This paper explores the role of social construction in housing assistance programs. Although the topic of social construction has been discussed, few studies have focused on perceptions of social construction at the individual level and with housing assistance programs. To explore alternative policy contexts, this study examines how the characteristics of target groups affect people’s support for housing assistance programs, especially with the aim of providing affordable housing and lowering housing burdens. Using an experimental design, findings indicate that housing benefits are viewed more positively when they focus on groups perceived as highly deserving yet fragmented, contrasting with those serving low-deserving groups. Likewise, results show that the participants display greater willingness to pay for the program supporting fragmented high-deserving groups compared to resourceful high-deserving groups. Among the models, factors including housing assistance support and preexisting assessment on housing service are increasing both perceived policy quality and willingness to pay. Finally, the regression analysis highlights influential factors: for highly deserving groups with collective resources, policy support, perceived quality, and past housing service experiences enhance willingness to pay, whereas fragmented groups are additionally affected based on preexisting perception of the quality.
AcharyaA.BlackwellM.SenM. (2016). Explaining causal findings without bias: detecting and assessing direct effects. American Political Science Review, 110(3), 512–529. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055416000216
2.
AguinisH.VillamorI.RamaniR. S. (2021). MTurk research: Review and recommendations. Journal of Management, 47(4), 823–837. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320969787
3.
BaekgaardM.BelleN.SerritzlewS.SiciliaM.SteccoliniI. (2019). Performance information in politics: How framing, format, and rhetoric matter to politicians’ preferences. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 2(2), 1–12.
4.
BartlettR.MorseA.StantonR.WallaceN. (2022). Consumer-lending discrimination in the FinTech Era. Journal of Financial Economics, 143(1), 30–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.05.047
5.
BellE. (2021). Deserving to whom? Investigating heterogeneity in the impact of social constructions of target populations on support for affirmative action. Policy Studies Journal, 49(1), 268–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12347
6.
BlackH.SchweitzerR. L.MandellL. (1978). Discrimination in mortgage lending. American Economic Review, 68(2), 186–191.
7.
BousheyG. (2016). Targeted for diffusion? How the use and acceptance of stereotypes shape the diffusion of criminal justice policy innovations in the American states. American Political Science Review, 110(1), 198–214. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055415000532
8.
BrutgerR.KertzerJ. D.RenshonJ.TingleyD.WeissC. M. (2023). Abstraction and detail in experimental design. American Journal of Political Science, 67(4), 979–995. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12710
9.
ChongD.DruckmanJ. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126.
10.
CiceroT. J.EllisM. S.KasperZ. A. (2020). Polysubstance use: A broader understanding of substance use during the opioid crisis. American Journal of Public Health, 110(2), 244–250.
DafoeA.ZhangB.CaugheyD. (2018). Information equivalence in survey experiments. Political Analysis, 26(4), 399–416. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2018.9
13.
DavisB. R. (2025). Racialized feedback and social welfare receipt: Disentangling duration and dollar amount mechanisms on policy feedback effects. Politics Groups and Identities, 13(1), 111–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2024.2320200
DruckmanJ. N. (2001a). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame?Journal of Politics, 63(4), 1041–1066.
16.
DruckmanJ. N. (2001b). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23(3), 225–256. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1015006907312
17.
DruckmanJ. N.NelsonK. R. (2003). Framing and deliberation: How citizens’ conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 729. https://doi.org/10.2307/3186130
18.
GalsterG. C. (2019). Neighborhoods and national housing policy: Toward circumscribed, neighborhood-sensitive reforms. Housing Policy Debate, 29(1), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2018.1452044
19.
HauserD. J.SchwarzN. (2016). Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavior Research Methods, 48(1), 400–407. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0578-z
20.
HeA. J.ZhuL.QianJ. (2025). Policy design and policy feedback in welfare retrenchment: A survey experiment in China. Policy Studies Journal, 53(2), 307–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12569
21.
HenningK. R.FruehB. C. (1996). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of incarcerated offenders: An evaluation of the Vermont Department of Corrections’ Cognitive Self-Change Program. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23(4), 523–541.
22.
HinterleitnerM. (2018). Policy failures, blame games and changes to policy practice. Journal of Public Policy, 38(2), 221–242. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0143814x16000283
23.
JilkeS.BaekgaardM. (2020). The political psychology of citizen satisfaction: Does functional responsibility matter?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(1), 130–143. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muz012
24.
JonesK.McCartyM.PerlL. (2019). Overview of Federal Housing Assistance Programs and Policy (Reports No. RL34591). Congressional Research Service. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL34591
25.
KalesnikaiteV.NeshkovaM. I.PorumbescuG. A. (2025). The role of target populations in resident support for local collaboration. Public Administration Review, 85(4), 1115–1133. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13881
26.
KearM.McCannL. E.HibberdR.HannahC. (2025). The manufactured housing mosaic: An intersectional approach to measuring social vulnerability. Housing Studies. 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2025.2483229
27.
KeiserL. R. (2010). Understanding street-level bureaucrats’ decision making: Determining eligibility in the social security disability program. Public Administration Review, 70(2), 247–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02131.x
28.
KreitzerR. J.MaltbyE. A.SmithC. W. (2022). Fifty shades of deservingness: An analysis of state-level variation and effect of social constructions on policy outcomes. Journal of Public Policy, 42(3), 436–464. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0143814x21000222
29.
KreitzerR. J.SmithC. W. (2018). Reproducible and replicable: An empirical assessment of the social construction of politically relevant target groups. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(4), 768–774. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096518000987
30.
LawrenceE.StokerR.WolmanH. (2013). The effects of beneficiary targeting on public support for social policies. Policy Studies Journal, 41(2), 199–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12014
31.
LeeW. S.BeecroftE.ShroderM. (2005). The impacts of welfare reform on recipients of housing assistance. Housing Policy Debate, 16(3–4), 433–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2005.9521552
32.
LiangJ. (2016). The shadow of the politics of deservedness? The implications of group-centric policy context for environmental policy implementation inequalities in the United States. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(3), 552–570. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muv027
33.
LiebermanR. C. (1995). Race, institutions, and the administration of social policy. Social Science History, 19(4), 511. https://doi.org/10.2307/1171478
34.
LubellJ. (2016). Preserving and expanding affordability in neighborhoods experiencing rising rents and property values. Cityscape, 18(3), 131–150.
35.
MaltbyE.KreitzerR. J. (2023). How racialized policy contact shapes the social constructions of policy targets. Policy Studies Journal, 51(1), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12481
36.
MondouM.MontpetitÉ. (2010). Policy styles and degenerative politics: poverty policy designs in Newfoundland and Quebec. Policy Studies Journal, 38(4), 703–722. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00380.x
37.
OlsonJ. C. (2016). Race and punishment in American prisons. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(4), 758–768. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muw026
38.
O’ReganK. M. (2016). Commentary: A federal perspective on gentrification. Cityscape, 18(3), 151–162.
39.
PickettJ. T.IvanovS.WozniakK. H. (2022). Selling effective violence prevention policies to the public: A nationally representative framing experiment. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 18(2), 387–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-020-09447-6
RoseM.BaumgartnerF. R. (2013). Framing the poor: Media coverage and U.S. Poverty Policy, 1960–2008. Policy Studies Journal, 41(1), 22–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12001
42.
SchneiderA.IngramH. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334–347. https://doi.org/10.2307/2939044
43.
SchneiderA. L. (2006). Patterns of change in the use of imprisonment in the American States: An integration of path dependence, punctuated equilibrium and policy design approaches. Political Research Quarterly, 59(3), 457–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290605900313
44.
SchneiderA. L.IngramH. M. (2019). Social constructions, anticipatory feedback strategies, and deceptive public policy. Policy Studies Journal, 47(2), 206–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12281
45.
SchramS. F.SossJ.FordingR. C.HouserL. (2009). Deciding to discipline: Race, choice, and punishment at the frontlines of welfare reform. American Sociological Review, 74(3), 398–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400304
SievertM. (2021). A replication of “Representative bureaucracy and the willingness to coproduce.”Public Administration, 99(3), 616–632. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12743
48.
SmithC. W.KreitzerR. J. (2024). Where is the party in social construction theory? Partisan mappings of politically relevant target groups. Journal of Politics, 86(2), 624–641. https://doi.org/10.1086/726956
49.
SongM.KimM.FaveroN. (2020). Social class, ingroup–outgroup comparison, and citizen evaluations: Is user satisfaction linked to outcome disparities?American Review of Public Administration, 50(2), 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074019874445
50.
SossJ. (2005). Making clients and citizens: Welfare policy as a source of status, belief, and action. In SchneiderA.IngramH. (Eds.), Deserving and entitled: Social constructions and public policy (pp. 291–328). SUNY Press.
51.
SossJ.FordingR. C.SchramS. F. (2008). The color of devolution: Race, federalism, and the politics of social control. American Journal of Political Science, 52(3), 536–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00328.x
52.
SossJ.KeiserL. R. (2006). The political roots of disability claims: How state environments and policies shape citizen demands. Political Research Quarterly, 59(1), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290605900112
53.
TrochmannM. (2021). Identities, intersectionality, and otherness: The social constructions of deservedness in American housing policy. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 43(1), 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2019.1700456
54.
TummersL.WeskeU.BouwmanR.GrimmelikhuijsenS. (2016). The impact of red tape on citizen satisfaction: An experimental study. International Public Management Journal, 19(3), 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2015.1027800
