Race or Place? The Impact of New Depictions of Urban and Rural Poverty

Authors

  • Mandi Bates Bailey

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.2012.33.0.123-146

Abstract

Objective. While scholars have investigated how the race of welfare recipients in news portrayals affects attitudes toward welfare, few if any, have considered if the urban or rural setting of coverage contributes to or interferes with racial portrayals. Therefore, I investigate whether portrayals of poverty as either urban or rural or black or white perpetuate stereotypes and result in diminished support for welfare. Methods. I use a survey-based experiment that includes news stories about welfare where the race and place of the target are manipulated. Respondents received one of four treatments: urban black; rural black; urban white; or rural white. Results. I find that Anti-Black stereotypes and Anti-Urban stereotypes impact attitudes toward welfare policy and to a lesser extent attitudes toward welfare recipients. Conclusion. A consideration of place and race illustrates that situational and dispositional explanations of behavior provide a great deal of explanation for evaluations of welfare.

References

Allport, Gordon W. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Garden City, NY: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Auletta, Ken. 1982. The Underclass. New York: Random House.

Avery, James M., and Mark Peffley. 2003. Race Matters: The Impact of News Coverage of Welfare Reform on Public Opinion. Pp. 131-150 in Race, Welfare, and the Politics of Reform, eds. Sanford Schram, Joe Soss, and Richard Fording. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Bertrand, Marianne, and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2003. Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination. National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper No. 9873. July 2003.

Best, Samuel J., and Clark Hubbard. 1999. Maximizing "Minimal Effects": The Impact of Early Primary Season Debates on Voter Preferences. American Politics Quarterly 27:450-467. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X99027004004

Bosley, Sarah, and Bradford Mills. 1999. How Welfare Reform Impacts Non-Metropolitan and Metropolitan Counties in Virginia. Virginia Tech Rural Economic Analysis Programs. September 1999. Available at www.reap.vt.edu/publications/reports/r46.pdf.

Brown, David L., and Thomas A. Hirschl. 1995. Household Poverty in Rural and Metropolitan-Core Areas of the United States. Rural Sociology 60(3):44-66.

Clawson, Rosalee A., and Rakuya Trice. 2000. Poverty as We Know It. Public Opinion Quarterly 64:53-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/316759

Druckman, James N. 2001. On the Limits of Framing Effects: Who Can Frame? Journal of Politics 63:1041-1066. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-3816.00100

Druckman, James N. 2003. The Power of Television Images: The First Kennedy-Nixon Debate Revisited. Journal of Politics 65:559-571.

Druckman, James N., and Kjersten R. Nelson. 2003. Framing and Deliberation: How Citizens' Conversations Limit Elite Influence. American Journal of Political Science 47:729-745. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00051

Dyk, Patricia H., and Julie N. Zimmerman. 2000. The Impacts and Outcomes of Welfare Reform across Rural and Urban Places in Kentucky. Final report. Policy Outcome Grant. Submitted to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. http://www.ca.uky.edu/snarl/WelfareReform/WelfRefResearchReport/WelfareReformResearchIndex.htm (July 22, 2011).

Eagly, Alice H., and Shelly Chaiken. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX:Harcourt College Publishers. Ellwood, David T. 1984. The Hope for Self-Support. In The State and the Poor in the 1980s, eds. Manuel Carballo and Mary J. Bane. Boston, MA: Auburn House.

Ellwood, David T. 1984. The Hope for Self-Support. In The State and the Poor in the 1980s, eds. Manuel Carballo and Mary J. Bane. Boston, MA: Auburn House.

Entman, R.M. 1990. Modern Racism and the Images of Blacks in Local Television News. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 7:332-346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15295039009360183

Entman, Robert M., and A. Rojecki. 2000. The Black Image in the White Mind: Media and Race in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gilens, Martin. 2003. How the Poor Became Black: The Racialization of American Poverty in the Mass Media. Pp. 101-130 in Race, Welfare, and the Politics of Reform, eds. Sanford Schram, Joe Soss, and Richard Fording. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Gilens, Martin. 1999. Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226293660.001.0001

Gilliam, Franklin D., and Shanto Iyengar. 2000. Prime Suspects: The Influence of Local Television News on the Viewing Public. American Journal of Political Science 44:560-573. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2669264

Glenn, Norval D. and Lester Hill. 1977. Rural-Urban Differences in Attitudes and Behavior in the United States. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 429(1):36-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000271627742900105

Greenberg, Jerald. 1987. The College Sophomore as Guinea Pig: Setting the Record Straight. The Academy of Management Review 12(1):157-159. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/258001 http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1987.4306516

Hurwitz, Jon, and Mark Peffley. 1997. Public Perceptions of Race and Crime: The Role of Racial Stereotypes. American Journal of Political Science 41(4):375-401. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111769

Iyengar, Shanto. 1991. Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago: University of Chicago. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226388533.001.0001

Kellogg Foundation. 2002. Perceptions of Rural America. Battle Creek, MI: Kellogg Foundation.

Kickham, Kenneth, Robert Bentley, Nury Effendi, and Angela Harnden. 2000. Health and Well-Being in Oklahoma: A Long Term Analysis of Welfare Reform. Oklahoma Department of Human Services. May 2000. Available at www.okdhs.org/ifinance/Research_Studies/TANF_May2000.htm.

Kinder, Donald R., and Tali Mendleberg. 2000. Individualism Reconsidered: Principles and Prejudice in Contemporary American Opinion. In Racialized Politics: The Debate About Racism in America, eds. David O. Sears, Jim Sidanius, and Lawrence Bobo. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Kuhberger, Anton. 1998. The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta Analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76(7):23-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2781

Kuklinski, James H., Michael D. Cobb, and Martin Gilens. 1997. Racial Attitudes and the 'New South.' Journal of Politics 59(5):323-349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022381600053470

Lichter, Daniel T., and Martha. L. Crowley. 2002. Poverty in America: Beyond Welfare Reform. Population Bulletin 57(2). Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau.

Logan, John. 1996. Rural America as a Symbol of American Values. Rural Development Perspectives 12:19-21.

Mendelberg, Tali. 2001. The Race Card: Campaign Strategy, Implicit Messages, and the Norm of Equality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Nelson, Thomas E., Rosalee A. Clawson, and Zoe M. Oxley. 1997. Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance. American Political Science Review 91:567-583. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2952075

Nisbett, Richard, and Lee Ross. 1980. Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Patel, Dinker I., and Chinna Kanthi. 1986. Rural Poverty in the South: Recommendations Pertaining to Socio-Demographic Factors. In Dimensions of Poverty in the Rural South, eds. Jogindar S. Dhillon and Marguerite R. Howie. Tallahassee: Florida A&M.

Peffley, Mark, Jon Hurwitz, and Paul M. Sniderman. 1997. Racial Stereotypes and Whites' Political Views of Blacks in the Context of Welfare and Crime. American Journal of Political Science 41:30-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111708

Quadagno, Jill. 1994. The Color of Welfare: How Racism Undermined the War on Poverty. New York: Oxford University Press.

Schexnayder, Deanna, Daniel Schroeder, Laura Lein, David Dominguez, Karen Douglas, and Freddie Richards. 2001. Texas Families in Transition/Surviving without TANF: A Preliminary Analysis of Families Diverted From or Leaving TANF. Ray Marshall Center for the Study of Human Resources and the Center for Social Work Research, The University of Texas at Austin, and Prairie View A&M University, Center for Innovative Projects for Economic Development. March. http://www.utexas.edu/research/cshr/rmc1/index.php/publications/all-publications/175-texasfamilies-in-transition.html?catid=7%3Aabout (July 22, 2011).

Sears, David O. 1986. College Sophomores in the Laboratory: Influences of a Narrow Data Base on Social Psychology's View of Human Nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51:515-530. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.3.515

Sears, David O., P.J. Henry, and Rick Kosterman. 2000. Egalitarian Values and Contemporary Racial Politics. In Racialized Politics: The Debate About Racism in America, eds. David O. Sears, Jim Sidanius, and Lawrence Bobo. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Sherman, Jennifer. 2006. Coping with Rural Poverty: Economic Survival and Moral Capital in Rural America. Social Forces 85(12):891-913. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/sof.2007.0026

Soss, Joe, Laura Langebein, and Alan R. Metelko. 2003. Why Do White Americans Support the Death Penalty? Journal of Politics 65(5):397-421.

Virtanen, Simo V., and Leonie Huddy. 1998. Old Fashion Racism and New Forms of Racial Prejudice. Journal of Politics 60(5):311-332. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2647911

Waxman, Chaim I. 1983. The Stigma of Poverty: A Critique of Poverty Theories and Policies, 2nd ed. New York: Pergamon.

Wilson, William J. 1996. When Work Disappears. New York: Knopf.

Downloads

Published

2012-07-01

Issue

Vol. 33: Summer 2012

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.

  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.

  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:

    1. Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;

    2. Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;

    3. Share Alike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.

  1. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  2. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.

  3. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.

  1. The Author represents and warrants that:

    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;

    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;

    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;

    4. the Work has not previously been published;

    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and

    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.

  2. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.