Search results

In this review, the author considers research on race/ethnicity and stratification beliefs, with special focus on beliefs about the causes of poverty in the United States. Stratification beliefs research has traditionally focused on describing what is believed about inequality, demonstrating the antecedents of beliefs, and outlining the consequences of belief adherence for the person, politics, and society. Race and ethnicity matter for Americans' beliefs about poverty in a number of important ways. Research documents that the poor are themselves racialized in the public mind. The racial composition of people's communities has demonstrable effects on how people think about the poor. And race/ethnic group membership is one of the most potent individual-level determinants of beliefs about poverty. Research also documents important consequences of such stratification beliefs, including their impact on people's voting behavior and support for social policies designed to ameliorate racial and other inequalities. The author concludes with suggestions for future research in hopes of advancing our understanding of links between race/ethnicity, stratification ideology, and relevant attitudinal and behavioral outcomes.

Objective. Lay explanations for "wealth" have been neglected in research on beliefs about social stratification. This study compares the nature and determinants of beliefs about the causes of both wealth and poverty, with special focus on race/ethnic differences.Methods. Using survey data collected from Los Angeles County residents in 2000, descriptive and multivariate procedures are used to analyze "individualistic" and "structuralist" beliefs about wealth and poverty. In addition, one "fatalistic" belief, asking about the role of "God's will" in shaping wealth and poverty, is examined. Analyses test (1) whether race/ethnicity and other social and political characteristics variables shape these stratification beliefs, and (2) whether African Americans, Latinos, and whites differ in the determinants of beliefs about wealth and poverty.Results. Respondents favor individualistic over structuralist reasons for wealth, but favor structuralist over individualistic beliefs in explaining poverty. Fatalistic beliefs are least popular. On beliefs about wealth, African Americans, Latinos, and whites show similar levels of support for individualistic explanations; however, the race/ethnic minorities are both more structuralist than whites on this issue. On beliefs about poverty, the race/ethnic minorities are simultaneously more structuralist and more individualistic than are whites. Social‐class identification and self‐reported conservatism both significantly impact beliefs about wealth and poverty, and do so differently across race/ethnic lines.Conclusions. Findings support the separate treatment and examination of beliefs about wealth and poverty, and reinforce recent calls for greater attention to "nonwhites" in studies of sociopolitical attitudes.

Objective. Lay explanations for "wealth" have been neglected in research on beliefs about social stratification. This study compares the nature & determinants of beliefs about the causes of both wealth & poverty, with special focus on race/ethnic differences. Methods. Using survey data collected from Los Angeles County residents in 2000, descriptive & multivariate procedures are used to analyze "individualistic" & "structuralist" beliefs about wealth & poverty. In addition, one "fatalistic" belief, asking about the role of "God's will" in shaping wealth & poverty, is examined. Analyses test (1) whether race/ethnicity & other social & political characteristics variables shape these stratification beliefs, & (2) whether African Americans, Latinos, & whites differ in the determinants of beliefs about wealth & poverty. Results. Respondents favor individualistic over structuralist reasons for wealth, but favor structuralist over individualistic beliefs in explaining poverty. Fatalistic beliefs are least popular. On beliefs about wealth, African Americans, Latinos, & whites show similar levels of support for individualistic explanations; however, the race/ethnic minorities are both more structuralist than whites on this issue. On beliefs about poverty, the race/ethnic minorities are simultaneously more structuralist & more individualistic than are whites. Social-class identification & self-reported conservatism both significantly impact beliefs about wealth & poverty, & do so differently across race/ethnic lines. Conclusions. Findings support the separate treatment & examination of beliefs about wealth & poverty, & reinforce recent calls for greater attention to "nonwhites" in studies of sociopolitical attitudes. 5 Tables, 48 References. Adapted from the source document.

Objective. Although an expanding literature on "stratification beliefs" has developed over the past three decades, research has neglected relationships between religion and beliefs about poverty and other inequalities. This study examines the relationship between religious affiliation and "individualistic,""structuralist," and "fatalistic" beliefs about the causes of poverty, and compares the beliefs of African Americans, Latinos, and whites. Methods. Survey data collected in 1993 from a sample of southern Californians are used to test whether several religious affiliations (Protestant, Catholic, Jew, "other religion," and nonaffiliation) shape beliefs about poverty after controlling for race/ethnicity, SES, gender, and age. In addition, the question of whether African Americans, Latinos, and whites differ in the effects of key religious affiliations is examined. Results. Significant religious affiliation effects are found, net of sociodemographic controls. Protestants and Catholics are strongest on individualistic beliefs; Jews and followers of "other" religions are strongest on structuralist beliefs; Catholics and Jews are strongest on fatalistic beliefs. Finally, race/ethnic differences are found for the effects of key religious affiliations. Conclusion. The analyses demonstrate "religious factors" shaping beliefs about poverty, and reinforce the growing body of evidence that affiliations such as Protestant and Catholic have distinctive meanings and effects along race/ethnic lines in the United States.

Although an expanding literature on "stratification beliefs" has developed over the past three decades, research has neglected relationships between religion & beliefs about poverty & other inequalities. This study examines the relationship between religious affiliation & "individualistic," "structuralist," & "fatalistic" beliefs about the causes of poverty, & compares the beliefs of African Americans, Latinos, & whites. Survey data collected in 1993 from a sample of southern Californians are used to test whether several religious affiliations (Protestant, Catholic, Jew, "other religion," & nonaffiliation) shape beliefs about poverty after controlling for race/ethnicity, SES, gender, & age. In addition, the question of whether African Americans, Latinos, & whites differ in the effects of key religious affiliations is examined. Significant religious affiliation effects are found, net of sociodemographic controls. Protestants & Catholics are strongest on individualistic beliefs; Jews & followers of "other" religions are strongest on structuralist beliefs; Catholics & Jews are strongest on fatalistic beliefs. Finally, race/ethnic differences are found for the effects of key religious affiliations. The analyses demonstrate "religious factors" shaping beliefs about poverty, & reinforce the growing body of evidence that affiliations such as Protestant & Catholic have distinctive meanings & effects along race/ethnic lines in the US. 3 Tables, 43 References. Adapted from the source document.

Survey data collected in 1993 from a sample of 2,628 southern Californians are used to test whether race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status (SES), age, & religion shape "just-world" beliefs &, in addition, whether African Americans, Latinos, & whites differ in the effects of these variables. Significant race/ethnic differences are found, with Latinos showing the strongest support for the belief in a just world & blacks the weakest. Significant differences are also found by SES & gender, with greatest support for just-world beliefs found among men & persons of low SES. Religious affiliation shapes the belief in a just world, but church attendance does not. Finally, race/ethnic differences are found for several determinants of the belief in a just world. Findings suggest that existing knowledge of the belief in a just world reflects a white experience of the world traceable to the neglect of blacks & Latinos in past research. 3 Tables, 52 References. Adapted from the source document.

In this short article, we provide an update and extension of Thomas C. Wilson's study, "Whites' Opposition to Affirmative Action: Rejection of Group-based Preferences as well as Rejection of Blacks." Wilson drew on data from the 1996 General Social Survey (GSS) to revisit a long-standing debate in the racial attitudes literature concerning whether anti-black prejudice (e.g., "new racism") or ostensibly race-neutral opposition to group-based policies generally (i.e., "principled objections") is the primary determinant of whites' opposition to affirmative action in the form of "preferential hiring and promotion for blacks." We analyze data from the 2000–2018 GSS to replicate and extend key aspects of Wilson's work. As in the prior study, we find mixed support for the new racism and principled objections perspectives, providing an important update on white Americans' beliefs about affirmative action for the twenty-first century.

Although much research documents the growth of a "professional middle class" among African Americans over the past several decades, we know comparatively little about how Blacks see themselves in social class terms, and whether this has changed over time. In the current study, we use data from the 1974 to 2010 General Social Surveys to analyze trends in, and the determinants of, Blacks' social class identifications (SCI) over the past four decades. Our results show that Blacks' tendency to identify as "middle class" has increased in concert with Blacks' socioeconomic status (SES) gains since the 1970s. Regarding the determinants of SCI, education and household income appear more consequential than occupational prestige and self-employment in shaping Blacks' self-reports of their own class positions. Finally, we see little evidence of change over time in the relationship between various SES characteristics and SCI, with one exception: Self-employment has become a more potent predictor of Blacks' SCI over the past several decades. Our results provide an important update to our knowledge of the dynamics of SCI among Black Americans. They also raise important questions for future research on the relationship between, and relative impact of, "race" and "class" in shaping Blacks' identities and their orientations toward American society.

Racial segregation remains a persistent problem in U.S. schools. In this article, we examine how social psychological factors—in particular, individuals' perceptions of schools with varying demographic characteristics—may contribute to the ongoing structural problem of school segregation. We investigate the effects of school racial composition and several nonracial school characteristics on white parents' school enrollment decisions for their children as well as how racial stereotypes shape the school choice process. We use data from a survey-based experiment we designed to test ''pure race'' and ''racial proxy'' hypotheses regarding parents' enrollment preferences. We also use a measure of pro-white stereotype bias, both alone and in combination with school racial composition (percentage black). Using logistic regression analysis, we find support for the ''pure race'' hypothesis. The proportion of black students in a hypothetical school has a consistent and significant inverse association with the likelihood of white parents enrolling their children in that school net of the effects of the included racial proxy measures. In addition, higher levels of pro-white stereotype bias further inhibit enrollment, particularly in schools with higher proportions of black students. We discuss the implications of this research for policies aimed at mitigating racial segregation in U.S. schools.

AbstractThis paper explores how race/ethnicity and perceptions of racial discrimination and inequality shape beliefs about the implications of an Obama presidency for U.S. race relations. Specifically, using data from a June/July 2008 Gallup/USA Todaysurvey, we examine how African Americans, Hispanics, and Whites differ in their perceptions of the importance of an Obama victory and in beliefs about the implications of such for race relations, racial progress, and opportunities for Blacks in their careers and in national politics. We also examine how perceptions of the extent and nature of racial discrimination and inequality shape these outcomes (overall and by race/ethnicity). Results show that African Americans, relative to Whites and Hispanics, are especially likely to see an Obama victory as important and meaningful in terms of relatively abstract notions of racial change. In contrast, Hispanics are more likely than African Americans and Whites to believe that an Obama win will translate into concrete societal changes, such as expanded opportunities for Blacks in work and politics. In addition, perceived discrimination and inequality positively shape all of the outcomes under study (more perceived discrimination equals more importance and optimism attached to an Obama win), though this association is especially strong amongWhites—a pattern possibly rooted in divergentmeaningsattached to perceived discrimination and inequality by race/ethnicity. Overall, our findings suggest that African Americans view an Obama victory as meaningful primarily because of its symbolic significance, rather than because they believe it will result in substantive racial progress. We conclude by offering some speculation and selected questions for future research on race and U.S. politics.

AbstractObjectiveCiting the black family as the locus of responsibility for black disadvantage has a long history in the United States; however, only limited research has examined the place of family upbringing in studies of Americans' beliefs about the causes of racial inequality.MethodsWe use data from the 2010, 2012, and 2014 General Social Surveys (GSS) to examine the prevalence and selected correlates of a newly offered (by the GSS) and culturally centered explanation of the black/white socioeconomic status gap focusing on "differences in upbringing."ResultsThe "upbringing" explanation is the most popular of the five reasons offered by the GSS in all three waves of data available for examination. Three‐quarters of GSS respondents endorse this view, while less than half endorse the next most popular explanation. Upbringing is also the most popular explanation among all three race/ethnic groups we examine, though non‐Hispanic whites endorse this view most strongly.ConclusionOur results offer important insights for future survey design and investigations of public beliefs about racial inequality.