement of unemployment risk. On the other hand, its theoretical argument, as well as its treatment of the resulting selection bias, can be broadly applied. Thus, this article can contribute to many other research questions regarding the (ir)relevance of individual life events for political attitudes and political behaviour.

show abstract

Race, prejudice and attitudes toward redistribution: A comparative experimental approach

Cited by 90 publications

References 80 publications

European Welfare Nationalism: A Democratic Forum Study in Five Countries

European Welfare Nationalism: A Democratic Forum Study in Five Countries

Individual and Structural Interventions

The (ir)relevance of unemployment for labour market policy attitudes and welfare state attitudes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About