Download data and study materials from OSF
Principal investigators:
Pia Dietze
University of California, Irvine
Email: pdietze@uci.edu
Homepage: https://www.piadietze.com/
Leslie McCall
The Graduate Center, City University of New York
Email: lmccall@gc.cuny.edu
Homepage: https://www.gc.cuny.edu/people/leslie-mccall
Jennifer A. Richeson
Yale University
Email: jennifer.richeson@yale.edu
Homepage: https://psychology.yale.edu/people/jennifer-richeson
Sample size: 1760
Field period: 07/28/2023-11/17/2023
Our main hypothesis, consistent with our prior studies, is that the inequality treatment results in perceptions of unequal opportunities for an outcome composite of low-economic-status groups (women, Blacks, Latinxs, and people from low-income families), such that reading about inequality of outcomes decreases perceptions of “unfair advantages” for the four low-economic-status groups.
A second hypothesis is that a composite of four items assessing our proposed mechanism, viewing inequalities across dimensions as interconnected, statistically mediates the treatment effect that individuals exposed to information about rising economic inequality will perceive low-economic-status groups as having fewer advantages in getting ahead.
A third hypothesis is that the inequality informational treatment will increased support for affirmative action programs by both class and race/ethnicity.
MAIN OUTCOME (composite of responses to question when low-economic-status groups are the target):
We have some questions about opportunities for getting ahead. Specifically, the questions are about unfair advantages that might provide some people opportunities to get ahead. Please indicate to what extent the following groups have unfair advantages in terms of getting ahead using the scale provided.
To what extent do ___________________ have unfair advantages in getting ahead?
Target group wording: people from upper-income families, people from lower-income families, men, women, White Americans, Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans.
Response categories: 1 = Not At All, 2 = A Little Extent, 3= Some Extent, 4 = A Large Extent, 5 = A Very Large Extent.
Source: Authors’ adaptation of ISSP questions to separate social class, gender, and racial/ethnic groups. Groups appeared in randomized order within class, gender, and race/ethnicity categories, with the class categories presented first, followed randomly by gender or racial/ethnic categories.
MEDIATOR OUTCOME (composite of four items):
“The struggle for income equality in America should be closely related to the struggle of other disadvantaged groups”
“The discrimination that low-income individuals have experienced is similar to that of other disadvantaged groups”
“There are other people who experience injustice and indignities similar to low-income individuals”
”Low-income individuals will be more successful in achieving their goals if they form coalitions with other disadvantaged groups”
Response categories: 1 = Strongly Agree; 2 = Somewhat Agree; 3 = Slightly Agree; 4 = Neither Agree Nor Disagree; 5 = Slightly Disagree; 6 = Somewhat Disagree; 7 = Strongly Disagree.
Source: Authors’ adaptation of validated scale developed to measure an ideological sub-component of Black identity (Sellers, Rowley, Chavous, Shelton, & Smith, 1997).
POLICY OUTCOMES:
“Do you favor, oppose, or neither favor nor oppose allowing universities to increase the numbers of racial minorities studying at their schools by considering race along with other factors when choosing students.”
“Do you favor, oppose, or neither favor nor oppose allowing universities to increase the numbers of poor and low-income students stuying at their schools by considering family income along with other factors when choosing students.”
Response categories: 1 = Favor a great deal; 2 = Favor a moderate amount; 3 = Favor a little; 4 = Neither Favor Nor Oppose; 5 = Oppose a little; 6 = Oppose a moderate amount; 7 = Oppose a great deal.
Source: Authors’ adaptation of questions from the 2016 ANES.