The current study explored the differences in the public’s attitudes and emotions towards welfare recipients based on their race/ethnicity, birthplace, and veteran status. Participants read a mock news story created for the current study about a woman labeled as a “welfare queen” who was receiving assistance, but persuaded the reader to be sympathetic to her case. The mock news story varied based on the race/ethnicity, veteran status, and birthplace of the welfare recipient. Participants assessed the welfare recipient on various evaluative measures. A 4 (race/ethnicity: White/Black/Hispanic/Asian) × 2 (veteran status: veteran/not veteran) × 2 (country of origin: born in the US/not born in the US) between-subjects ANOVA was performed on the attitude and personality evaluations of the welfare recipient. The general pattern of results showed that welfare recipients were evaluated more positively when they were veterans, born in the United States, or were White or Asian. Conversely, the public evaluated the welfare recipient more negatively or held more aversive emotions towards them when they were Hispanic, Black, not born in the United States, or not a veteran. This research adds to the psychological literature and nonprofit sector by testing the persistence of stereotypes on the perception of individual welfare recipients.
BerinskyA. J.HuberG. A.LenzG. S. (2012).
Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s mechanical Turk. Political Analysis,
20(3), 351–368. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr057
3.
BlumerH. (1958).
Race prejudice as a sense of group position. The Pacific Sociological Review,
1(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.2307/1388607
4.
BoboL. (1999).
Prejudice as group position: Microfoundations of a sociological approach to racism and race relations. Journal of Social Issues,
55(3), 445–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00127
5.
Brown-IannuzziJ. L.DotschR.CooleyE.PayneB. K. (2017).
The relationship between mental representations of welfare recipients and attitudes toward welfare. Psychological Science,
28(1), 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616674999
6.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011).
Amazon’s mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science,
6(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1037/14805-009
7.
BullockH. E. (1999).
Attributions of poverty: A comparison for middle-class and welfare recipient attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
29(10), 2059–2082. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb02295.x
8.
BurgoonB.RooduijnM. (2020).
Immigrationization’ of welfare politics? Anti-immigration and welfare attitudes in context. West European Politics,
43, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2019.1702297
9.
BurrisV. (2008).
From Vietnam to Iraq: Continuity and change in between-group differences in support for military action. Social Problems,
55(4), 443–479. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2008.55.4.443
CaslerK.BickelL.HackettE. (2013).
Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior,
29(6), 2156–2160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009
CleavelandC. (2008). “
A black benefit”: Racial prejudice among white welfare recipients in a low-income neighborhood. Journal of Progressive Human Services,
19(2), 71–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/10428230802077970
15.
CooleyE.Brown-IannuzziJ. L.BoudreauC. (2019).
Shifting stereotypes of welfare recipients can reverse racial biases in support for wealth redistribution. Social Psychological and Personality Science,
10(8), 1065–1074. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619829062
CronquistK. (2019). Characteristics of supplemental nutrition assistance program households: Fiscal year 2018 (Report No. SNAP-19-CHAR). United States Department of Agriculture.
FedericoC. M. (2004).
When do welfare attitudes become racialized? The paradoxical effects of education. American Journal of Political Science,
48(2), 374–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00076.x
20.
FeinS.SpencerS. J. (1997).
Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self through derogating others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
73(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.31
21.
FoxC. (2004).
The changing color of welfare? How whites’ attitudes toward Latinos influence support for welfare. American Journal of Sociology,
110(3), 580–625. https://doi.org/10.1086/422587
22.
FraserN. (1989). Unruly practices: Power, discourse, and gender in contemporary social theory.
University of Minnesota Press.
GarandJ. C.XuP.DavisB. C. (2017).
Immigration attitudes and support for the welfare state in the American mass public. American Journal of Political Science,
61(1), 146–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12233
26.
GilensM. (1996). “
Race coding” and white opposition to welfare. American Political Science Review,
90(3), 593–604. https://doi.org/10.2307/2082611
GroskindF. (1991).
Public reactions to poor families: Characteristics that influence attitudes toward assistance. Social Work,
36, 446–453. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/36.5.446
29.
GuptaA.SzymanskiD. M.LeongF. T. L. (2011).
The “model minority myth”: Internalized racism of positive stereotypes as correlates of psychological distress, and attitudes toward help-seeking. Asian American Journal of Psychology,
2(2), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024183
HuffC.TingleyD. (2015). “
Who are these people?”: Evaluating the demographic characteristics and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents. Research & Politics,
2(3), 205316801560464–205316801560412. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015604648
KleykampM.HipesC.MacLeanA. (2018).
Who supports U.S. veterans and who exaggerates their support?Armed Forces & Society,
44(1), 92–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X16682786
38.
KrupnikovY.LevineA. S. (2014).
Cross-sample comparisons and external validity. Journal of Experimental Political Science,
1(1), 59–80. https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2014.7
39.
KuranT. (1995). Private truths, public lies: The social consequences of preference falsification.
Harvard University Press.
LevayK. E.FreeseJ.DruckmanJ. N. (2016).
The demographic and political composition of mechanical Turk samples. SAGE Open,
6(1), 215824401663643. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016636433
42.
MarcusG. E.MacKuenM. B.WolakJ.KeeleL. (2006). The measure and mismeasure of emotion. In RedlawskD. P.(Ed.), Feeling politics: Emotion in political information processing (pp. 31–46).
Palgrave Macmillan.
43.
MullinixK. J.LeeperT. J.FreeseJ.DruckmanJ. N. (2015).
The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science,
2(2), 109–138. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2015.19
PaolacciG.ChandlerJ. (2014).
Inside the Turk: Understanding mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
23(3), 184–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414531598
PaulhusD. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In RobinsonJ. P. (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17–59).
Academic Press.
49.
PetersenM. B.SznycerD.CosmidesL.ToobyJ. (2012).
Who deserves help? Evolutionary psychology, social emotions, and public opinions about welfare. Political Psychology,
33(3), 395–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00883.x
QuillianL. (1995).
Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review,
60(4), 586–611. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096296
ShearedV.McCabeJ.UmekiD. (2000).
Adult literacy and welfare reform: Marginalization, voice, and control. Education and Urban Society,
32(2), 167–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124500322002
55.
SherifM. (1966). Group conflict and cooperation: Their social psychology.
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
56.
SherifM.HarveyO. J.WhiteB. J.HoodW. R.SherifC. W. (1961). Intergroup cooperation and competition: The robbers cave experiment.
University Book Exchange.
57.
SherifM.SherifC. W. (1953). Groups in harmony and tension.
Harper Brothers.
58.
SueS.SueD. W.SueL.TakeuchiD. T. (1995).
Psychopathology among Asian Americans: A model minority. Cultural Diversity and Mental Health,
1(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.1.1.39
