Search results

AbstractDoes exposure to economic inequality undermine belief in the American dream? Scholarship has long argued that the availability of meritocratic ideologies like the American dream inoculates people against exposure to inequality by leading them to rationalize unequal outcomes by viewing wealth as due to hard work and poverty as due to indolence. The existence of inequality where the "have-nots" are working poor, however, could serve to undermine such a process because their employment status casts them as "deserving poor" and limits the applicability of agency-based explanations for poverty. Across two experiments embedded in national surveys, exposure to inequality alone did not cause significant reductions in belief in the American dream; however, exposure to inequality where the have-nots were working poor significantly reduced belief in the American dream. Moderation and mediation analyses indicate these effects were most pronounced among lower-income Americans and indirectly heightened support for government reduction of inequality.

This article ties together research on gender, income inequality, and political ideology, by exploring the effect of gender‐based earnings inequality on women's belief in a fundamental tenet of the "American Dream"—meritocracy. Focusing on gender‐based earnings inequality in women's local residential context, and drawing upon relative deprivation theory, this article argues that variation across local areas in the relative economic status of women should influence the ideological outlook of resident women. In contrast to relative deprivation theory, but consistent with rising expectations theory, I argue that ideological disillusionment should peak in contexts in which women's earnings fall closely behind men, and that ideological optimism should rebound in contexts in which women's earnings have achieved parity with that of men. Utilizing pooled survey data, I find strong evidence that individual women's belief in the American Dream varies according to whether local women's relative earnings indicate confrontation with or breaking of the "glass ceiling."

The effect of economic distress on public opinion is well studied in political science. This research, however, tends to focus on one's personal economic situation or national economic conditions, with considerably less scholarly attention directed toward understanding how intermediate levels, such as citizens' local economic environment, shapes mass economic policy preferences. In response, this article develops a theory of the effect of local economic context on policy preferences which posits national economic events as a moderating factor and views toward the fairness of the economic system as an intervening factor. Drawing upon over a decade of survey data, and focusing on the 2008 Financial Crisis and public views toward business corporations, this article demonstrates that the Crisis polarized citizens across affluent and poor areas with respect to perceptions of corporate-led maldistribution, which in turn, had an indirect polarizing effect on economic policy mood.

This article explores the impact of novel change in the ethnic composition of Americans' local context on their attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy preferences. Adapting the "defended-neighborhoods hypothesis" regarding residential integration and black-white interracial relations to the context of immigration and intercultural relations, this article advances the acculturating-contexts hypothesis. This hypothesis argues that a large influx of an immigrant group will activate threat among white citizens when it occurs in local areas where the immigrant group had largely been absent. This theoretical argument is explored within the context of Hispanic immigration and tested using national survey and census data. This article demonstrates that over-time growth in local Hispanic populations triggers threat and opposition to immigration among whites residing in contexts with few initial Hispanics but reduces threat and opposition to immigration among whites residing in contexts with large preexisting Hispanic populations. Adapted from the source document.

This article explores the impact of novel change in the ethnic composition of Americans' local context on their attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy preferences. Adapting the "defended‐neighborhoods hypothesis" regarding residential integration and black‐white interracial relations to the context of immigration and intercultural relations, this article advances the acculturating‐contexts hypothesis. This hypothesis argues that a large influx of an immigrant group will activate threat among white citizens when it occurs in local areas where the immigrant group had largely been absent. This theoretical argument is explored within the context of Hispanic immigration and tested using national survey and census data. This article demonstrates that over‐time growth in local Hispanic populations triggers threat and opposition to immigration among whites residing in contexts with few initial Hispanics but reduces threat and opposition to immigration among whites residing in contexts with large preexisting Hispanic populations.

In a national context of unabated inequality growth and recurrent tax cuts benefiting the wealthy, we have witnessed a notable rise in "inequality federalism," characterized by subnational initiatives to redress economic inequality through progressive taxation and social spending. While leading research documents the tendency for Americans to fall prey to "unenlightened self-interest" when evaluating complex national tax policy, recent research suggests that the simplicity and clarity of emerging subnational redistributive initiatives facilitates the enactment of economic self-interest, particularly among lower income citizens. This short article builds on prior work by offering the most extensive analysis to date of the role of economic self-interest in public support for subnational progressive tax policies. Drawing upon opinion polls covering eight separate state ballot measures or legislative enactments, we find that in each instance the greatest level of support for the respective progressive tax policy is observed among lower income citizens.

Leading opinion research on immigration has begun to move from size-based to change-based measures of citizens' ethnic context. This shift is based on the theoretical assumption that over-time growth in immigrant populations is more likely to capture citizens' attention than their current size. At present, there is no empirical evidence supporting this assumption. This article demonstrates that while the size of local immigrant populations exerts virtually no effect on perceived immigration, over-time growth strongly influences citizens' perceptions of immigration into their community. In addition, our analyses illuminate the differential contribution of growth in local Hispanic and Asian populations to perceived immigration.