Jstor 1

The Individual, Society, or Both?
A Comparison of Black, Latino, and White Beliefs

about the Causes of Poverty
Author(s): Matthew O. Hunt
Source: Social Forces , Sep., 1996, Vol. 75, No. 1 (Sep., 1996), pp. 293-322
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2580766
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Social Forces
This content downloaded from

13.234.42.52 on Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:39:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Individual, Society, or Both?
A Comparison of Black, Latino, and White
Beliefs about the Causes of Poverty*
MATTHEW 0. HUNT, Indiana University
Abstract
In a sample of southern Californians, three questions were investigated: (1) Are there
race/ethnic differences in beliefs about the causes of poverty? (2) Do two social
psychological variables, namely internal and external self-explanations, signi.ficantly
affect beliefs about poverty net of respondents' background characteristics? and (3) Do
the determinants of beliefs about poverty differfor blacks, Latinos, and whites? Results
indicate that in each case the answer is yes. First, blacks and Latinos are more likely
than whites to view both individualistic and structuralist explanations for poverty as
important. Second, respondents' self-explanations have significant effects on poverty
beliefs. Lastly, the patterns of effects of several variables that predict beliefs about poverty
differ across race/ethnic groups. Results con.firm, contradict, and extend current
knowledge of beliefs about poverty.
Interest in the causes and consequences of beliefs about social inequality can be
traced to Marx's ([1859] 1970; Marx & Engels [1845] 1970) discussions of class
and consciousness. Building on this foundation, scholars have continued the
research tradition by investigating the determinants and consequences of
"beliefs about inequality," often noting the roles of ideology and consciousness
in the maintenance, stability, and reproduction of social stratification (Feagin
1975; Huber & Form 1973; Kluegel & Smith 1986; Robinson & Bell 1978). While
there is an extensive literature on the determinants and consequences of class
* A version of this article was the recipient of the American Sociological Association Social
Psychology Section's 1995 Graduate Student Paper Award and the Southern Sociological
Society's 1995 Howard W. Odum Award for outstanding graduate student paper. In addition,
it was presented at the 1994 American Sociological Association meetings in Los Angeles. The
research was supported by NIMH Grant PHS-T32 MH14588-18. The author wishes to thank
Sheldon Stryker and Richard Serpe for the opportunity to participate in the survey inves-
tigation producing the data used in this study. Thanks are also due to Sheldon Stryker, Robert
V. Robinson, John Pease, and Janet Hunt for their helpftul comments on earlier drafts of this
article. I am particularly indebted to Larry Hunt and Brian Powellfor their helpfiul suggestions
and careful assistance during several revisions of this article. Direct all correspondence to
Matthew Hunt, Department of Sociology, 744 Ballantine Hall, Indiana University,
Bloomington, IN 47405. E-mail: mohunt@indiana.edu.
i The University of North Carolina Press Social Forces, September 1996, 75(1):293-322

13.234.42.52 on Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:39:23 UTC
294 / Social Forces 75:1, September 1996
consciousness or identification (Centers 1949; Jackman & Jackman 1983;

Vanneman & Cannon 1987), comparatively little is known about the determi-
nants of other stratification beliefs such as explanations of why people are poor.
Past research into the determinants of such beliefs has neglected independent
variables other than objective social position (e.g., age, income, occupation).
Further, to the extent that we have knowledge of race/ethnic differences in
stratification beliefs, studies have virtually all focused on black/white differenc-
es.
This study advances this research tradition by investigating race/ethnic
differences in beliefs about poverty across three groups in American society:
African Americans, Latinos, and whites.' Further, in an attempt to map what
Mills (1959) calls the intersections of social structure and biography, I examine
the effects of two previously unexamined social psychological variables,
measuring internal and external explanations for personal positions, on beliefs
about poverty.
The dependent variables in this study represent stratification beliefs
involving individualistic and structuralist interpretations of why poverty exists
(Feagin 1972). I ask three basic questions: (1) Do race/ethnic differences exist
regarding what is believed about poverty? (2) Do social-psychological variables
affect poverty beliefs net of the effects of respondents' background characteris-
tics? and (3) Do the effects of sociodemographic and social-psychological
variables differ for blacks, Latinos, and whites?
Theoretical Background
BELIEFS ABOUT POVERTY
Feagin (1975) noted that beliefs about poverty are of three types: (1) individual-
istic - in which characteristics of persons are used to explain poverty,
(2) structuralist - in which the larger socioeconomic system is seen as the cause
of poverty, and (3) fatalistic - in which supra-individual, but non-social-
structural forces (e.g., luck, chance) are pointed to as the source of poverty. Past
studies document the greater popularity of individualistic views of poverty
among Americans (Feagin 1975; Huber & Form 1973; Kluegel & Smith 1986).
Public beliefs about the sources of poverty center on the lack of a proper work
ethic, the lack of ability, and other character defects of the poor themselves. In
short, the picture painted by these studies is one of perceived personal deficien-
cies of those who are poor - an image consistent with Ryan's (1971) claim that
Americans "blame the victim" when thinking about poverty.
Research into the antecedents of beliefs about poverty has generally found
that persons of higher status (e.g., those with higher incomes, whites, and older
people) favor individualistic explanations. Lower status has been found to
increase use of structuralist explanations, "but not necessarily with greatly
diminished support for individualism" (Kluegel & Smith 1986:93). The adher-
ence to individualism among lower status people is explained as evidence of the
strength of the dominant ideology, which is thought to be a general cultural
trait, having broad, universalistic effects on all Americans. In contrast to the
stable effects of individualism, structuralist beliefs are more variable, more

13.234.42.52 on Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:39:23 UTC
Race/ Ethnicity and Beliefs about Poverty / 295
responsive to group memberships, personal experiences, and the prevailing

social climate, and layered onto, instead of replacing, the existing individualistic
base. Kluegel and Smith (1986) suggest that during times of extreme social or
economic strain, structuralist beliefs may actually predominate in public
opinion. Supporting this position is Piven and Cloward's (1971) observation that
during the Great Depression, structuralist beliefs, in the form of support for the
redistribution of wealth and other social welfare initiatives, dominated
Americans' beliefs about the causes of unemployment, inequality, and other
social ills.
QUESIION 1: DO RACF( ETHNIC DIFFERENCES EXIST?
An example of a group in which structuralist beliefs generally predominate is

African Americans. Research on race has shown that blacks are generally equal
to or slightly less individualistic than whites, but much more likely to view
structural factors as contributing to the existence of poverty (Feagin 1975;
Kluegel & Smith 1986). By comparison, little is currently known about Latino
beliefs about poverty. The pattern among blacks of greater structuralism, along
with levels of individualism similar to that of whites, supports the argument
that structuralist beliefs may be combined with, or layered on to, an existing
individualistic base. Following this reasoning and past research, I expect that
race/ethnic minorities, compared with whites, will exhibit more structuralist outlooks,
but will not differ significantly in individualistic outlooks.
The argument that individualistic and structuralist beliefs may be combined
contrasts with the assumption of earlier research that people take an either-or
approach to thinking about inequality. In past research, ideologies, value
systems, and belief systems were assumed to exist in opposing pairs - e.g.,
right versus left, individualism versus structuralism - apparently reflecting a
basic cognitive tendency.2 Recent research shows that these dichotomies are not
always warranted since seemingly inconsistent or contradictory beliefs can be
combined into compromise explanations (Kluegel & Smith 1986; Lee, Jones &
Lewis 1990).3 For example, with regard to beliefs about poverty, people may
combine an acknowledgment that structural barriers exist in society with the
belief that anyone who works hard enough can overcome such barriers. Mann
(1970) links this image of value inconsistency to the stability of stratified social
orders in arguing that, rather than resting on a consensus over basic system-
legitimating values such as individualism, the social cohesion of liberal
democracies rests on the lack of a consensus on system-challenging values -
particularly among the working class and oppressed minority groups. For
Mann, societal stability and the lack of acute group-based conflict are rooted in
the inconsistency of the belief systems (e.g., some individualistic and system-
challenging beliefs) of potentially recalcitrant groups.
Bobo (1991) reaches a similar conclusion as Mann regarding the duality of
the beliefs of relatively low-status groups in arguing for the existence of an
egalitarian and structuralist "social responsibility" outlook in American culture
that oppressed groups are especially likely to draw upon to counter economic
individualism. Bobo interprets his finding of a potent social responsibility belief,
existing alongside individualism among the American public, as support for

13.234.42.52 on Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:39:23 UTC
Mann's inconsistency argument and critique of consensus theories (Bobo

1991:87). More specifically, Bobo argues against what he characterizes as the
"consensus on individualism" position of most accounts of American public
opinion (which treat individualism as a true dominant ideology). He argues that
individualism retains its appearance as a hegemonic value in the larger society
not because of the lack of alternatives, but rather because of the lack of political
influence and low status of persons most committed to egalitarian beliefs.
Evidence of simultaneous adherence to both types of poverty explanation will
be interpreted as support for the view that these beliefs are not ideological
alternatives and may be combined in a form of dual consciousness. Following
the reasoning of Bobo (1991) and Mann (1970), I expect that this dual conscious-
ness will be more prevalent among disadvantaged groups such as racial/ethnic
minorities.
Because research into race/ethnic differences in beliefs about poverty is
limited, the literature on social welfare beliefs suggests some additional lines of
reasoning. While beliefs about poverty and beliefs about welfare are clearly not
identical, correlations found in past research between structuralist beliefs about
poverty and support for social welfare, and between individualistic beliefs about
poverty and opposition to welfare (Feagin 1975; Kluegel & Smith 1986) suggest
sufficient similarity exists between the two issues to reason from one to the
other. Research into race differences in support for social welfare has found that
whites are typically opposed to social welfare programs, particularly those
aimed at reducing inequality (Bobo 1988; Jackman & Muha 1984). Blacks, and to
a lesser extent Latinos, are more supportive of social welfare initiatives
(Steelman & Powell 1993:225).
There are two competing explanations for racial/ethnic minorities' stronger
structuralist outlook (and support for welfare). The first is that beliefs about
poverty follow from economic self-interest: Individuals in groups that are
disproportionately poor - such as racial minorities, women, younger persons
- tend to hold structuralist beliefs. The key to this self-interest explanation is
that structuralist beliefs are correlated with socioeconomic status (SES).
Following this logic, race/ethnic differences should mirror SES differences in
support for structuralist outlooks. Evidence for the self-interest argument is
mixed to negative as indicated by studies that find income to be a weak
predictor of social welfare support (Form & Hanson 1985; Hasenfeld & Raffe
1989). Further, to the extent that education represents a component of socioeco-
nomic status, following the logic of the self-interest argument, one would expect
an inverse relationship between education and structuralist outlooks. Research
has generally shown the opposite, moving some to argue for an enlightening
effect of education that increases awareness of inequality and compassion
toward the disadvantaged (Hyman & Wright 1979).
The second explanation for race differences in stratification beliefs holds that
individuals identify with the generalized experiences of the groups to which they
belong and respond in line with these group identifications. Following this
logic, minorities - regardless of whether they have experienced difficulties
directly - will tend to identify with the struggles of their fellow group
members (Gurin, Miller & Gurin 1980; Steele 1994). This group identification
model suggests that structuralist outlooks are determined by an individual's

13.234.42.52 on Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:39:23 UTC
perception of the general condition of his or her group rather than his or her
own SES. Schuman, Steeh, and Bobo (1985) find support for this argument in
strong black support for social welfare initiatives when controlling for SES,
suggesting that such support is better explained by racial collective experience
than individual socioeconomic standing. In interpreting the relationship between
race and SES on beliefs about poverty, if race/ethnic differences in attitudes are
reduced significantly when controlling for SES, the self-interest perspective will gain
support. In contrast, if race/ethnic differences persist following the introduction of SES
controls, the group identification explanation will be supported.5
QUESnION 2: DO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL VARIABLES MATI`ER?
To move beyond previous research, I also consider two social-psychological

independent variables. These variables measure respondents' "internal" and
"external" explanations (i.e., attributions) for their personal outcomes in the
domains of work and education. For Mills (1959), the essence of the sociological
imagination lies in explicating the intersections between biography and social
structure, or, from a symbolic interactionist standpoint, "self and society"
(Stryker 1980). For Mills, social structural effects take on more depth and
relevance when viewed in conjunction with effects registered at the level of
identity. Similarly, symbolic interactionist theorizing in sociology stresses the
importance of the self-concept as a mediating force between social structure and
beliefs or behavior. Building on the structural symbolic interactionist (Stryker
1980) premise that social structure shapes selves, one way of tapping variation
in peoples' experiences and perceptions of the larger society is through an
examination of explanations that people use in making sense of their personal
biographies.
Past research (e.g., the attribution tradition) suggests that it is useful to
differentiate people according to whether they use vocabularies that contain
intemal or extemal reference points.6 Research documents that Americans favor
"dominant ideology" internal self-explanations; those in higher status positions
are especially likely to favor intemal explanations (Kluegel & Smith 1986), and
such personal beliefs shape ideological beliefs about issues related to equality
and inequality. For example, attribution research shows that, net of socio-
demographic factors, beliefs about economic outcomes are significantly affected
by intemal and extemal self-orientations (Bains 1983; Weiner 1974). Further,
Kluegel and Smith (1986) argue that people tend to generalize in limited but
consistent ways from their personal explanations to their explanations for
poverty and other societal-level phenomena (e.g., wealth). For example,
reporting ability and effort (i.e., "intemal" attributions) as primary reasons for
one's own current standard of living tends to increase beliefs in individualism,
while invoking "bad luck, being helped or held back by other people, or the
circumstances of the job a person holds" (i.e., "external" attributions) for one's
own outcomes increases beliefs in structural causes of poverty (Kluegel & Smith
1986:81-85). Similarly, Heaven (1989) reports that, net of one's background
characteristics, internal self-explanations lead to individualistic beliefs about
poverty, while extemal self-explanations lead to structuralist beliefs.

13.234.42.52 on Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:39:23 UTC
In line with this research tradition, I investigate whether self-explanations

referring to properties internal to self, and to properties of the larger, supra-
individual, external environment, shape people's beliefs about the im,portance of
individualistic and structuralist factors in the genesis of poverty. Given the
findings of attributional consistency in past research, I expect that internal self-
explanations will lead to individualistic poverty beliefs, while external self-explanations
uwill lead to structuralist outlooks.8
QUESIION 3: DO THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES OPERATE DIFFERENTLY FOR THE THREE

RACF ETHNIC GROUPS?
Much social psychological research makes the implicit assumption that the
determinants of attitudes and beliefs are the same across large-scale social
categories such as race and ethnicity. In short, it is generally assumed that the
determinants of a belief among the race/ethnic subgroups that make up a
sample are the same as among the total sample. As a consequence of this
assumption of similarity, the hypothesis that the beliefs and attitudes of
understudied (i.e., nonwhite) race/ethnic groups might be influenced in
different ways by various structural and social psychological factors has gone
largely untested.9 I test this hypothesis, guided by the assumption that groups
with widely different experiences and conditions of existence may differ in how
particular variables affect ideological beliefs. The historical oppression and
continued segregation (Massey & Denton 1992) of blacks is an obvious source
of group distinction. At a more social-psychological level, Steele (1994) argues
that even successful blacks, who are on a par with middle-class whites from the
standpoint of socioeconomic status, stili must cope with knowledge of the
historical reality of race-based discrimination, as weli as the continuing
perception of racism as a force influencing self and feliow group members, in
forming an ideological orientation toward American society.-l The relatively
recent migration of many Latinos to southern California from Central and South
America (Donato 1994) may differentiate them from most blacks and non-Latino
whites in the region. These factors alone make it clear that blacks and Latinos
have distinct experiences and histories that may have implications for how
members of these groups perceive themselves, other groups, and American
society.
A final factor contributing to the origin and perpetuation of the assumption
of race/ethnic similarity has been the insufficient numbers of minority respon-
dents in past surveys for the type of statistical analyses needed to compare the
determinants of dependent variables such as beliefs about poverty. In contrast
to past research, the data base used in this study contains sizable subsamples of
blacks and Latinos, aliowing for statistical subgroup comparisons that directly
examine the validity of the assumption of similarity.

13.234.42.52 on Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:39:23 UTC
Data and Measures
DATA
The data for this study derive from a computer-assisted telephone sample
survey of five counties (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and
San Diego) in southern California, conducted between January and March 1993.
The survey used the Waksberg (1978) method of random-digit dialing and
covered all working exchanges in the five counties under examination. The
response rate was just above 70% and 2,854 interviews were completed. The
race breakdown was 1,245 whites, 737 Latinos, 646 blacks, 148 Asians, and 62
"others" (16 people refused to answer the race self-identification question).
Given the extreme cultural heterogeneity of the Asian category (which includes
Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, and others), I elected to exclude Asians
from the study in order to focus on a comparison of the three major race/ethnic
groups (N - 2,628). The survey purposely oversampled blacks, resulting in a
sample in which whites represent 47.4% of respondents, blacks represent 24.6%
of respondents, and Latinos represent 28% of respondents."1 A weighting
correction adjusts the sample to mirror existing race/ethnicity and gender
population proportions according to 1990 census information. This procedure
changes the race/ethnic percentages to whites = 60.2%, blacks = 8.7%, and
Latinos = 31.1%. I use the weighted sample for the calculation of the frequen-
cies, variable means, and standard deviations, which appear in Tables 1 and 2.
Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish according to the language the
respondent preferred. A complex translation, back-translation technique was
used to ensure the linguistic equivalence of the survey instrument in English
and Spanish.12
Belief Measures
STRATIMCATION BELIEFS
The two dependent variables measure the importance attributed to individua

tic and structuralist reasons for poverty. The items used in these measures we
adapted from Feagin's (1972) 1969 survey study of poverty beliefs and appear
in the Appendix. A principal components factor analysis (varimax rotation)
performed on these items reveals two underlying dimensions that are interpret-
ed as individualistic and structuralist reasons for poverty (results in Table 1).
Identical factor analyses performed with each race/ethnic subgroup revealed the
same two underlying dimensions. The two dependent variables are standard-
ized summed scales rather than factor-score scales.'3
The individualism scale (am .674) is composed of the following items:
"personal irresponsibility, lack of discipline among those who are poor," "lack
of effort by those who are poor," "lack of thrift and personal money manage-
ment," and "lack of ability and talent among those who are poor." The
structuralism scale (a = .697) includes "low wages in some businesses and
industries," "failure of society to provide good schools for many Americans,"
"prejudice and discrimination," and "failure of private industry to provide

13.234.42.52 on Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:39:23 UTC
enough good jobs." Respondents were asked whether they thought that each
reason was "very important" (coded 4), "somewhat important" (3), "not very
important" (2), or "not at all important" (1), as a reason for poverty.
SELF-EXPLANATIONS
Intemal and extemal self-explanations are measured with standardized,

summed scales composed of four items each. Respondents were asked to rate
the importance of ability, effort, opportunities, and luck in determining their
success in education and work. The intemal scale (a =.551) was constructed by
combining the two ability and two effort attribution items. The external scale
(a -.647) was constructed by combining two opportunities and the two luck
attribution items. The interviewer's statement on education was "Now we
would like you to think about your education. Think about the highest degree
you have earned. Please indicate how important the following were in deter-
mining your educational success: How important would you say your abilities,
things like talents, intelligence, and skills, were in determining your educational
success? How important would you say your opportunities, things like your
family background and other life circumstances, were in determining your
educational success? How important would you say your effort, things like
desire, dedication, and motivation, were in determining your educational
success? How important was luck, that is, fate or chance, in determining your
educational success?" Response options were the same as for the dependent
variables (very important = 4, range = 14). Readers interested in the slig
wording differences for work items, as well as the measurement of respondents'
sociodemographic characteristics (which followed standard procedures), are
directed to the Appendix.
Findings
BELIEFS ABOUT POVERTY: A SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SIRUCTURALISM?
Before explicitly examining race/ethnic differences, I discuss some unexpected

findings that warrant brief comment. Table 1 reports a comparison of responses
to the ten items originally examined by Feagin (1972) in a 1969 study, replicated
by Kluegel and Smith (1986) in their 1980 stratification beliefs survey, and
employed here.14 The results of the two earlier national studies reveal the
greater popularity of individualistic items, compared with structuralist items,
with individualistic items constituting four of the five most likely to be labeled
very important. In the Kluegel and Smith data, the average proportion
responding "very important" across individualistic items is 50%, while for
structuralist items it is 34%. The picture is clear in the previous research:
Americans favor individualistic beliefs about poverty.
Analysis of the 1993 southern California data shows a markedly different
picture - specifically, a stronger popularity of structuralist reasons than would
be expected from previous studies of the U.S. as a whole. The 1993 data show
an average proportion responding "very important" across structuralist reason
is 52%, while for individualistic reasons the average is 42%. Further, four of the
five most popular items in 1993 are structuralist (the top four all structuralist).

13.234.42.52 on Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:39:23 UTC
Analysis of the marginals by race/ethnic subgroup reveals that, even among

whites, three of the five most popular reasons are structuralist (the top two
structuralist). Blacks and Latinos are similar in their responses, with four
structuralist reasons in the five most commonly rated "very important."
One possible explanation of these unexpected findings is that southern
Californians have always been more structuralist than the rest of the country,
and this anomaly has been masked by the weaker structuralism of other regions
in national studies. Doubts about the stability over time of a relatively strong
southern California structuralism are raised, however, when one examines
Kluegel and Smith's (1986) analysis of the impact of region on the two poverty
beliefs under examination. They report that the West region, controlling for
Midwest and South, with East as the omitted category, is significantly less
structuralist on the subject of poverty.
Following Kluegel and Smith (1986), who suggest that structuralist beliefs
should come to the fore in response to events that heighten awareness of
inequality and structural problems, the more probable source of the greater
structuralist support across major race/ethnic lines is the recent social climate
and events of the region under examination. Given the severe economic
recession in the region, crises in California's educational system, the Rodney
King incident - in which several white police officers were acquitted of beating
a black motorist - and the most recent riots in Los Angeles, it is perhaps not
surprising that survey items referring to the lack of adequate schooling,
prejudice, discrimination, and other system-blaming factors were especially
salient to southem Californians.
QUESTION 1: ARE THERE RACE/ EITHNIC DIFFERENCES IN BELIEFS ABOUT POVERTY?
Despite the consensus on the importance of structuralist reasons for poverty

seen across all three race/ethnic groups, some significant race/ethnic differences
do exist. Table 2 presents means on all variables appearing in subsequent
analyses and comparisons by race/ethnicity. Perhaps surprisingly, Latinos rank
highest on individualism followed by blacks and whites in that order. On the
structuralism scale, both minority groups show a similar mean (not significantly
different from each other) and both are significantly more structuralist in their
beliefs than whites. Thus, it appears that both minority groups, compared with
whites, are more likely to invoke both poverty explanations. Further, examina-
tion of the zero-order correlations between the two dependent variables lends
additional support to the view that these beliefs are not ideological alternatives
(especially for minorities) and may be combined in a dual consciousness. For
the whole sample, the correlation is .202 (p < .001); for whites r = -.013 (not
significant at p < .05); for blacks r = .298 (p < .001); and for Latinos r = .401
(p < .001).15
To explore the descriptive finding that blacks and Latinos are more likely to
endorse both individual and structural reasons for poverty in comparison with
whites, I turn to a series of multiple regression analyses. These analyses
examine whether the pattern of race/ethnic differences in the dependent
variables, suggesting greater dual consciousness among minorities, is stable
when controlling for other ways in which the groups differ.'6

13.234.42.52 on Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:39:23 UTC
TABLE 1: Reasons for Poverty: Marginals in 1969, 1980, and 1993a
1969 Data 1980 Data

(Percent) (Percent)
Very Important Not Very Important Not

Important Important Important Important
Reason
Lack of thrift and proper

money management 59 31 11 64 30 6
Lack of effort by
the poor themselves 57 34 9 53 39 8
Lack of ability and talent 54 34 12 53 35 11
Personal irresponsibility,
lack of discipline among
those who are poortt 50 32 18 44 30 27
Sickness and physical

handicaps 46 39 14 43 41 15
Low wages in some

businesses and industries 43 36 21 40 47 14
Failure of society
to provide good schools
for many Americans 38 26 36 46 29 26
Failure of private
industry to provide
enough good jobs 29 38 33 35 39 28
Prejudice and
discriminationtt 34 39 27 31 44 25
Just bad luck 8 28 63 12 32 56
Table 3 shows the regression of each dependent variable on three sets of

independent variables, run in hierarchical fashion. Model 1 includes only
race/ethnicity dummy variables. Model 2 includes only other sociodemographic
variables (sex, income, education, age). Model 3 combines the independent
variables from the first two models. Model 1 regressions reiterate the previously
observed pattern of blacks and Latinos attributing more importance to both
explanations of poverty. Thus, the prediction that race/ethnic minorities would
be more structuralist, but not significantly different on individualism in
comparison with whites, is not supported.17 Further, the equations composing
model 3 lend support to the group identification explanation of race/ethnic
differences in stratification beliefs, since the effects of the race/ethnicity dummy
variables remain significant after the introduction of SES statistical controls. The
group identification explanation of structuralist beliefs is complicated, however,
by the simultaneous greater levels of support found for individualistic thinking.

13.234.42.52 on Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:39:23 UTC
TABLE 1: Reasons for Poverty: Marginals in 1969, 1980, and 1993a (Continued)
1993 Data Factor

(Percent) Loadings
[Present study]
Very Important Not Structural Individual
Important Importantt
Reason
Lack of thrift and proper

money management 45 (5)t 43 13 .14 .63
Lack of effort by
the poor themselves 40 (8) 42 18 -.01 .78
Lack of ability and talent 38 (9) 37 25 .24 .60
Personal irresponsibility,
lack of discipline among
those who are poortt 45 (6) 38 17 -.04 .78
Sickness and physical

handicaps 40 (7) 40 20 .45 .38
Low wages in some

businesses and industries 48 (3) 39 13 .74 .07
Failure of society
to provide good schools
for many Americans 62 (1) 26 14 .70 -.00
Failure of private
industry to provide
enough good jobs 48 (4) 37 15 .69 .14
Prejudice and
discrimination4t 49 (2) 36 14 .70 .03
Just bad luck 12 (10) 32 56 .26 .22
a Weighted sample and factor analysis

percentage of respondents saying "very important" in the 1969 data.
t "Not very important" and "Not at all important" response categories have been collapsed
to " Not important."
* The rank ordering of "very important" responses for the 1993 sample is given in
parentheses.
tt This item read "loose morals and drunkenness" in the two earlier studies.
# This item included "against blacks" in 1980 and "against Negroes" in 1969.
This dual consciousness pattern resonates with the arguments of Bobo (1991)
and Mann (1970) as well as with Kluegel and Smith's (1986) assertion that
blacks demonstrate the strongest group consciousness in their support for
structural challenges to the dominant ideology but "stop short of denying the
justice of economic inequality in principle and of dismissing the ideas that the
rich and poor as individuals are deserving of their fate" (290). While past
research has found blacks to be slightly less than or just as individualistic as

13.234.42.52 on Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:39:23 UTC
TABLE 3: Unstandardized QIS Results of Stratification Beliefs Dependent

Variables Regressed on Three Models Composed of Race and
Sociodemographic Characteristics
Dependent Variables
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Indiv. Struc. Indiv. Struc. Indiv. Struc.
Independent variables
Latino .354*** .418*** .208*** .339***

(.030) (.027) (.035) (.032)
Black .190*** 381*** .116*** .346*
(.032) (.028) (.031) (.028)
Sex (female - 1) -.014 .125* -.011 .125***
(.026) (.024) (.026) (.023)
Income -.017** -.034* -.010 -.020***

(.006) (.006) (.026) (.006)
Education (years) -.046*** -.020*** -.037*** -.008*

(.004) (.004) (.004) (.004)
Age (years) .002 -.003* .002** -.001

(.001) (.001) (.001) (.001)
R2 .06 .13 .09 .08 .11 .16

N 2,082 2,107 2,082 2,107 2,082 2,107
a Standard errors appear in parentheses u
* p <.05 ** p <.01 *** p < .001
whites, the current findings show that blacks (and Latinos) may surpass the
individualism of whites, even while exhibiting the greater levels of structural
thinking about inequality.
Finally, the effects of several of the sociodemographic variables included in
model 3, and used in past research on beliefs about poverty, warrant brief com-
ment. Consistent with an underdog perspective (Robinson & Bell 1978), which
predicts that relatively disadvantaged groups (e.g., those with low incomes,
women) will favor beliefs that challenge the dominant ideology: women are
more likely than men to see structuralist reasons for poverty as important, and
a lower household income increases the likelihood that structuralist beliefs will
be invoked. Having more education reduces the likelihood of seeing either type
of poverty belief as important. The negative impact of education on
individualism supports an enlightenment perspective, while the negative effect
on structuralism supports perspectives (e.g., the underdog viewpoint) that
emphasize the role of education as a component of socioeconomic status. Finally,

13.234.42.52 on Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:39:23 UTC
consistent with past research, older respondents in model 3 are more likely to
be individualistic on the subject of poverty.
In sum, the models composing Table 3 demonstrate that there are significant
race/ethnic differences in beliefs about poverty.
QUESTION 2: DO THE SOCIAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL VARIABLES AFFECT BELIEFS ABOUT

POVERTY?
Table 4 recreates all regressions from Table 3 and adds the internal and external
self-explanation variables in an effort to incorporate the self-concept into our
understanding of how beliefs about poverty are shaped. Across the six
equations in Table 4, the race/ethnicity and sociodemographic findings are
largely consistent with those reported previously. (Exceptions are that, in model
6, the age variable does not show the previously observed significant effect on
individualism and the education variable does not show the previously
observed significant effect on structuralism.)18 The self-explanation effect
consistent across all three models. Contrary to prediction, respondents in the
complete sample do not generalize neatly from self-explanations to beliefs about
poverty: internal self-explanations do not lead solely to individualistic thinking
about poverty, nor do external self-explanations lead solely to the invocation of
only structuralist reasons for poverty. While these patterns seem to show that
both internal and external self-explanations significantly increase both individu-
alistic and structuralist thinking about poverty, further analyses reveal that the
effect results from two distinct patterns, corresponding with whites and
nonwhites, that are superimposed in Table 4.
Nonetheless, Table 4 provides an affirmative answer to the second main
question of this study: social-psychological variables do have significant effects
on beliefs about poverty net of respondents' background characteristics. In an
effort to further deconstruct the findings reported in Table 4, I reran models
within race/ethnic subgroups to explore how blacks, Latinos, and whites may
contribute differently to the patterns reported for the whole sample.
QUESTION 3: DO RACE/ETHNIC GROUPS DIFFER IN THE DETERMINANTS OF BELIEFS

ABOUT POVERTY?
Table 5 represents the final set of analyses, which directly test the assumption
of similarity concerning the determinants of poverty beliefs for the three
race/ethnic groups. To address this third main question of the study, the
equations with only sociodemographic variables (model 2) and equations with
both sociodemographic and the self-explanation variables (model 5) were run
again within the three separate race/ethnic subsamples. These analyses further
specify links between race, the self, and ideological beliefs, or in Mills's (1959)
language, some ideological consequences of the intersections of social structure
and biography. The significance of race/ethnic group differences in the
regression coefficients for each independent variable (from the equations run
separately within each subgroup) is assessed using a difference-of-slope test.
This test is comparable to testing the significance of the interaction term of the
independent variable with race/ethnicity (Kmenta 1971).

13.234.42.52 on Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:39:23 UTC
TABLE 4: Unstandardized OLS Results of Stratification Beliefs Dependent

Variablesa
Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Indiv. Struc. Indiv. Struc. Indiv. Struc.
Latino .326*** .335*** .209*** .293***

(.039) (.035) (.044) (.039)
Black .212*** .363*** .194*** .334***

(.039) (.035) (.039) (.035)
Sex (female - 1) .004 .140*** -.001 .129***

(.031) (.029) (.031) (.028)
Income -.014 -.030*** -.006 -.019*

(.008) (.008) (.008) (.008)
Education (years) -.042*** -.011* -.035*** -.003

(.005) (.005) (.006) (.005)
Age (years) .001 -.003* .002 -.001

(.001) (.001) (.001) (.001)
Internal .159*** .088* .203*** .125** .184*** .097**

(.042) (.037) (.042) (.039) (.042) (.037)
External .137*** .146*** .124*** .167*** .101*** .134***

(.023) (.021) (.023) (.022) (.024) (.021)
.13 .17 .13 .13 .15 .19
N 1,355 1,362 1,355 1,362 1,355 1,362
a Regressed on three models composed of race,

explanations. Standard errors are in parentheses.
* p <.05 **p < .01 *** p < .001
Among whites, the sociodemographic variables composing model 2 show

several of the same effects seen among the whole sample, in which several
variables significantly affect poverty beliefs. Specifically, among whites, women
are more likely than are men to endorse structuralist beliefs, greater income
decreases adherence to structuralist beliefs, and more education reduces the
likelihood of viewing individualistic beliefs about poverty as being important.
Among blacks, having more income decreases individualistic beliefs about
poverty, an effect not seen among other groups or in past research. For Latinos,
as with whites, having more education decreases individualistic thinking, which
is consistent with the enlightenment interpretation of education effects. While
more significant effects are observed among whites than the minority groups,

13.234.42.52 on Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:39:23 UTC
TABLE 5: Unstandardized OLS Results of Separate Regressions of Models 2 and

5 for Each Stratification Beliefs Dependent Variable within Race
Subgroupsa
Whites
Model 2 Model 5
Indiv. Struc. Indiv. Struc.
Female .018 .179***c -.002 .167***

(.046) (.046) (.046) (.045)
Income 015b -.026* .016b -.023

(.012) (.012) (.012) (.012)
Education .046***b --005 .049***b,c .004

(.009) (.009) (.009) (.009)
Age .003 -.001 .002 -.001

(.002) (.002) (.002) (.002)
Internal .245***c -.014b,c

(.064) (.061)
External .007b'c 206***bc

(.036) (.036)
R 2 .04 .04 .06 .08

N 663 665 663 665
a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
a Standard errors are in parentheses.

b Differences between slopes for whites and blacks are significant at p < .05.
c Differences between slopes for whites and Latinos are significant at p < .05.
d Differences between slopes for blacks and Latinos are significant at p < .05.
* p <.05 ** p <.01 *** p < .001
the difference-of-slope test reveals that none of these effects is significantly

stronger for whites than for both blacks and Latinos. Instead, a mixed picture
emerges when examining the significance of across-group comparisons of the
effects of particular independent variables: specifically, education is a stronger
predictor of individualism for whites and Latinos than for blacks, income is a
stronger (negative) predictor of individualism for blacks than either whites or
Latinos, and being female is a stronger predictor of structuralism for whites
than for Latinos (in model 2).

13.234.42.52 on Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:39:23 UTC

Subgroupsa (Continued)
Blacks
Model 2 Model 5
Female -.011 .097 -.018 .091

(.071) (.053) (.070) (.052)
Income 053**b,d -.017 _.047*bd -.015

(.019) (.014) (.018) (.014)
Education _.011 d .002 -.010b .001

(.014) (.010) (.014) (.010)
Age .004 -.002 .003 -.003

(.003) (.002) (.003) (.002)
Internal .167 .218***b

(.085) (.063)
External .155**b .056b

(.048) (.035)
R2 .04 .02 .09 .07

N 317 318 317 318
a Standard errors are i

b Differences between s
c Differences between
Differences between sl
* p <.05 ** p <.01
The regression equations that include sociodemographic and self-explana-

tion independent variables (model 5) reveal an increase in predictive power,
along with the same patterns for the sociodemographic variables found when
the more restricted equations (model 2) are run within each race/ethnic group.19
Analysis of the self-explanation effects within each race/ethnic subgroup reveals
an interesting contrast between whites and race/ethnic minorities not observ-
able in the analyses reported for the whole sample (Table 4). Contrary to the
mixed picture seen for the significance of white-versus-minority differences in

13.234.42.52 on Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:39:23 UTC

Subgroups (Continued)
Latinos
Model 2 Model 5

Female .004 .085c .027 .090*

(.054) (.046) (.051) (.044)
Income -.017d -.018 003d -.011

(.017) (.014) (.016) (.014)
Education 040***d -.013 -.025**c -.007

(.008) (.007) (.008) (.007)
Age -.000 .000 -.002 -.002

(.003) (.002) (.003) (.002)
Internal .045c .188**c

(.071) (.062)
External .226***C Q90*c

(.041) (.036)
R 2 .10 .03 .18 .09

N 375 379 375 379
a Standard errors are in

b Differences between s
c Differences between s
d Differences between
* p <.05 ** p <.01 *** p < .001
the impact of the sociodemographic variables, a clear and significant white-

versus-minority pattern emerges for the effects of the self-explanations.
For whites, internal self-explanations increase the likelihood that individual-
istic reasons are seen as important causes of poverty, while external self-
explanations increase the likelihood that structuralist reasons are viewed as
important. The effects of internal self-explanations on thinking structurally and
external self-explanations on thinking individualistically are not significant for
whites. Thus, whites tend to think about the situations of self and others in
similar, consistent ways - a pattern that conforms with past research and with
the predicted pattern not observed in the whole sample. Internal self-explana-

13.234.42.52 on Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:39:23 UTC
tions, a component of the dominant ideology, lead to holding individuals

primarily responsible for being poor. External self-explanations, a stance at odds
with dominant modes of explaining personal success, increase the likelihood of
perceiving structuralist reasons as important in producing poverty. In short, the
system is interpreted in universalistic terms; specifically, all people are thought
to experience the world similarly.20 When whites say "I made it because of me,"
they tend to view the society as an open system in which people have similar
chances, personal responsibility is the rule applied to everyone, and poverty
gets explained in the terms of internal/individual-level factors. Similarly, when
whites believe they have been held back by outside, external forces, following
universalistic norms they also assume that similar supra-individual barriers in
society must exist for others (e.g., the poor).
For blacks and Latinos, the general relationshi between self-explanations
and beliefs about poverty is dramatically different. Specifically, for minorities,
internal self-explanations significantly increase the likelihood of seeing struc-
turalist (but not individualistic) reasons for poverty as important, while external
self-explanations significantly increase individualistic (but not structuralist)
thinking on the subject of poverty. These patterns suggest that there is some-
thing about the minority experience that shapes the relationship between
explanations for self and others' situations in a different way than among
whites. One possibility is that minority experience is conditioned by the facts of
both class and caste.
Steele (1994) highlights the central role of race/ethnic status in the forma-
tion of minority-group consciousness, noting the way in which race/ethnic
group membership and social class/personal success exert conflicting pressures
on the opinions, beliefs, and values of many blacks.22 Given that the respon-
dents in the models that include self-explanations are all employed, consider-
ation of the general societal position of employed minorities reveals possible
sources of the unique minority patterns observed. For Steele, the personal
success and social class position of gainfully employed blacks reinforce norms
of hard work, individual effort, and a sense of distinctiveness relative to those
in poverty. In short, success for minorities enhances the basic legitimacy of the
system and the tendency to view it in a class-based way that assumes that
universalistic chances for mobility exist. At the same time, competing with these
forces is the powerful effect of race/ethnicity, serving as a constant reminder of
the importance of the castelike nature of social placement of race/ethnic
minorities and the existence of structural barriers in society. In short, the
minority experience combines the realities of class and caste, which complicates
consciousness - undercutting the use of universalistic norms and the possibility
of psychological consistency - by reinforcing the reality of ascribed status and
the particularistic experiences of nonwhite groups in America.
Following this logic, employed minorities in this study can be thought of as
occupying a distinct structural position in the middle of the American success
pie: they are better off than the abject poor but still relatively disadvantaged
compared with middle-class whites. Using symbolic interactionism's conceptual-
ization of the self as a multidimensional phenomenon whose structure reflects
the larger society, one's social group memiberships, and one's personal experi-
ences, the self-concept of employed blacks and Latinos likely reflects their

13.234.42.52 on Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:39:23 UTC
general structural position, which provides two basic reference groups: one that
highlights their relative success and the importance of beliefs in internal,
individual sources of advancement, and a second that highlights minorities'
relative disadvantage and the continuing significance of external, environmental
barriers to equality with whites. From a symbolic interactionist perspective these
self-explanations can be understood to represent two distinct components of
identity, or "vocabularies of motive" (rather than different poles of a single
continuum as the locus-of-control concept assumes), which may have a different
salience for different respondents (from different experiences of the world), as
well as different levels of salience within the selves of particular respondents.
For minorities, the salience of internal self-explanations leads to the
increased adoption of structuralist beliefs as a response to personal struggles in
a caste-conditioned system. Internal self-explanations are made salient from a
sense of having worked hard and having made sacrifices to achieve personal
success and the status that gainful employment brings. However, unlike whites,
who operate with a view of the stratification system that causes them to
generalize (in universalistic fashion) from personal experiences to the poor,
employed minorities' beliefs are more complex and are shaped by the compet-
ing pull of the castelike reality of race/ethnic status. Thus, even when the
dominant ideology internal terms are salient in explaining one's own biography,
minorities also contend with a sense of having had to overcome structural
barriers to achieve their success, while acknowledging that similar barriers exist
for other members of one's group. The internal self-orientation does not
dominate consciousness but remains one component of a dual consciousness
characteristic of minority groups. In short, the intemal attribution of responsibil-
ity is fully compatible with more structural modes of thinking that place some
responsibility outside the individual realm. This finding is consistent with
Steelman and Powell's (1993) finding that among African Americans, support
for government funding of higher education (interpreted as a form of social
welfare) is fully consistent with a sense of personal responsibility among parents
for funding their children's education. For blacks and Latinos, assuming
personal responsibility, or saying "I made it because of me," does not preclude
- indeed it can increase - the acknowledgment that structural barriers exist in
society.
The pattern of external self-explanations leading to individualistic beliefs
about poverty among minorities is understood with a similar dual-consciousness
logic, supplemented by theories of cognitive attribution biases (Nisbett & Ross
1980; Ross 1977). Studies of ego-defensive or self-serving attribution biases
suggest that external self-explanations are commonly adopted by vulnerable
persons to deflect responsibility for personal outcomes away from the self and
toward the larger environment23 Studies also suggest that working Americans'
views of the poor are shaped by such ego-defensive tendencies. Lewis (1978)
argues that the projection of personal responsibility for failure onto the poor
allows certain vulnerable strata to feel better about their own limited successes.
Lane (1962) makes a similar point in arguing that many working Americans
exhibit a fear of equality, since living close to poverty (in the sense of limited
income, limited resources, the threat of falling into poverty) produces a need for

13.234.42.52 on Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:39:23 UTC
greater psychological distance from the poor in order to maintain a favorable

self-identity. Moral superiority is reaffirmed through an emphasis on individual-
istic factors in producing other peoples' poverty. Anderson (1990) documents
the same pattern in the black community. He notes that
by many employed and law-abiding blacks who live in the inner city, members of the
underclass are viewed, and treated, as convenient objects of scorn, fear, and embarrass-
ment. In this way the underclass serves as an important social yardstick that allows
working class blacks to compare themselves favorably with others they judge to be worse
off, a social category stigmatized within the community. (66)
Each of these authors emphasizes the tendency of employed strata residing

immediately above the poor to blame those in poverty to satisfy a need for
psychological distance and to legitimate their own limited successes.
Given the general structural position of employed minorities, I interpret the
effect of external self-explanations leading to individualistic beliefs as follows:
External self-explanations likely emerge as salient in an ego-defensive maneuver
arising from the sense of being held back by external, environmental forces in
one's own life (and almost certainly, given the strong group identification of
minorities, perceptions of general group deprivation and continued relative
disadvantage compared with whites). At the same time, however, these external
accounts do not dominate consciousness in psychologically consistent or
sociologically universalistic fashion as among whites because employed
minorities' relative success and perceptions of personal difference from the poor
are symbolically enhanced by using individualistic reasons for poverty. In this
way, the ego-defensive, external self-explanation is coupled with the ego-
defensive tendency to invoke individualistic explanations for the poor in an
effort to "salvage the sell" (Lewis 1978) and maintain a favorable self-identity.
Thus, whether internal or external self-explanations are salient, minorities
appear to exhibit a particularistic logic that implies a "sense of personal
difference"; different cultural themes are used to explain one's own biography
than are used to explain poverty. For minorities, in contrast with whites, what
is felt to be true for self is not the general rule applied to other members of
society. These findings, along with the patterns seen for several other variables
in Table 5, provide a clear answer to question 3 investigated by this article:
several of the included independent variables do operate differently for different
race/ethnic groups.24
Summary and Conclusions
This study has explored race/ethnic differences in stratification beliefs, focusing

specifically on the effects of race/ethnicity, other sociodemographic variables,
and two previously unexamined social-psychological variables on beliefs about
the causes of poverty. My interest in mapping what is believed, exploring
various antecedents to beliefs, and investigating differences in the determinants
across race/ethnic subgroups has resulted in complex set of results.
A finding consistent with past researRh was that blacks are significantly
more structuralist than whites in their thinking about poverty. Also consistent
with past studies are the reported effects of income, education, age, and sex.

13.234.42.52 on Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:39:23 UTC
Finally, I find support for the group identification explanation of stratification

beliefs, since significant race/ethnicity effects remain after the introduction of
SES statistical controls. The group identification explanation of structuralist
beliefs is complicated, however, by the simultaneous greater support found for
individualistic thinking among minorities, an unpredicted pattern that sets the
stage for a discussion of some counterintuitive findings.
Findings that past research did not lead us to expect dominate the current
study. The first counterintuitive findings are seen in an examination of the
marginals for the items representing the two dependent variables in Table 1. In
contrast to past research, which documents the dominance of individualistic
beliefs about poverty, this study finds that southern Californians in 1993 were
more structuralist in their thinking about the poor. This pattern holds for all
three race/ethnic groups. Kluegel and Smith's (1986) argument that structuralist
beliefs will increase in popularity during times of unusual socioeconomic crises
and racial strain explain the data. Considering the structural conditions and
recent events in the region under examination, including crises in the education-
al system, a recent economic recession, and the rioting in response to the
racially charged verdict in the Rodney King case, the popularity of items such
as "failure of society to provide good schools for many Americans," "failure of
private industry to provide enough good jobs," and "prejudice and discrimina-
tion" is not surprising.
The second main counterintuitive pattern is that blacks and Latinos attribute
more importance to both individualistic and structuralist reasons for poverty.
This finding runs counter to the prediction that racial/ethnic minorities would
be more structuralist, but not more individualistic, than whites. The observed
pattern is consistent with the arguments of Bobo (1991) and Mann (1970) that
general value consensus and individual value-consistency may be commonly
overestimated in theories of public opinion. Further, since it is the minority
populations who subscribe most strongly to structural thinking, Bobo's (1991)
explanation for the relative weakness of more egalitarian, structuralist outlooks
in American society is supported: it is not that such ideas are culturally
unavailable. Rather, the voices subscribing most strongly to alternatives to the
dominant ideology are the politically weakest voices in the crowd.
This study's separate treatment of Latinos adds to a growing body of
literature that demonstrates that this rapidly growing American minority group
warrants separate treatment in sociological studies of ideological beliefs. Latinos
clearly differ from both whites and blacks in objective status and ideological
characteristics. Also of interest, however, is the fact that despite the differences,
Latinos are also similar in some ways to blacks, suggesting that the influence of
similar social-structural positions as minority groups may override other
historical and cultural differences.
The other main contribution of this study is the examination of how various
variables operate differently within race/ethnic subgroups. The effects of self-
explanations are the most striking examples of such differences. The differences
suggest that our assumptions about consistency may be more a reflection of
whites' experience of the world and use of universalistic norms than a general
psychological tendency. Future social psychological research should consider the
extent to which our knowledge of such issues is shaped by the lack of studies

13.234.42.52 on Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:39:23 UTC
that include nonwhites. Further, such research should consider the implications
that minorities' distinct structural positions and experiences have on the content
and organization of the self, as well as how various patterns of self-organization
(e.g., the relative salience of internal and external self-explanations) affect
ideological beliefs about inequality and other social and political issues.
Future research should also investigate race/ethnic differences in how
persons' self-perceptions of their relative success or failure shape ideological
thinking. While I lack direct measures of perceived success or failure, it is
reasonable to suggest in light of our knowledge of attribution biases that
internal self-explanations are indicative of perceived relative success, while
external self-explanations are adopted in an ego-defensive manner to deflect
responsibility from the self when relative failure is perceived. Given this logic,
one can speculate about the distinctive effects of self-explanation in minority
groups. Specifically, the internal orientation is likely indicative of a kind of ego
security that enables respondents to adopt a more compassionate view of the
poor. As the poor represent no threat to the self when internal self-explanations
are salient, structural barriers can be invoked to explain others' poverty in a
"while I've made it because of me, the system keeps others down" fashion. For
minorities, personal biography is explained in particularistic fashion - in this
case, as an exception to the general rule that validates the moral claims of the
underdog. In contrast, external self-explanations likely flow from a kind of ego
vulnerability that is not conducive to the development of a structuralist
consciousness. Rather, extemal self-explanations among minorities appear to
cause actors to interpret others' lack of success in individualistic terms in a
"while I've been limited by outside forces, the poor only have themselves to
blame" fashion. Again, minority personal biography is understood in particular-
istic terms, in this case relative to ideological beliefs about the poor that deny
the moral claims of the underdog in the service of maintaining personal
exceptionalism and a favorable self-identity.
The growing inequality between a gainfully employed class and a growing
urban underclass within minority communities should motivate future
ethnographic and survey studies of ideological beliefs to examine the applicabil-
ity of theories of "middle" Americans' beliefs about the poor that were
originally developed among white populations (e.g., Lane 1962; Lewis 1978).
Further, future research should address in greater detail the ideological
implications of various manifestations of the self-concept in an effort to move
beyond those aspects of this study that have been necessarily speculative.
Speculation aside, however, this study has produced answers to the three main
questions posed at the outset: First, race/ethnic differences do exist in beliefs
about poverty. This study documents the unexpected pattem of blacks and
Latinos showing greater support for both structural and individualistic thinking
in comparison with whites. Second, the social-psychological variables do have
significant mediating effects on poverty beliefs net of respondents' background
characteristics. Finally, this study shows that the effects of several of the
independent variables on poverty beliefs do differ by race group, which calls
into question the implicit idea that these basic social-psychological processes
operate similarly for persons of all groupstand social locations.

13.234.42.52 on Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:39:23 UTC
Notes
1. Race/ethnicity is based on respondents' self identifications. The terms race/ethnicity and

race, African American and black, and Latino and Hispanic are used interchangeably in this
study.
2. Such reasoning can be traced to thinkers such as Levi-Strauss (1966) who hold that such
bipolar dichotomies are the result of oppositional human thought processes rooted in the
structure of the mind. This imagery survives in theories that assume that all beliefs can be
scaled along a single dimension (e.g., liberal-conservative), as well as in cognitive consistency
theories (Abelson et al. 1968), which hold that inconsistency is an unpleasant state that creates
a motivational drive toward resolution and consistency in beliefs (Kluegel & Smith 1986:15).
3. Kluegel and Smith (1986) state that "individual and structural explanations are not
alternatives" (17). Much research (Huber & Form 1973; Lane 1962; Mann 1970) supports the
"principle of cognitive efficiency," which holds that persons can hold both types of beliefs
simultaneously, rather than viewing them as alternatives in the quest for consistency (Kluegel
& Smith 1986).
4. Given Gurin, Miller, and Gurin's (1980) finding of strongest group identification among
blacks, along with the relative weakness of any class consciousness or class awareness in
American history, it is argued that racial minorities are more likely to respond to race
cleavages in forming a group identification.
5. See Sears and Funk (1991) for a thorough review of the concept of self-interest and its use in
studies of social and political attitudes. Sears and Funk are critical of the use of demographic
measures of self-interest and document the consistently greater explanatory power of symbolic
politics measures in predicting attitudes. While I am conceptualizing personal self-interest in
socioeconomic status terms, my comparison is with race/ethnicity (rather than symbolic politics
measures) in understanding beliefs about poverty.
6. Rather than assuming a single internal-external personality continuum (i.e., locus of control)
as conceptualized by Rotter (1966) and other psychological social psychologists, I take a
symbolic interactionist approach to analyzing the effects of two separate variables representing
vocabularies that individuals draw upon in varying degrees to explain their circumstances.
7. I am not arguing that these are identical, parallel attribution tendencies with one simply
referring to the self, and the other to the issue of poverty. I do, however, believe that it is
reasonable to assume a general similarity between the tendency to refer to internal/individual-
level properties of the self and to internal/individual-level properties of other people in
explaining why they are poor. Similarly, there is a basic similarity between the tendency to
refer to nonindividual/noninternal forces affecting the self and to nonindividual/noninternal
forces causing poverty. Kluegel and Smith (1986) use a similar interpretive strategy in referring
to ability and effort attributions as representing the person level, while referring to luck and
"being helped or held back by other people" (81) as external attributions. The empirical
implications of including and excluding luck in the measurement of the dependent variables
is explored in note 24.
8. While questions of causality between attitudes about self and other objects remain, I argue
- in light of past research, and the importance accorded to the self-concept in symbolic
interactionism - that it is reasonable to ask whether the way that people think about their
own societal positions affects how they think about other people's positions in society (e.g., the
poor). As a safeguard, models were run each way (i.e., with self-explanations as independent
variables and poverty beliefs as dependent variables, and vice versa) to ensure that the patterns
of effects are similar both ways. Results demonstrate that the patterns of effects are the same.
9. Several studies examining the beliefs and attitudes of nonwhite race/ethnic groups have
appeared in recent years (e.g., Guarnaccia, Angel & Worobey 1991; Smith 1990; Welch &
Sigelman 1988), most of which focus on race/ethnic group differences in adherence to
particular beliefs and attitudes (e.g., Banks & Juni 1991; Booth-Kewley, Rosenfeld & Edwards
1992). Despite these developments, studies that compare race/ethnic groups on the determinants
of beliefs and attitudes are still a rarity. It is the dearth of studies examining group differences

13.234.42.52 on Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:39:23 UTC
APPENDIX: Items and Coding Used in Variable Construction
SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
Race Black - 1 Latino - 1

Other - 0 Other - 0
Gender Female - 1
Male - 0
Household Income
1. less than $14,999

2. between $15,000 and $24,999
3. between $25,000 and $34,999
4. between $35,000 and $44,999
5. between $45,000 and $59,999
6. between $60,000 and $74,999
7. between $75,000 and $99,999
8. above $100,000
Education Measured in years.
Age Measured in years.
STRATLFICATION BELIEFS
Interviewer statement: The following statements refer to possible reasons for poverty in
America. For each of the reasons, please tell me whether you think it is
(4) very important
(3) somewhat important
(2) not very important
(1) not at all important
as a reason for poverty.
Individualism (ct - .674):
1. Personal irresponsibility, lack of discipline among those who are poor.

2. Lack of effort by those who are poor.
3. Lack of thrift and personal money management.
4. Lack of ability and talent among those who are poor.
Structuralism (ct - .697):
1. Low wages in some businesses and industries.

2. Failure of society to provide good schools for many Americans.
3. Prejudice and discrimination.
4. Failure of private industry to provide enough jobs.

13.234.42.52 on Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:39:23 UTC
APPENDIX: Items and Coding Used in Variable Construction
SELF-EXPLANATIONS
Respondents were asked how important "abilities," "opportunities," "effort," and "luck" were
in determining their success in the domains of education and work.
Coded: (1) not at all important

(2) not very important
(3) somewhat important
(4) very important.
Interviewer Statement for Education: "Now we would like you to think about your education.
Think about the highest degree you have eamed. Please indicate how important the following
were in determining your educational success:"
How important would you say your abilities, things like talents, intelligence, and skills were in
determining your educational success?
How important would you say your opportunities, things like your family background and
other life circumstances, were in determining your educational success?
How important would you say your effort, things like desire, dedication, and motivation was
in determining your educational success?
How important was luck, that is fate or chance in determining your educational success?
Interviewer Statement for Work: "Now we would like you to think about the work you do.
How important are the following in determining your success in the kind of work or job you
currently hold?"
How important would you say your abilities, things like talents, intelligence, and skills are in
determining the kind of work or job you currently hold?
How important would you say your opportunities, things like your family background and
other life circumstances, are in deternining the kind of work or job you currently hold?
How important would you say your effort, things like desire, dedication, and motivation is in
determining the kind of work or job you currently hold?
How important is luck, that is fate or chance in determining the kind of work or job you
currently hold?
Internal scale (a - .551)

Constructed using the four items asking about ability/work, effort/work, ability/education,
effort/education.
External scale (a - .647)

Constructed using the four items asking about opportunities/work, luck/work, opportuni-
ties/education, luck/education

13.234.42.52 on Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:39:23 UTC
in the determinants of (rather than adherence to) beliefs and attitudes that underlies the
assumption of similarity.
10. See Kluegel and Smith (1986) for a discussion of blacks' lower levels of support for the
belief in the availability of equal opportunity in American society.
11. The survey was conducted by the Social Science Research Center at the California State
University at Fullerton. Response rate represents the ratio of completed interviews to the total
of all completed interviews, never completed call-backs, respondent refusals, working numbers
at which an answering machine was reached, and working numbers that were never answered.
Oversampling was achieved by oversampling telephone exchanges in 1990 census tracts where
the black population was greater than 30%. Comparisons with census data confirms the
representativeness of the current sample in basic sociodemographic characteristics.
12. The survey questionnaire was split into three parts, with one-third of it given to each of
three translators. Following the initial translation from English to Spanish, the three thirds of
the Spanish version were distributed round-robin style to another translator to be translated
back to English. Then, this process was repeated with another translation back to Spanish.
Finally, the existing Spanish version was given to a proficient native speaker of Spanish for
translation back to English. Following these procedures, all translators and the principal
investigator met as a group to discuss changes which would ensure maximum equivalence
between the two versions of the survey.
13. I focus on individualistic and structuralist beliefs for two reasons. First, virtually all past
research on beliefs about poverty utilizing Feagin's (or similar) survey items examines
individualistic and structuralist beliefs. Second, factor analysis of the Feagin items reveals these
two underlying dimensions. Since relatively few items referring to luck/fatalism are typically
incorporated into surveys - making it unlikely that a distinct luck/fatalism factor will appear
- these survey items may underestimate the role of luck/fatalism issues in people's thinking
about poverty. Future studies should address this possibility.
14. The question wordings differed slightly from Feagin's and Kluegel and Smith's in two
cases. The "prejudice and discrimination" item included "against blacks" in Kluegel and Smith
and "against Negroes" in Feagin's design. In addition, in the current data, "personal
irresponsibility, lack of discipline among those who are poor" was substituted for the item
used by the two previous studies that read "loose morals and drunkenness." As one reviewer
pointed out, the new personal irresponsibility" language is likely more palatable to Americans
than the "loose morals" language, making the relatively low individualism scores found in this
study all the more noteworthy.
15. These patterns suggest that the significant positive correlation observed for the whole
sample is, in part, a function of the relatively large proportion of Latino respondents in the
current data base in comparison with samples used in previous studies. Thus, the conclusion
that these beliefs may be combined is made clearer when considering the belief patterns of
previously understudied race/ethnic minority populations.
16. All reported regressions involve listwise deletion of cases. Models in Table 3 contain all
respondents with full information on all variables included in the equations (run separately for
each dependent variable) comprising model 3. Models in Tables 4 and 5 contain all respon-
dents with full information on all variables in models 6 and 5 respectively. Models were also
run using pairwise and mean-substitution case-selection criteria and produced nearly identical
results.
17. To explore the possibility that the race/ethnic effects might be due to acquiescence bias (i.e.,
the tendency of some respondents to agree with, or systematically endorse, survey items
despite "true" item content), two approaches were taken. First, I ran all models in which
individualism was the dependent variable with structuralism as an independent variable, and
vice versa. The two poverty beliefs had significant positive effects on one another, but their
inclusion in the models did not significantly alter the coefficients of the race/ethnicity dummy
variables. Second, I created a new variable that directly measured the tendency to agree despite
item content. This variable was created with eight items from the Rosenberg (1965) self-esteem
and Pearlin and Schooler (1978) mastery scales, which include items coded in different
directions. This new variable assigned a score to respondents based on the sum of the

13.234.42.52 on Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:39:23 UTC
difference between the group mean for an item and any "strongly agree" response by a
particular respondent. Thus, if a respondent strongly agreed with multiple items, despite their
substantive meaning regarding self-esteem and mastery, they received a higher score on the
new variable. Entering this variable into the models reported here did not alter any data
patterns or levels of statistical significance. Results of these analyses are available upon request.
While other method effects could have influenced the results of this study, the above
approaches discount the most likely possible source of bias. Nevertheless, future work should
consider the possibility of other sources of bias that may affect the results of statistical research
on survey data that compares blacks, Latinos, and whites.
18. The fact that models in Table 4 are restricted to employed respondents raises the following
question: Would restriction to the employed-only sample (rather than the total sample) result
in different findings for Table 3? The answer is no. When the models were run on the
employed-only subsample, all basic patterns were the same. I elected not to use the employed-
only sample throughout the entire article since the findings I report on southern Californians'
beliefs about poverty represent a stronger contribution to the literature when taken from the
most representative sample possible. I elected to use the subsample of employed respondents
at this point in the study for two reasons. First, all attempts to construct the self-explanation
variables using only education information, or using the maximum amount of information
available for any given respondent (i.e., including work information if the respondent was
employed), resulted in scales with unsatisfactory reliability levels. Second, the self-explanation
variables are theoretically richer when referring to work and education - especially given that
the ideological issue at hand is poverty.
19. With two exceptions: in model 5 among Latinos, women are significantly more likely than
are men to see structuralist reasons as important, and, among whites in model 5, income loses
its significant negative effect on structuralism.
20. Universalistic norms are consistent with a class-based view of the social system (Parsons
1951) which is perceived to treat people sinmlarly according to achieved criteria. Whether or not
mobility is perceived to be readily available (i.e., an open system), the important point is that
universalistic norms lead one to believe that self's and others' experiences of the world are
similar. In contrast, particularistic norms are consistent with a caste-based view of the social
system. From a caste standpoint, the system is perceived to treat people differently according
to ascribed statuses. Given such a view of the system, people are more likely to explain their
biographies in particularistic terms - i.e., as exceptions to the rules by which other peoples'
lives are determined.
21. Blacks and Latinos are significantly different from whites with two exceptions. First, among
Latinos, as with whites, the effect of external self-explanations on structuralism is significant.
However, a difference-of-slope test demonstrates that the white coefficient for this relationship
is significantly larger than among Latinos, reinforcing the stability of the differences between
whites and minorities that I am emphasizing. The other exception is that the difference
between whites and blacks in the effect of internal self-explanations on individualism is not
significant. These patterns should not deflect attention away from the larger number of ways
in which both blacks and Latinos are significantly different from whites.
22. This theme can be traced back to W.E.B. DuBois's ([1903] 1993) discussion of double
consciousness. DuBois argued that African American consciousness reflects a basic dualism due
to the necessity of balancing a native black soul, or sense of self, with an imposed American
self.
23. See Gurin, Gurin, and Morrison (1978) for a discussion of the sources of an external control
ideology among blacks, which is interpreted as a realistic perception of the circumstances of
discrimination and historic oppression rather than a pathological personality attribute. Table
2 confirms that blacks and Latinos are more likely than whites to use extemal self-explanations.
Further, correlations with Pearlin's "mastery" or "personal efficacy" scale suggest that extemal
self-explanations are consistent with a lower sense of personal control or efficacy than are
internal self-explanations.
24. Does including luck/fatalism issues in the measurement of the dependent variables change
the basic findings of this article? No. I performed the following additional lines of analysis,
incorporating luck/fatalism issues into the measurement of the dependent variables, to

13.234.42.52 on Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:39:23 UTC
demonstrate that consistently dealing with luck (i.e., including it in the self-explanations and
dependent variables) does not change the fundamental findings of this article. First, I reran the
factor analysis on the ten Feagin items (in Table 1) to see how information on luck might be
included. Reanalysis reveals that there is a potential third factor that comes close to making the
usual eigenvalue cut point of 1. This factor registers an eigenvalue of .979. Since the decision
rule of an eigenvalue of 1 is not written in stone, and is legitimately violated if there is a
theoretical basis to do so, I reran the factor analysis forcing a three-factor solution. These three
variables contain effects for each of the ten items analyzed, thus building information on each
item into the measurement of each poverty dimension. This procedure yields a new measure-
ment of the two factors usually studied (individualism and structuralism), as well as a third
factor I call luck/fatalism that is independent of the factor-score individualism and structural-
ism variables. The factor-score variables for the first two factors correlate extremely highly with
individualism and structuralism (in the .9 range) as I originally constructed them and as I
employ them in the article (i.e., standardized-summed scales). Rerunning analyses with these
three new dependent variables allows me to demonstrate that (1) the same race/ethnic
differences (in beliefs about poverty and in the impact of the self-explanations on beliefs about
poverty) found using standardized summed scales that exclude luck/fatalism information (i.e.,
the luck and health items) are found using the factor-score variables for these dimensions that
include data on all ten items, and (2) all three race/ethnic groups are the same with regard to
the determinants of luck/fatalism: specifically, it is the extemal self-explanation that is
significant for each race/ethnic group. The fact that this different measurement strategy
reaffirms my basic findings on race/ethnic differences in the impact of the self-explanations,
as well as the fact that all three groups exhibit the same patterns on luck/fatalism, points to the
conclusion that the self-explanation findings for minorities represent something specific to
kinds of minority experience (which are not a function of an inconsistency in dealing with
luck). The analyses discussed in this note are available upon request.
References
Abelson, Robert P., Elliot Aronson, William McGuire, Theodore Newcomb, Milton Rosenberg,
and Percy Tannenbaum (eds.). 1968. Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook. Rand
McNally.
Anderson, Elijah. 1990. Streetwise: Race, Class, and Change in an Urban Community. University of
Chicago Press.
Bains, Gumek. 1983. "Explanations and the Need for Control." Pp. 12643 in Attribution T7heory:
Social and Functional Extensions, edited by Miles Hewstand. Basil Blackwell.
Banks, Hugh C., and Samuel Juni. 1991. "Defense Mechanisms in Minority African-American
and Hispanic Youths: Standardization and Scale Reliabilities." Journal of Personality
Assessment 56:327-34.
Bobo, Lawrence. 1988. "Group Conflict, Prejudice, and the Paradox of Contemporary Racial
Attitudes." Pp. 85-114 in Eliminating Racism: Means and Controversies, edited by Phyllis A.
Katz and Dalmas A. Taylor. Plenum.
.1991. "Social Responsibility, Individualism, and Redistributive Policies." Sociological Forum
6:71-92.
Booth-Kewley, Stephanie, Paul Rosenfeld, and Jack E. Edwards. 1992. "Impression Management
and Self-Deceptive Enhancement among Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Navy
Recruits." Journal of Social Psychology 132:323-29.
Centers, Richard. 1949. The Psychology of Social Casses: A Study of Class Consciousness. Princeto
University Press.
Donato, Katharine M. 1994. "U.S. Policy and Mexican Migration to the United States, 1942-92."
Social Science Quarterly 75:705-29.
DuBois, W.E.B. [1903] 1993. The Souls of Black Folk. Knopf.

13.234.42.52 on Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:39:23 UTC
Feagin, Joe. 1972. "When It Comes to Poverty, It's Still, 'God Helps Those Who Help
Themselves."' Psychology Today 6:101-29.
.1975. Subordinating the Poor. Prentice-Hall.
Form, William, and Claudine Hanson. 1985. "The Consistency of Ideologies of Economic
Justice." Research on Stratification and Mobility 4:239-69.
Guamaccia, Peter J., Ronald Angel, and Jacqueline Lowe Worobey. 1991. "The Impact of
Marital Status and Employment Status on Depressive Affect for Hispanic Americans."
Journal of Community Psychology 19:13649.
Gurin, Patricia, Gerald Gurin, and Betty M. Morrison. 1978. "Personal and Ideological Aspects
of Intemal and Extemal Control." Social Psychology 41:275-96.
Gurin, Patricia, Arthur H. Miller, and Gerald Gurin. 1980. "Stratum Identification and
Consciousness." Social Psychology Quarterly 43:30-47.
Hasenfeld, Yeheskel, and Jane A. Rafferty. 1989. "The Determinants of Public Attitudes toward
the Welfare State." Social Forces 67:102748.
Heaven, Patrick C.L. 1989. "Economic Locus of Control Beliefs and Lay Attributions of
Poverty." Australian Journal of Psychology 41:315-25.
Huber, Joan, and William Form. 1973. Income and Ideology. Free Press.
Hyman, Herbert H., and Charles R. Wright. 1979. Education's Lasting Influence on Values.
University of Chicago Press.
Jackman, Mary R., and Robert W. Jackman. 1983. aass Awareness in the United States. University
of California Press.
Jackman, Mary R., and Michael J. Muha. 1984. "Education and Intergroup Attitudes: Moral
Enlightenment, Superficial Democratic Commitment, or Ideological Refinement?" American
Sociological Review 49:751-69.
Kluegel, James R., and Eliot R. Smith. 1986. Beliefs about Inequality. Aldine de Gruyter.
Kmenta, Jan. 1971. Elements of Econometrics. Macmillan.
Lane, Robert E. 1962. Political Ideology. Free Press.
Lee, Barrett A., Sue Hinze Jones, and David W. Lewis. 1990. "Public Beliefs about the Causes
of Homelessness." Social Forces 69:253-65.
Levi-Strauss, Claude. 1966. The Savage Mind. University of Chicago Press.
Lewis, Michael. 1978. The Culture of Inequality. Meridian.
Mann, Michael. 1970. "The Social Cohesion of Liberal Democracy." American Sociological Review
35:423-39.
Marx, Karl. [18591 1970. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. International
Publishers.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. [18451 1970. The German Ideology. International Publishers.
Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton. 1992. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making
of the American Underclass. Harvard University Press.
Mills, C. Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. Oxford University Press.
Nisbett, Richard E., and Lee Ross. 1980. Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social
Judgment. Prentice-Hall.
Parsons, Talcott. 1951. The Social System. Free Press.
Pearlin, Leonard, and Carmi Schooler. 1978. "The Structure of Coping." Journal of Health and
Social Behavior 19:2-21.
Piven, Frances Fox, and Richard A. Cloward. 1971. Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public
Welfare. Vintage.
Robinson, Robert V., and Wendell Bell. 1978. "Equality, Success, and Social Justice in England
and the United States." American Sociological Review 43:12543.

13.234.42.52 on Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:39:23 UTC
Rosenberg, Morris. 1965. Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton University Press.
Ross, Lee. 1977. "The Intuitive Psychologist and His Shortcomings: Distortions in the
Attribution Process." Pp. 173-220 in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 10,
edited by Leonard Berkowitz. Academic Press.
Rotter, J.B. 1966. "Generalized Expectancies for Intemal vs. External Control of Reinforcement."
Psychological Monographs 80, 1.
Ryan, William. 1971. Blaming the Victim. Vintage.
Schuman, Howard, Charlotte Steeh, and Lawrence Bobo. 1985. Racial Attitudes in America:
Trends and Interpretations. Harvard University Press.
Sears, David, and Carolyn Funk. 1991. "The Role of Self-Interest in Social and Political
Attitudes." Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 24:1-91.
Smith, Bradford M. 1990. "The Measurement of Narcissism in Asian, Caucasian, and Hispanic
American Women." Psychological Reports 67:779-85.
Steele, Shelby. 1994. "On Being Black and Middle Class." Pp. 291-98 in The Production of Reality
- Essays and Readings in Social Psychology, edited by Peter Kollack and Jodi O'Brien. Pine
Forge Press.
Steelman, Lala Carr, and Brian Powell. 1993. "Doing the Right Thing: Race and Parental Locus
of Responsibility for Funding College." Sociology of Education 66:223-44.
Stryker, Sheldon. 1980. Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural Version. Benjamin Cummings.
Vanneman, Reeve, and L. Cannon. 1987. The American Perception of Class. Temple University
Press.
Waksberg, Joseph. 1978. "Sampling Methods for Random Digit Dialing." Journal of the American
Statistical Association 73:4046.
Weiner, B. 1974. Achievement Motivation and Attribution Theory. General Learning Press.
Welch, Susan, and Lee Sigelman. 1988. "The Politics of Hispanic Americans: Insights from
National Surveys, 1980-1988." Social Science Quarterly 74:76-94.

13.234.42.52 on Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:39:23 UTC

Jstor 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jstor 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Individual, Society, or Both?

A Comparison of Black, Latino, and White Beliefs

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2580766

This content downloaded from

MATTHEW 0. HUNT, Indiana University

This content downloaded from

consciousness or identification (Centers 1949; Jackman & Jackman 1983;

BELIEFS ABOUT POVERTY

This content downloaded from

responsive to group memberships, personal experiences, and the prevailing

QUESIION 1: DO RACF( ETHNIC DIFFERENCES EXIST?

An example of a group in which structuralist beliefs generally predominate is

This content downloaded from

Mann's inconsistency argument and critique of consensus theories (Bobo

This content downloaded from

QUESnION 2: DO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL VARIABLES MATI`ER?

To move beyond previous research, I also consider two social-psychological

This content downloaded from

In line with this research tradition, I investigate whether self-explanations

QUESIION 3: DO THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES OPERATE DIFFERENTLY FOR THE THREE

This content downloaded from

Data and Measures

The two dependent variables measure the importance attributed to individua

This content downloaded from

Intemal and extemal self-explanations are measured with standardized,

BELIEFS ABOUT POVERTY: A SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SIRUCTURALISM?

Before explicitly examining race/ethnic differences, I discuss some unexpected

This content downloaded from

Analysis of the marginals by race/ethnic subgroup reveals that, even among

QUESTION 1: ARE THERE RACE/ EITHNIC DIFFERENCES IN BELIEFS ABOUT POVERTY?

Despite the consensus on the importance of structuralist reasons for poverty

This content downloaded from

TABLE 1: Reasons for Poverty: Marginals in 1969, 1980, and 1993a

1969 Data 1980 Data

Very Important Not Very Important Not

Lack of thrift and proper

Lack of ability and talent 54 34 12 53 35 11

Sickness and physical

Low wages in some

Table 3 shows the regression of each dependent variable on three sets of

This content downloaded from

1993 Data Factor

Lack of thrift and proper

Lack of ability and talent 38 (9) 37 25 .24 .60

Sickness and physical

Low wages in some

a Weighted sample and factor analysis

This content downloaded from

TABLE 3: Unstandardized QIS Results of Stratification Beliefs Dependent

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Indiv. Struc. Indiv. Struc. Indiv. Struc.

Latino .354*** .418*** .208*** .339***

Income -.017** -.034* -.010 -.020***

Education (years) -.046*** -.020*** -.037*** -.008*

Age (years) .002 -.003* .002** -.001

R2 .06 .13 .09 .08 .11 .16

a Standard errors appear in parentheses u

* p <.05 ** p <.01 *** p < .001

This content downloaded from

QUESTION 2: DO THE SOCIAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL VARIABLES AFFECT BELIEFS ABOUT

QUESTION 3: DO RACE/ETHNIC GROUPS DIFFER IN THE DETERMINANTS OF BELIEFS

This content downloaded from

TABLE 4: Unstandardized OLS Results of Stratification Beliefs Dependent

Latino .354* .418* .208* .339*

Education (years) -.046* -.020* -.037*** -.008*

* p <.05 p <.01 * p < .001

Latino .326* .335* .209* .293*

Black .212* .363* .194* .334*

Sex (female - 1) .004 .140* -.001 .129*

Internal .159*** .088* .203* .125 .184* .097

External .137* .146* .124* .167* .101* .134*

* p <.05 p < .01 * p < .001

Female .018 .179c -.002 .167

Education .046b --005 .049b,c .004

* p <.05 p <.01 * p < .001

Education 040*d -.013 -.025c -.007

* p <.05 p <.01 * p < .001