An Attributional Analysis of Reactions to Poverty: The Political Ideology of the Giver and the Perceived Morality of the Receiver

The article by Weiner, Osborne, and Rudolph posits that individuals in need are more likely to receive help if helpers believe the recipient possesses good moral attributes. In order to explore the reasons behind their theory, the authors first elaborate on what they found were the chief causes of poverty as perceived by others, classifying them into three discrete categories based on if they relate directly to an individual, to society, or to fate. They further propose that the causes are determined by an intersection of three factors: locus (where a cause originates from, either within an individual or from an external factor), stability (if a cause is temporary, e.g. illness, or permanent, e.g. possessing a bad plot of land), and controllability (whether or not an individual can take action to directly affect their poverty), which is the most important dimension to consider when investigating societal reactions to poverty. The authors then provide some basic background on the main educational and political factors driving these beliefs among the general populace. For instance, politically conservative individuals are more likely than liberal ones to place the burden of causality within an individual rather than blame it on an outside factor, which is why conservatives who give to those in need despite the perception that the needy are at fault are dubbed “compassionate conservatives.”

Essentially, the authors put forth that an individual’s perception of poverty is based on a self-made explanation of an inconvenient circumstance, situation, or attribute. These explanations can differ wildly based on the three aforementioned categories of what causes poverty, particularly in regards to an individual’s control over their station in life, leading to a discussion on how motivation plays a role in the theory. The authors are careful to note that a person who is viewed as having control over an action might not be viewed as being responsible for that action. Emotion is also cited as a factor affecting one’s reaction to poverty. Anger is the most common emotional response to a perception of someone as highly responsible for their poverty, while sympathy is elicited in response to perceptions of someone who is not responsible for their poverty. The authors found sympathy to be the strongest predictor of giving help to people in need. The authors conclude by elaborating how other social psychology theories can be affected by their research, along with discussing the implications that their theory could have on future public policy regarding treatment of the impoverished or downtrodden, with some consideration given to alternative ways these findings can be used to aid groups who also are alternatively criticized and assisted by various political groups, such as rape victims or women seeking abortions.

I was most interested in the information about how political ideology affects one’s views of poverty. While I have always noticed that there were distinct differences in how conservatives and liberals viewed those in poverty, I never fully understood the motivation driving these viewpoints. The authors’ insight into the specific reasons one’s political views can have such a dramatic effect, especially when it comes to factors like the perceived responsibility of an impoverished individual to their situation, or emotional responses to those asking for assistance, really surprised me. I had not previously considered that political beliefs had such a strong impact on personality traits, but it does make sense that someone who is less likely to be willing to provide assistance to an impoverished person will also possess more conservative political beliefs, and vice versa. This dichotomy is evidently an unavoidable aspect of human nature.

Work Cited

Weiner, Bernard, Danny Osborne, and Udo Rudolph. “An Attributional Analysis of Reactions to Poverty: The Political Ideology of the Giver and the Perceived Morality of the Receiver.” Personality and Social Psychology Review vol. 15 no. 2 (2011): 199-213.