Vol.:(0123456789)
1 3
Cu en Psychology
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s12144-022-03804-6
No all poo a e equal: hepe pe ua ion o po e y h oughblaming
hose who ha e been poo all hei li es
JoaquínAlcañiz‑Colome 1,2 · MiguelMoya1,2 · InmaculadaValo ‑Segu a1,2
Accep ed: 20 Sep embe 2022
© The Au ho (s) 2022
Abs ac
The economic c isis o 2008 se e ely a ec ed he wel a e s a es. As he economic si ua ion o a coun y wo sens, he
esou ces ha he public adminis a ion can de o e o imp o e he si ua ion o he people also dec ease, endange ing he
ad ancemen o hose in a disad an aged si ua ion. People who ha e always li ed in po e y, besides ha ing hei oppo uni-
ies educed, also ace nega i e public iews ha a ec he pe cei ed legi imacy o such public aid, which can in u n be a
mechanism o pe pe ua ing hei si ua ion. Two s udies (N = 252 and N = 266) analyse how a pe son in pe sis en po e y is
pe cei ed compa ed o a pe son in po e y due o he c isis—a ci cums an ial po e y. We also s udy some easible mecha-
nisms unde lying his di e en pe cep ion, as well as hei e ec s on a i udes owa d social p o ec ion policies. In S udy 1,
esul s indica ed ha people showed mo e a ou able a i udes owa d social p o ec ion policies when hey pe cei ed someone
in po e y due o he c isis, compa ed o he a ge who had been in po e y all his/he li e. Indi idualis ic a ibu ions o
po e y media ed his e ec : when people hink o someone in pe sis en po e y, hey make mo e indi idualis ic a ibu ions
conce ning hei si ua ion, which leads o wo se a i udes owa d social p o ec ion policies. Iden i ica ion wi h he g oup
mode a es his ela ion. Fu he mo e, S udy 2 showed ha pa icipan s pe cei e people who a e in po e y because o eco-
nomic c isis as mo e dese ing o help han people who ha e always been poo . Some heo e ical and p ac ical implica ions
o in e g oup ela ions and public policy a e discussed.
Keywo ds Po e y pe cep ion· Public policies a i udes· A ibu ions o po e y· Dese ingness· Economic c isis·
Iden i ica ion
Po e y and inequali y no only pe sis due o ine icien eco-
nomic sys ems o lack o esou ces o people in po e y,
bu also because hey a e a p oduc o human ela ionships,
which de e mine how esou ces a e dis ibu ed (Lemieux &
P a o, 2003). People in pe sis en po e y, who ha e li ed
his as a pe manen and ep oducible phenomenon, a e a
he bo om o he social hie a chy and ha e less access o
esou ces and oppo uni ies (Rucke e al., 2018). He e, we
explo e some mechanisms ha may pe pe ua e his si ua-
ion; speci ically, we ocus on a i udes owa ds social p o-
ec ion policies and how hey a e a ec ed by a ibu ions o
po e y, dese ingness o social p o ec ion, and s e eo ypes,
compa ing he pe cep ion o he a o emen ioned g oup wi h
people made poo in he wake o economic c isis—which
can be conside ed as a si ua ion o ci cums an ial po e y.
We also conside he ole o he pa icipan s’ g oup membe -
ship in he pe cep ion o di e en ypes o po e y.
Di e en ypes o po e y
in imeso economic c isis andsocial
p o ec ion policies
In Spain, du ing he las economic c isis he numbe o
unemployed people soa ed om 1,806,200 million (an
unemploymen a e o 8.1%) in he hi d qua e o 2007 o
he highes peak o 5,943,400 million (an unemploymen a e
o 25.65%) in he hi d qua e o 2013 (Ins i u o Nacional de
Es adís ica, 2007-2013). The a e age unemploymen a e in
he p e ious yea s was 10.05 (Ins i u o Nacional Es adís ica,
2001-2006). Based on Eu opean Communi y Household
* Joaquín Alcañiz-Colome
jcolome @ug .es
1 Depa men o Social Psychology, Uni e si y o G anada,
Campus de Ca uja, s/n, 18071G anada, Spain
2 Resea ch Cen e inMind, B ain, andBeha io (CIMCYC),
G anada, Spain
Cu en Psychology
1 3
panel da a, he a e age numbe o Spanish households below
he po e y line was 18.8 be ween 1994 and 2000 (Ins i u o
Nacional Es adís ica, 1994-2001). This indica o , he po -
e y isk a e, inc eased om 19.8% in 2007 o 22.2% in
2014 (Ins i u o Nacional de Es adís ica, 2007-2014). The
de e io a ion o he labo ma ke implies an inc ease in he
he e ogenei y o he g oup o people wi h ew esou ces.
I con ains bo h people who ha e li ed h ough po e y as
a pe manen and ep oducible phenomenon, in addi ion o
declassed people who ha e los hei social s a us o ha e
been ic ims o di icul ies ha hey did no encoun e be o e
(Paugam, 2007). The c isis also led o aus e i y policies in
mos coun ies, which educed in es men s in social poli-
cies, some hing especially impo an in Spain (Guillén e al.,
2016).
The consequences o he c isis ha e been de as a -
ing o many people, bu his eali y could be eclipsing a
oughe one: he li e doomed o po e y o many who ha e
no known ano he si ua ion. We ace a heo e ical acuum
ha may ha e impo an p ac ical implica ions, because
public opinion in luences policies o gua an ee he wel a e
o he mos disad an aged people (B ooks & Manza, 2006;
Bu s ein, 1998; Myles, 2006; S imson e al., 1995). Fu he -
mo e, people who ha e been in po e y all hei li es migh
need di e en social p o ec ion policies by compa ison wi h
hose who a e poo due o economic c isis. Fo example,
he o me need social p o ec ion measu es ocused on hei
income needs and no in hei wo k his o y, inso a as hese
households ha e di e en cha ac e is ics (e.g., Can ó e al.,
2012).
Social p o ec ion policies a e one o he ounda ions
o he wel a e s a e, hence he impo ance o public opin-
ion on wel a e policies in gene al and po e y assis ance
in pa icula . The inco po a ion o hese policies in o he
sphe e o poli ical p io i ies will depend on he pe cep ion
by poli icians ha , in doing so, hey will gain he app o al
o hei elec o a e o hei managemen (Luhmann, 1990).
Public opinion legi imizes which popula ions a e seen as
dese ing o he social policies ha p o ec hem, which
in u n in luences suppo o he wel a e s a e i sel ( an
Oo scho , 2010). P e ious esea ch has shown ha a i udes
owa ds social p o ec ion a e in luenced by se e al a iables
including sel -in e es (Hasen eld & Ra e y, 1989), ideo-
logical p e e ences (A mingeon & Weiss anne , 2021), he
pe cep ion o whe he people dese e hei po e y s a us
(Appelbaum, 2001), and causal a ibu ions abou he o igin
o po e y (Als on & Dean, 1972; Bullock e al., 2003; Pi
e al., 2020).
C ucially, he g oup a ge o social p o ec ion policies
also in luences he suppo shown owa ds i (Appelbaum,
2001; an Oo scho , 2000). Appelbaum (2001) showed ha
people we e mo e a ou able o ecommend libe al policies
(e.g., ull medical co e age wi h no ime limi s) o some
g oups o he needy (e.g., physically handicapped people)
in compa ison wi h o he s (e.g., able-bodied men), being he
o me g oup seen as mo e dese ing and less esponsible.
Causal a ibu ions o po e y andhelp
dese ingness
Belie s abou he na u e o po e y a ec se e al a i udes
ela ed o he di icul ies in e adica ing i . People can a ibu e
po e y o a ious causes, mainly: a) indi idualis ic, ha is,
o he pe son in po e y; b) s uc u al causes, such as ex e -
nal, social and s uc u al o ces; c) a alis ic causes, whe e he
esponsibili y o po e y lies wi h ac o s such as illness o
bad luck (Feagin, 1972; Fea he , 1974). O he mo e de ailed
ca ego iza ions a e possible, bu in his a icle we a e in e es ed
in compa ing s uc u al a ibu ions wi h indi idualis ic ones.
Indi idualis ic a ibu ions in ol e ac o s ela ed o people in
po e y hemsel es, such as hei lack o will o lack o capac-
i y, which implies making hem esponsible o hei si ua ion.
S uc u al a ibu ions s ess ac o s beyond he pe son’s own
con ol, such as lack o jobs o access o low wages, hus no
placing he esponsibili y o he pe son’s si ua ion on hem.
These a ibu ions may a y depending on he pe cei ed
g oup o people in po e y. Fo example, Hen y e al. (2004)
ound ha indi idualis ic a ibu ions a e mo e likely o
wel a e ecipien s ela i e han o poo people. P e ious
esea ch has ound ha p e e ences o s uc u al explana-
ions o po e y p edic s suppo o p og essi e wel a e p o-
g ams, while indi idualis ic a ibu ions p edic suppo o
es ic i e wel a e p og ams (Bullock e al., 2003). As we
s a ed abo e, he g oup ha will be he objec o such assis-
ance in luences he p e e ence o p og essi e compa ed o
es ic i e wel a e p og ams; o example, i is mo e likely
ha libe al policies will be ecommended (e.g., cash bene i s
and no-cash bene i s wi h no ime limi s) o widows wi h
child en, who a e seen as less esponsible o hei si ua ion,
han o able-bodied men, who can be seen as mo e espon-
sible (Appelbaum, 2001). In addi ion o he co ela ional
e idence, some s udies ha e explo ed he causal in luence o
po e y a ibu ions on o he ele an a iables ela ed o po -
e y alle ia ion. Fo ins ance, Fa well and Weine (2000) p e-
sen ed di e en igne es whe e he esponsibili y o he pe -
son in need o hei si ua ion was manipula ed ( esponsible
s. non esponsible) and pa icipan s we e asked how much
inancial assis ance hey would ecommend o each cha -
ac e . Thei esul s showed ha pa icipan s ecommended
mo e unds when he pe son in need was no esponsible
o hei si ua ion. A simila easoning, explaining inancial
suppo o people in need in e ms o esponsibili y o hei
si ua ion, has been ound in o he s udies (Ski ka & Te lock,
Cu en Psychology
1 3
1992). Acco ding o he men ioned indings, we expec ha
people in pe sis en po e y will ecei e mo e indi idualis ic
a ibu ions abou hei po e y, in compa ison o people who
a e poo as consequence o he economic c isis.
While a ibu ions o po e y a e impo an in explain-
ing suppo o social p o ec ion, he e a e o he impo an
ac o s ela ed o he cha ac e is ics o bene i ecipien s ha
in luence g ea e o lesse suppo o hese policies, namely
he ex en o which hey a e conside ed dese ing o social
p o ec ion. Van Oo scho (2000), based on he li e a u e in
suppo o social p o ec ion policies in wel a e s a es, aises
i e dimensions o c i e ia o “dese ingness”: i) con ol, o
esponsibili y o indi iduals o hei own si ua ion— he less
con ol o esponsibili y, he g ea e he dese ingness—; ii)
need— he g ea e need pe cei ed, he g ea e he dese -
ingness—; iii) iden i y— he close o “us”, he g ea e he
dese ingness—; i ) compliance— he mo e obedien , he
mo e dese ing—(e.g., i hey ollow he ules in a docile
manne when applying o subsidies); and ) ecip oci y, o
he belie ha hey will do some hing in e u n o he help.
Fo ins ance, Cook (1979) obse ed ha people showed
highe le els o suppo when ecipien s we e conside ed o
ha e a highe le el o need and when hey we e pe cei ed as
no esponsible o hei si ua ion. This pe cei ed dese ing-
ness may a y depending on he cha ac e is ics o he pe son
ha would ecei e he help (Koo s a, 2016). Thus, we expec
ha people in pe sis en po e y will be pe cei ed as less
dese ing o social p o ec ion policies, in compa ison o peo-
ple who a e in po e y as consequence o he economic c isis.
G oup membe ship anda i udes
owa dspeople inpo e y
A i udes owa ds people in po e y and owa ds esou ces
dis ibu ion also depend on some cha ac e is ics o he
people who main ain such a i udes. One o hese impo -
an cha ac e is ics is hei membe ship’ g oup. Thus, o
ins ance, middle-class people end o make mo e indi idu-
alis ic a ibu ions, blaming people in po e y o hei si ua-
ion, while social assis ance bene icia ies end o make mo e
s uc u al a ibu ions (Bullock, 1999).
Ano he ac o ela ed o g oup membe ship is he s abil-
i y wi h which such belonging is pe cei ed. Fo ins ance,
middle-class pe cei e s migh iden i y mo e wi h people
who ha e jus allen in o po e y as consequence o he c isis
- hinking ha hey could ind in he same si ua ion- and his
iden i ica ion led hem o make less indi idualis ic a ibu-
ions abou his g oup and pe cei e hem as mo e dese ing
o social p o ec ion. Also is possible ha he middle-class
people seek o ob ain a mo e posi i e iden i y by di e en ia -
ing i sel om hose in pe manen po e y.
S e eo ypes abou people inpo e y
Las ly, s e eo ypes play an impo an ole in he pe pe ua-
ion o inequali y and po e y inso a as hey help main ain
he sys em by jus i ying a se ies o social ac ions (Taj el,
1981). S e eo ype Con en Model (Glick & Fiske, 1999)
pos ula e ha he e a e wo basic dimensions in s e eo-
ypes owa ds any g oup: compe ence and wa m h. The
i s would be he abili y o achie e goals and he second
would be in e pe sonal sympa hy. These wo dimensions,
supposedly, would ha e a uni e sal cha ac e (Cuddy
e al., 2007; Fiske e al., 2007), al hough some aspec s o
ce ain s e eo ypes show some cul u al a ia ions (Cuddy
e al., 2009). In he case o people wi h low socioeconomic
s a us, empi ical e idence showed ha hey a e seen as no
e y compe en and wi h low wa m h (Fiske e al., 2007),
al hough o he imes hey a e seen as no compe en bu
wi h highe le els o sociabili y compa ed o ich peo-
ple (Du an e e al., 2017; Du an e e al., 2013). Cuddy
e al. (2007) ound ha wa m h s e eo ypes elici ing ac i e
acili a ion (helping, p o ec ing) whe eas compe ence s e-
eo ypes we e no ela ed wi h hese beha io al endencies.
Empi ical e idence om he S e eo ype Con en Model
also shows di e ences among subg oups wi hin people in
po e y, such as homeless people, ecipien s o cha i y, o
poo people in gene al (Fiske e al., 2007). Fo example,
Fiske e al. (2007) ound ha people had a wo se pe cep ion
o homeless people han ha hey had o wel a e ecipien s,
ha is, he o me we e seen as less compe en and wa m in
compa ison wi h he la e . In his esea ch we also explo ed
whe he s e eo ypes abou people in po e y due o economic
c isis and people in pe sis en po e y a e di e en .
O e iew o  hep esen esea ch
In hese s udies, we ocused on examining he pe cep ions
abou people in pe sis en po e y compa ed o hose o peo-
ple in po e y as a esul o an economic c isis as well as he
in luence ha hese pe cep ions may ha e on a i udes owa ds
social p o ec ion. P e ious s udies ha e highligh ed he impo -
ance o belie s abou he o igin o po e y, o a ibu ions
o po e y, in a i udes owa ds social p o ec ion. Wi h his
emphasis in mind, we conside his a iable undamen al in
people’s pe cep ions o he a o emen ioned g oups. Speci i-
cally, we p opose ha a di e en ia ed pa e n o a ibu ions o
hese wo g oups’ si ua ions will lead o di e en gene al a i-
udes owa ds social p o ec ion policies. We also will analyse
he in luence o dese ingness pe cep ions, he pa icipan s’
iden i ica ion wi h bo h g oups, and he a ious s e eo ypes
people apply o people in po e y shown in hei a i udes
owa ds social p o ec ion o bo h g oups o people in po e y.
Cu en Psychology
1 3
These s udies make wo con ibu ions o he li e a u e.
Fi s , hey con ibu e o he li e a u e by demons a ing ha
indi iduals’ a i udes owa ds social p o ec ion policies di -
e depending on which ype o poo pe son is ac i a ed in
hei mind: he poo pe son due o he c isis o he poo pe -
son who was bo n and aised in po e y. The e o e, when
social deba es conce n “ he poo ”, i is con enien o be clea
abou wha kind o people in po e y we a e alking abou . I
poli icians, o ins ance, wan ci izens o suppo hei poli-
cies o inc easing aid o people in po e y, one ac ic migh
be o make ce ain ypes o people in po e y ( hose whom
people may pe cei e as mo e dese ing o help) salien in
he ci izens’ minds. Second, analysing he impo ance o
a ibu ions o po e y in he pe cep ion o a ious g oups
o people in po e y, dese ingness, and s e eo ypes as well
as he pa icipan s’ iden i ica ion wi h each g oup will help
explain how people pe cei e po e y as well as he opposi-
ion o policies o e adica e po e y. This analysis will also
show whe e we should in e ene i we wan o change hese
a i udes.
All da ase s, measu es, and p e egis e ed o ms o bo h
s udies a e publicly a ailable a h ps:// os . io/ ne6ug/? iew_
only= a 98 b36c3 e 4eb 98 a1 9542c de346 7b.
S udy 1
In S udy 1, we aimed o analyse he pe cep ion o he a o e-
men ioned wo g oups o people in po e y in e ms he
pe cei ed causes o hei po e y, s e eo ypes abou hem,
iden i ica ion wi h hese g oups, and a i udes owa ds
social p o ec ion policies. We also include some meas-
u es o he objec i e and subjec i e social class, sys em
jus i ica ion ideology, social-dominance o ien a ion, and
inancial h ea wi h an explo a o y pu pose. We p esen
he esul s conce ning hese addi ional a iables in he sup-
plemen a y ma e ials.
Me hod
Pa icipan s
We ec ui ed a sample o 290 Spanish unde g adua e s u-
den s in uni e si y lib a ies a a uni e si y in Sou he n
Spain. We excluded 38 pa icipan s because Spanish was no
hei na i e language o hey ailed he a en ion check. As
no ed in he p e egis a ion, we a emp ed o ec ui 260 pa -
icipan s o obse e an e ec size o d = 0.35 wi h a powe o
.80 and an alpha o .05. We de e mined his small o medium
e ec size aking in o accoun ou a ailable esou ces and
he necessa y ime o collec he sample. So his e ec size
was de e mined based on ou a ailabili y o esou ces o
ob ain he sample and we elied on a benchma k. This may
no be he bes possible s a egy, howe e , because we a e
no answe ing any heo e ical ques ions (see Lakens e al.,
2018). The inal sample included 252 pa icipan s (152
women); hei mean age was 21.98 (SD = 3.16; see Table1
o desc ip i e in o ma ion abou he samples in bo h s ud-
ies). In he inal sample, 122 pa icipan s we e assigned o
he condi ion e e ing o a pe son in pe sis en po e y and
130 o he condi ion e e ing o a pe son in po e y due
o an economic c isis. We pe o med a sensi i i y analysis
using G*Powe 3.1 (Faul e al., 2007) o ind di e ences
be ween wo independen g oups (alpha le el = .05, 80%
powe ). This analysis, pe o med on he sample a e we
applied ou exclusion c i e ia, sugges ed ha we we e able
o de ec an e ec size d = 0.35.
P ocedu e andma e ials
Pa icipan s ag eed o pa icipa e olun a ily in a s udy on
po e y pe cep ion. We andomly assigned hem o one o
wo possible condi ions. In each condi ion, hey had o ead
a ex abou a poo pe son. In one condi ion, his pe son
Table 1 Desc ip i e In o ma ion abou Samples in S udy 1 and S udy
2
Va iable S udy 1 S udy 2
n % n %
Gende
 Men 100 39.7 117 44
 Women 152 60.3 149 56
 No epo ed – –
Income
 < 650 12 4.8 24 9
 651-1.300 50 19.8 59 22.2
 1.301-1.950 65 25.8 79 29.7
 1.951-2.600 62 24.6 57 21.4
 2.601-3.251 29 11.5 20 7.5
 3.251-3.900 18 7.1 11 4.1
 3.901-4.550 4 1.6 8 3
 4.551-5.200 6 2.4 1 0.4
 >5.200 5 2 5 1.7
 No epo ed 1 0.4 3 1
Pa icipan educa ion
 P ima y School 3 1.2 1 0.4
 Seconda y educa ion – – 7 2.6
 Voca ional T aining 8 3.2 45 16.9
 High School/Diploma 1 0.4 15 5.6
 Uni e si y no comple ed 187 74.2 95 35.7
 Uni e si y comple ed 29 11.5 65 24.4
 Mas e ’s deg ee 14 5.6 29 10.9
 Doc o a e 10 4 6 2.3
 No epo ed – – 3 1.1
Cu en Psychology
1 3
became poo in he wake o an economic c isis, and in he
o he , he pe son had been poo all his li e. Nex , pa icipan s
had o comple e he measu es lis ed below. All measu es
excep o he g oup iden i ica ion measu e we e gene ic,
no speci ically wo ded o each g oup o people in po e y
in each condi ion.
Expe imen al manipula ion We asked he pa icipan s o
ead a sho igne e abou a cha ac e named An onio. The
ex was simila in bo h expe imen al condi ions, bu he
in o ma ion abou he du a ion and causes o his po e y was
di e en . The ex was as ollows:
An onio is om a ci y in eas e n Spain. He’s ma ied
and has wo child en. An onio has di icul y each-
ing he end o he mon h since he los his job because
o he c isis (has had di icul ies eaching he end o
mon h all his li e). As o many o he people, his loss
o employmen because o he c isis made him go om
being in a inancially com o able si ua ion o being
conside ed poo (he was bo n and aised in a poo
home). Since hen (since he was old enough), he has
been doing some occasional jobs o ge some money
o bo owing om his acquain ances o mee he needs
o his household.
As an a en ion check, we equi ed he pa icipan s o answe
a ques ion abou he na u e o he po e y conce ning he
pe son in he s o y, which hey had ead immedia ely be o e-
hand (He has always been poo /He is poo in he wake o an
economic c isis). This was ou main independen a iable
in bo h s udies.
S e eo ypes abou he poo We measu ed s e eo ypes o
he wo a ge s along wo co e dimensions, compe ence
(α = .83) and wa m h (α = .78), based on he S e eo ype
-Con en Model (Cuddy e al., 2007; Glick & Fiske, 1999).
The pa icipan s e alua ed he ex en o which he a ge had
some compe ence ( i e i ems; e.g., “compe en ,” “compe i-
i e”) and wa m h (six i ems; e.g., “ ole an ,” “ us wo hy”)
on a 5-poin Like scale (1 = o ally disag ee o 5 = o ally
ag ee) o indica e hei deg ee o ag eemen wi h e e y i em.
The scale was p eceded by an in oduc ion ha cla i ied ha
we sough o know he opinion o socie y, no o he conc e e
esponden , o a oid desi abili y bias.
A ibu ions o po e y We measu ed his cons uc using
an 18-i em scale. The esponden s answe ed on a 5-poin
Like scale (1 = o ally disag ee o 5 = o ally ag ee). We
ansla ed he i ems in o Spanish om Fu nham (1982) and
Weine e al. (2011), and added some i ems conce ning he
Spanish con ex (e.g., “People do no wan o mo e o wo k
in o he loca ions”). The indi idualis ic a ibu ions subscale
con ained 10 i ems (α = .81; e.g., “Lack o e o o lazi-
ness”), and he s uc u al a ibu ions subscale con ained
eigh i ems (α = .67; e.g., “Lack o oppo uni y”).
G oup iden i ica ion We measu ed pa icipan s’ iden i ica-
ion wi h ou wo g oups o people in po e y by adap ing
o his con ex , changing he a ge s, he collec i e iden-
i y scale om Leach e al. (2008). The possible esponses
anged om 1 ( o ally disag ee) o 5 ( o ally ag ee). Spe-
ci ically, we used i ems om he solida i y subscale and he
indi idual sel -s e eo yping i ems ha bes i ou pu pose.
Ou scale con ained se en i ems (e.g., “I eel commi ed wi h
poo people”) and was p eceded by he nex ex : “Think o
someone who has been poo all his/he li e (is poo due o
he economic c isis) and answe he ollowing ques ions.”
Subjec s esponded o hese i ems wice, once e e ing o
he g oup pe cei ed in hei expe imen al condi ion and once
e e ing o he o he g oup. We sub ac ed om he sco e
on he iden i ica ion scale ega ding poo people in he wake
o he c isis (α = .67) he sco e on he iden i ica ion scale
ega ding people in ch onic po e y (α = .71) o ob ain a
global iden i ica ion index. Highe posi i e sco es indica e
a s onge iden i ica ion wi h he poo in he wake o he
c isis ( e sus he poo in ch onic po e y).
A i udes owa ds social p o ec ion policies (α = .76) We
measu ed his a iable, ou main dependen a iable, on a
5-poin Like scale (1 = o ally disag ee o 5 = o ally ag ee),
wi h which subjec s indica ed hei deg ee o ag eemen wi h
20 s a emen s abou social p o ec ion policies (e.g., “Many
people on social bene i s y o ind wo k in o de o be able
o li e on hei own”). We used a scale inspi ed in Fu nham
(1985) scale—in Spanish in his s udy— e e ed o social
policies in his s udy; in addi ion, we included some i ems
abou he Spanish con ex (e.g., “In gene al, li le money
is spen on social policies in his coun y”). Highe sco es
indica e a be e gene al a i ude owa ds social p o ec ion.
Poli ical ideology We measu ed poli ical ideology using an
i em whose possible esponses anged om 1 o 10: “In poli-
ics, some imes people alk abou ‘le ’ and ‘ igh .’ Using a
scale whe e 1 means ‘ex eme le ’ and 10 ‘ex eme igh ,’
whe e would you posi ion you sel on his scale?” As we
indica ed in he Me hod sec ion, we also included o he
scales. Fo space easons, we p o ide he de ails in supple-
men a y ma e ials.
P e egis e ed hypo heses
We expec ed ha compa ed o people in ch onic po e y,
hose who we e in po e y due o he economic c isis would
ecei e less indi idualis ic and mo e s uc u al a ibu ions
(Hypo hesis 1a) and would be pe cei ed as mo e compe en

Cu en Psychology
1 3
and wa me (Hypo hesis 1b); we also p edic ed ha a i udes
owa ds social p o ec ion policies would be be e when pa -
icipan s pe cei e someone in po e y due o he economic
c isis ela i e o hose in ch onic po e y (Hypo hesis 1c).
Fo his g oup o hypo heses, ou main independen a iable
was he expe imen al condi ion and a ibu ions o po e y,
compe ence, and wa m h pe cep ions, and a i udes owa ds
social p o ec ion policies we e ou dependen a iables.
Iden i ica ion wi h he g oup would mode a e he ela-
ionship be ween he pe cei ed g oup—pe son in ch onic
po e y e sus pe son in po e y due o economic c i-
sis—and he assignmen o compe ence and wa m h sco es
(Hypo hesis 2) and a i udes owa ds social p o ec ion poli-
cies (Hypo hesis 3). We expec ed ha he endency o assign
g ea e compe ence and sociabili y o people in po e y in
he wake o a c isis ( e sus people in pe sis en po e y) and
o show a be e a i ude owa ds social p o ec ion policies
when pe cei ing he o me would be mo e in ense among
people who iden i y wi h hose who a e in po e y because
o he economic c isis. The e o e, in his se o hypo heses,
ou independen a iable was he expe imen al condi ion,
he mode a o a iable was iden i ica ion wi h he g oup,
and he dependen a iables we e wa m h and compe ence
pe cep ions and a i udes owa ds social p o ec ion policies.
Finally, we expec ed ha a ibu ions o po e y would
media e he ela ionship be ween he pe cei ed g oup (po -
e y due o economic c isis s. pe sis en po e y) and sup-
po o social p o ec ion policies (Hypo hesis 4), in he
sense ha pe cei ing people alling in o po e y due o
economic c isis would lead o ewe indi idualis ic a ibu-
ions o hei po e y and mo e suppo o social p o ec ion
policies.
Resul s
Di e ences amongcausal a ibu ions o po e y,
a i udes owa dssocial p o ec ion policies,
ands e eo ypes abou poo people
To es ou i s hypo heses, H1a, H1b, and H1c, we con-
duc ed a es o di e ences be ween wo independen
means (see Table3 o means and s anda d de ia ions o
main a iables). We ound pa ial suppo o Hypo hesis
1a because he hypo hesised esul s we e con i med only
o indi idualis ic a ibu ions, no o s uc u al ones: Pa -
icipan s who had ead abou someone who has been poo
all his li e made mo e indi idualis ic a ibu ions han hose
who had ead abou someone who is poo due o he eco-
nomic c isis, (250) = −2.16, p = .03, BCa 95% CI [0.02,
0.38], d = 0.27. This e ec size was smalle han he e ec
size ha sensi i i y analyses sugges ed we could de ec , so
we conduc ed a pos hoc analysis using G*Powe 3.1 (Faul
e al., 2007) o di e ences be ween he wo independen
g oups. We compu ed he obse ed e ec size and sample
size o each condi ion, and pos hoc analysis e ealed ha
he powe achie ed o his analysis was 0.63. Di e ences
in s uc u al a ibu ions o po e y we e no s a is ically
signi ican , (250) = −0.83, p = .41, BCa 95% CI [−0.18,
0.07], d = −0.10. Ou indings pa ially suppo ed Hypo h-
esis 1b because he hypo hesised esul s we e con i med
only o he compe ence dimension. As we expec ed, he
pa icipan s pe cei ed he pe son in pe sis en po e y as less
compe en han he pe son in po e y due o an economic
c isis, (250) = 4.17, p < .001, BCa 95% CI [−0.56, −0.20],
d = −0.53. We ound no s a is ically signi ican di e ences
in he wa m h subscale sco es, (250) = −1.79, p = .08, BCa
95% CI [−0.33, 0.02], d = −0.22. Ou indings suppo ed
Hypo hesis 1c: A i udes owa ds social p o ec ion policies
we e less a o able a e eading a igne e abou a pe son
who has been in po e y all his li e han a e eading a
igne e abou pe son in po e y as a esul o he economic
c isis, (250) = 3.19, p = .002, BCa 95% CI [−0.37, −0.09],
d = −0.40. Table2 p esen s co ela ions be ween a iables
in his s udy.
G oup iden i ica ion asmode a o in he ela ionship
amongpe cei ed g oup, s e eo ypes, anda i udes
owa dssocial p o ec ion policies
We es ed Hypo heses 2 and 3 using he PROCESS mac o
o SPSS, Model 1, wi h 10,000 boo s apped samples. To
es Hypo hesis 2, we included he expe imen al condi ion
Table 2 Co ela ions Be ween
Va iables in S udy 1
** p < 0.01 (2- ailed) * p < 0.05 (2- ailed)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Compe ence –
2. Wa m h .65** –
3. Indi idualis ic a ibu ions −.03 −.03 –
4. S uc u al a ibu ions .11 .03 −.07 –
5. Social p o ec ion policies a i udes .00 −.07 −.57** .05 –
6. Index iden i ica ion −.08 .01 .07 −.16 −.12 –
7. Poli ical ideology .01 −.01 .41** −.04 −.59** .03 –
Cu en Psychology
1 3
as he independen a iable and he global iden i ica ion
index as he mode a o a iable. We buil wo models. In
one model, he c i e ia a iable was compe ence sco es and
in he o he one, wa m h sco es. We used he same ana-
ly ical s a egy o es ou hypo heses in his case, including
a i udes owa ds social p o ec ion policies as a dependen
a iable.
We did no ind suppo o Hypo hesis 2, ha g oup iden-
i ica ion will mode a e he ela ion be ween pe cei ed g oup
and assignmen o compe ence and wa m h. Fo wa m h,
he in e ac ion e ec o po e y condi ion ✕ g oup iden i y
was b = 0.20, (248) = 1.96, p = .051, 95% CI = [−0.00, 0.41],
and o compe ence, his in e ac ion e ec was b = 0.20,
(248) = 1.87, p = .062, 95% CI = [−0.01, 0.42]. As we
hypo hesized in Hypo hesis 3, g oup iden i ica ion mode -
a ed he ela ionship be ween pe cei ed g oup and a i udes
owa ds social p o ec ion policies, b = 0.25, (248) = 2.95,
p = .003, 95% CI = [0.84, 0.42]. Pe cei ing someone in po -
e y due o economic c isis (compa ed o someone in pe -
sis en po e y) inc eased posi i e a i udes owa ds social
p o ec ion policies among hose who iden i ied mo e wi h
he i s g oup (unde s ood as a s anda d de ia ion abo e he
mean sco e on he iden i ica ion index), b = 0.44, SE = 0.10,
p < .001, 95% CI = [0.24, 0.65]; among hose who iden i-
ied less wi h people he economic c isis made poo , he
e ec was nonsigni ican (unde s ood as a s anda d de ia ion
below he mean sco e on he iden i ica ion index), b = 0.01,
SE = 0.10, p = .91, 95% CI = [−0.16, 0.22].
The media ing ole o a ibu ions o po e y
in he ela ionship amongpe cei ed g oup, a i udes
owa dssocial p o ec ion policiessocial‑p o ec ion policies,
ands e eo ypes
We es ed Hypo hesis 4 by conduc ing a linea eg es-
sion analysis using he PROCESS mac o o SPSS, es ing
media ion Model 4. All con idence in e als o indi ec
e ec s a e a BCa CI based on 10,000 boo s apped sam-
ples. We ound pa ial suppo o Hypo hesis 4 because
he hypo hesised esul s we e con i med only o indi-
idualis ic a ibu ions, no o s uc u al ones. The e o e,
we ound a signi ican indi ec e ec o he pe cei ed
g oup on he a i udes owa ds social p o ec ion policies,
h ough indi idualis ic a ibu ions o po e y, b = 0.09,
BCa 95% CI [0.01, 0.17]. In his model, he di ec e ec
was b = 0.14, p = .01 and he o al e ec b = 0.23, p = .002;
he pe cei ed condi ion’s e ec on indi idualis ic a ibu-
ions was b = −0.20, p = .03, and he e ec o he la e on
a i udes owa ds social p o ec ion policies was b = −0.44,
p < .001. Following Wen and Fan’s (2015) ecommenda-
ions ega ding mono onic indices, we epo ed he p o-
po ion o indi ec e ec ela i e o he o al e ec (PM)
oge he wi h he o al e ec . We calcula ed his meas-
u e using he la aan (Rosseel, 2012) R package (R Co e
Team, 2017), wi h 10,000 boo s ap eplica ions, BCa
me hod. In his case, PM was 0.38, BCa 95% CI [0.04,
0.76]. The indi ec e ec emained signi ican , e en when
Table 3 Means and S anda d De ia ions o Main Measu es in S udy 1 and S udy 2
S anda d de ia ions a e p esen ed wi hin pa en heses. Wi hin he same s udy, ows wi h a di e en supe sc ip di e a p < .05
S udy 1 S udy 2
Condi ion Condi ion
Pe sis en po e y Po e y due o economic
c isis
Pe sis en po e y Po e y due
o economic
c isis
Compe ence 2.17a
(0.69)
2.55b
(0.76)
Wa m h 2.95a
(0.72)
3.11a
(0.66)
Indi idualis ic a ibu ions 2.58a
(0.83)
2.38b
(0.61)
2.53a
(0.78)
2.05b
(0.65)
S uc u al a ibu ions 3.02a
(0.58)
3.07a
(0.44)
3.01a
(0.65)
3.21b
(0.47)
Iden i ica ion index 0.35a
(0.90)
0.45a
(0.78)
0.29a
(1.16)
0.72b
(0.99)
A i udes owa d social p o ec ion policies 3.24a
(0.59)
3.47b
(0.56)
3.16a
(0.64)
3.54b
(0.53)
Dese ingness o social p o ec ion 3.64a
(0.70)
4.06b
(0.54)
Poli ical Ideology 3.80a
(1.97)
3.72a
(1.78)
4.10a
(1.97)
4.04a
(1.95)
Cu en Psychology
1 3
we con olled o poli ical ideology. S uc u al a ibu-
ions did no play a signi ican media o ole in he ela-
ionship be ween he ype o poo pe son pe cei ed and
a i udes owa ds social p o ec ion policies, b = 0.00, BCa
95% CI [−0.01, 0.02]. We con olled o pa icipan s’
poli ical ideology, conside ing ha p e ious esea ch
shows ha conse a ism is an impo an ac o a ec ing
po e y a ibu ions (e.g., Zucke & Weine , 1993), and i
emained s a is ically signi ican . In addi ion, we buil a
model o es Hypo heses 3 and 4 oge he (see Fig.S1 in
Supplemen a y In o ma ion). This model yielded esul s
qui e simila o hose o es ing he hypo heses sepa a ely;
howe e , he in e ac ion be ween he expe imen al condi-
ion and g oup iden i ica ion was no longe signi ican
(b = 0.16, p = .054) al hough he analysis o he simple
lines showed he same pa e n we p e iously ound. Indi-
idualis ic a ibu ions emained a signi ican media o
be ween expe imen al condi ion and a i udes owa ds
social p o ec ion policies.
Discussion
Ou esul s showed ha a i udes owa ds social p o ec-
ion policies di e depending on he na u e o he pe -
cei ed a ge ’s po e y: people who ha e been in po -
e y all hei li es e sus people in po e y in he wake
o economic c isis. Indi idualis ic po e y a ibu ions
media ed he ela ionship be ween pe cei ed g oup and
a i udes owa ds social p o ec ion policies. When pa ic-
ipan s pe cei ed someone who has been poo all his li e,
hey made mo e indi idualis ic a ibu ions, which led
o a wo se a i ude owa ds social p o ec ion policies (in
compa ison o hose who pe cei ed someone who is poo
due o an economic c isis). Conside ing he s udies ha
causally link indi idualis ic a ibu ions wi h lowe sup-
po o he p o ision o unds o people in po e y (e.g.,
Fa well & Weine , 2000), ou p oposed causal model
seems he mos plausible. Ou esul s a e also consis en
wi h hose o ecen s udies, which ha e shown a causal
ela ionship be ween indi idualis ic po e y a ibu ions
and a i udes owa ds edis ibu ion (Bai e al., 2022).
The pe son in pe sis en po e y was seen as less compe-
en al hough he pe cep ion o he a ge s in e ms o com-
pe ence and wa m h did no signi ican ly a ec he a i udes
owa ds social p o ec ion policies a ge ed o bo h g oups.
Iden i ica ion wi h he g oup was a signi ican mode a ing
a iable: Pa icipan s who iden i y mo e wi h people who
became poo in he wake o an economic c isis show a be e
a i ude owa ds social p o ec ion policies when p esen ed
wi h his g oup. Howe e , when we es ed all he e ec s in
a single model, his e ec was no longe signi ican , so his
a iable’s abili y o explain a i udes owa ds social p o ec-
ion mus be nuanced.
A possible limi a ion o he p esen s udy is he sam-
ple—college s uden s in his case. The e o e, in S udy
2, we sough o examine hese indings’ obus ness in a
gene al-popula ion sample. As we p e iously heo ized,
we included o he a iables, such as he pe cei ed dese -
ingness o social p o ec ion, ha may help shed ligh on
his ela ionship be ween he pe cei ed pe son and a i-
udes owa ds social p o ec ion policies.
S udy 2
To eplica e he esul s om S udy 1 in a gene al-pop-
ula ion sample and o explo e pe cei ed dese ingness’s
e ec on social p o ec ion, we used he same expe imen al
manipula ion and mos o he measu es p esen ed in S udy
1. We included measu es apa om hose epo ed he e
(objec i e and subjec i e social class and social-dominance
o ien a ion); we p esen esul s conce ning hese measu es
in he supplemen a y ma e ials. As we did in S udy 1, and
ollowing he same a ionale, we con olled o poli ical
ideology. In his s udy, we a emp ed o ec ui 300 pa ici-
pan s o inc ease he s a is ical powe o es ou hypo hesis
abou mean di e ences, aking in o accoun he numbe
o pa icipan s excluded om he i s s udy. Howe e , we
we e no able o collec mo e han 280 obse a ions. We
also pe o med a sensi i i y analysis using G*Powe 3.1
(Faul e al., 2007) in his s udy o di e ences be ween he
wo independen g oups (alpha = .05, 80% powe ). Sensi-
i i y analysis o he sample a e exclusions sugges ed ha
we we e able o de ec an e ec size d = 0.34.
Me hod
Pa icipan s
We ec ui ed a sample o 280 pa icipan s om he Spanish
gene al popula ion a a public- anspo s a ion. Pa icipan s
ag eed o pa icipa e olun a ily, wi hou any compensa-
ion, in a s udy on po e y pe cep ion, and hen we an-
domly assigned hem o one o wo possible condi ions.
As in he p e ious s udy, in each condi ion, hey had o
ead a ex abou a poo pe son. In one condi ion, his pe -
son became poo in he wake o an economic c isis, and in
he o he condi ion, his pe son had been poo all his li e.
Nex , pa icipan s had o comple e o he measu es, lis ed
below. A e we applied ou exclusion c i e ia, 266 pa -
icipan s (149 women) emained; hei mean age was 30.55
(SD = 11.85; see Table1 o desc ip i e in o ma ion abou
he sample). In he inal sample, 130 pa icipan s comple ed
he ques ionnai e abou a pe son in pe sis en po e y and
136 answe ed he ques ionnai e abou a pe son in po e y
due o an economic c isis.
Cu en Psychology
1 3
P ocedu e andma e ials
As in S udy 1, pa icipan s ag eed o pa icipa e olun a -
ily in a s udy on po e y pe cep ion wi hou ob aining any
economic o o he ype o ewa d. A e hey ag eed o pa -
icipa e, we assigned hem o one o wo possible expe imen-
al condi ions and asked hem o espond o he measu es
p esen ed he e.
Expe imen al manipula ion The ex hey had o ead was
he same as ha desc ibed in S udy 1 excep o he in o -
ma ion abou he a ge ’s ma iage and child en, which we
elimina ed o con ol o dis o ion’s possible e ec on he
pe cei ed dese ingness o social p o ec ion, as we know
ha his in o ma ion can a ec i (e.g., Will, 1993).
Dependen a iables and co a ia es We used he same
measu es as in S udy 1: indi idualis ic po e y a ibu ions
(α = .85) and s uc u al a ibu ions (α = .75), a g oup iden-
i ica ion index (sub ac ing om he sco e on he iden i ica-
ion scale wi h poo people in he wake o he c isis (α = .78)
he sco e on he iden i ica ion scale wi h people in ch onic
po e y (α = .80), a i udes owa ds social p o ec ion policies
(α = .89), and poli ical ideology (see Table3 o means and
s anda d de ia ions o main a iables in his s udy).
Pe cep ion o social p o ec ion dese ingness (α = .87) We
measu ed his a iable using a 10-i em scale, in which
he pa icipan s esponded on a 5-poin Like scale
(1 = o ally disag ee o 5 = o ally ag ee), wi h which sub-
jec s indica ed hei deg ee o ag eemen wi h s a emen s
abou poo people’s dese ingness o social p o ec ion.
The scale is based on an Oo scho ’s (2000) wo k. Highe
sco es indica e g ea e pe cei ed dese ingness o social
p o ec ion policies. Van Oo scho (2000) ini ially pos u-
la ed i e dimensions (con ol, need, iden i y, a i ude, and
ecip oci y). We decided o include only he dimensions
o need ( h ee i ems; e.g., “people in ha si ua ion usually
ha e a g ea need o be helped”), a i ude ( ou i ems; e.g.,
“people in ha si ua ion app ecia e being suppo ed”), and
ecip oci y ( h ee i ems; e.g., “ he s a e can help people
in ha si ua ion, and hese people will somehow e u n o
he s a e wha hey ha e ecei ed”). We excluded g oup
iden i y and con ol o e hei si ua ion because we belie e
hey a e edundan in ou scales o iden i ica ion and
indi idualis ic a ibu ions o po e y. A ac o analysis
showed he exis ence o only one ac o wi h eigen alues
g ea e han 1 (4.10), which explained 41% o he a i-
ance. The e o e, we calcula ed he o al sco e o all he
i ems included in he h ee dimensions. We also included
o he scales, bu hey a e no ele an o he pu pose o
his s udy. Fo space easons, we p esen he de ails in he
Supplemen al Ma e ials.
P e egis e ed hypo heses
We expec ed ha compa ed o people in ch onic po e y,
hose who a e in po e y due o an economic c isis would
ecei e less indi idualis ic and mo e s uc u al a ibu ions
(Hypo hesis 1a) and would be pe cei ed as mo e dese -
ing (Hypo hesis 1b). Al hough he di e ences in s uc u al
a ibu ions we e no signi ican in S udy 1, we p e egis-
e ed his hypo hesis again because we hough ha pe -
haps he absence o e ec s occu ed due o he na u e o
he sample (college s uden s in S udy 1). Pa icipan s who
pe cei e someone in po e y due o an economic c isis
would also ha e be e a i udes owa ds social p o ec ion
policies (Hypo hesis 1c). Ou independen a iable o hese
hypo heses was he expe imen al condi ion. A ibu ions o
po e y, dese ingness o social p o ec ion, and a i udes
owa ds social p o ec ion we e he dependen a iables.
Iden i ica ion wi h he g oup would mode a e he ela-
ionship be ween he pe cei ed g oup—pe son in ch onic
po e y e sus pe son in po e y due o economic c isis—
as well as pe cei ed dese ingness o social p o ec ion
(Hypo hesis 2) and a i udes owa ds social p o ec ion poli-
cies (Hypo hesis 3). We expec ed ha he endency o assign
g ea e dese ingness o people in po e y in he wake o he
c isis ( e sus people in pe sis en po e y) and o show a be -
e a i ude owa ds social p o ec ion policies when pe cei -
ing he o me would be mo e in ense in people who iden i y
wi h hose who a e in po e y because o an economic c isis.
Again, in hese hypo heses, ou independen a iable was he
expe imen al condi ion, he mode a ing a iable was iden-
i ica ion wi h he g oup, and he dependen a iables we e
pe cei ed dese ingness o social p o ec ion and a i udes
owa ds social p o ec ion policies.
Finally, a ibu ions o po e y would media e he ela-
ionship among he pe cei ed g oup (po e y due o eco-
nomic c isis e sus ch onic po e y), pe cei ed dese -
ingness o social p o ec ion (Hypo hesis 4), and a i udes
owa ds social p o ec ion policies (Hypo hesis 5).
Resul s
Di e ences amongcausal a ibu ions o po e y, a i udes
owa dssocial p o ec ion policies anddese ingness
o social p o ec ion
We conduc ed a es o iden i y di e ences be ween he
wo independen means ( wo g oups) o es ou i s hypo h-
eses: H1a, H1b, and H1c. Table3 p esen s he mean sco es.
Ou indings ully suppo ed Hypo hesis 1a. Replica ing
S udy 1’s indings, pa icipan s who pe cei ed someone
who has been poo all his li e made mo e indi idualis ic
a ibu ions han hose who pe cei ed someone made poo
due o an economic c isis, (264) = 5.43, p < .001, BCa 95%
Cu en Psychology
1 3
Pe sonali y and Social Psychology, 92(4), 631–648. h ps:// doi.
o g/ 10. 1037/ 0022- 3514. 92.4. 631
Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., Kwan, V. S., Glick, P., Demoulin, S., Ley-
ens, J. P., e al. (2009). S e eo ype con en model ac oss cul u es:
Towa d uni e sal simila i ies and some di e ences. B i ish Jou -
nal o Social Psychology, 48(1), 1–33. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1348/
01446 6608X 314935
Cu an, P. J., & Hussong, A. M. (2009). In eg a i e da a analysis: The
simul aneous analysis o mul iple da a se s. Psychological Me h-
ods, 14(2), 81–100. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1037/ a0015 914
Du an e, F., Fiske, S. T., Ke yn, N., Cuddy, A. J., Akande, A.,
Ade oun, B. E., e al. (2013). Na ions' income inequali y p edic s
ambi alence in s e eo ype con en : How socie ies mind he gap.
B i ish Jou nal o Social Psychology, 52(4), 726–746. h ps:// doi.
o g/ 10. 1111/ bjso. 12005
Du an e, F., Tablan e, C. B., & Fiske, S. T. (2017). Poo bu wa m, ich
bu cold (and compe en ): Social classes in he s e eo ype con en
model. Jou nal o Social Issues, 73(1), 138–157. h ps:// doi. o g/
10. 1111/ josi. 12208
Fa well, L., & Weine , B. (2000). Bleeding hea s and he hea less:
Popula pe cep ions o libe al and conse a i e ideologies. Pe -
sonali y and Social Psychology Bulle in, 26(7), 845–852. h ps://
doi. o g/ 10. 1177/ 01461 67200 269009
Faul, F., E d elde , E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchne , A. (2007). G*powe
3: A lexible s a is ical powe analysis p og am o he social,
beha io al, and biomedical sciences. Beha io Resea ch Me hods,
39, 175–191. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 3758/ BF031 93146
Feagin, J. R. (1972). Po e y: We s ill belie e ha god helps hose who
help hemsel es. Psychology Today, 6(6), 101–110.
Fea he , N. T. (1974). Explana ions o po e y in Aus alian and Ame -
ican samples: The pe son, socie y, o a e? Aus alian Jou nal o
Psychology, 26(3), 199–216. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1080/ 00049 53740
82552 31
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., & Glick, P. (2007). Uni e sal dimensions
o social cogni ion: Wa m h and compe ence. T ends in Cogni-
i e Sciences, 11(2), 77–83. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/j. ics. 2006.
11. 005
Fu nham, A. (1982). Why a e he poo always wi h us? Explana ions
o po e y in B i ain. B i ish Jou nal o Social Psychology, 21(4),
311–322.h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1111/j. 2044- 8309. 1982. b005 53.x
Fu nham, A. (1985). The de e minan s o a i udes owa d social secu-
i y ecipien s. B i ish Jou nal o Social Psychology, 24(1), 19–27.
h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1111/j. 2044- 8309. 1985. b006 56.x
Ga cía-Cas o, J. D., Rod íguez-Bailón, R., & Willis, G. B. (2020).
Pe cei ing economic inequali y in e e yday li e dec eases ole -
ance o inequali y. Jou nal o Expe imen al Social Psychology, 90,
104019. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/j. jesp. 2020. 104019
Ga cía-Cas o, J. D., Ga cía-Sánchez, E., Mon oya-Lozano, M., & Rod-
íguez-Bailón, R. (2022). The pe cep ion o economic inequali y
in e e yday li e: My iends wi h he mos and leas money. Asian
Jou nal o Social Psychology, 25(1), 20–34. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10.
1111/ ajsp. 12476
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). Sexism and o he “isms”: Independ-
ence, s a us, and he ambi alen con en o s e eo ypes. In W. B.
Swann J ., J. H. Langlois, & L. A. Gilbe (Eds.), Sexism and
s e eo ypes in mode n socie y: The gende science o Jane Tay-
lo Spence (pp. 193–221). Ame ican Psychological Associa-
ion.h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1037/ 10277- 008
Goh, J. X., Hall, J. A., & Rosen hal, R. (2016). Mini me a-analysis o
you own s udies: Some a gumen s on why and a p ime on how.
Social and Pe sonali y Psychology Compass, 10(10), 535–549.
h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1111/ spc3. 12267
Guillén, A. M., González Begega, S., & Luque Balbona, D. (2016).
Aus e idad y ajus es sociales en el su de Eu opa. La agmen -
ación del modelo de bienes a medi e áneo. Re is a Española de.
Sociología, 25(2), 261–272.
Hasen eld, Y., & Ra e y, J. A. (1989). The de e minan s o public
a i udes owa d he wel a e s a e. Social Fo ces, 67(4), 1027–
1048. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1093/ s / 67.4. 1027
Hen y, P. J., Reyna, C., & Weine , B. (2004). Ha e wel a e bu help
he poo : How he a ibu ional con en o s e eo ypes explains
he pa adox o eac ions o he des i u e in Ame ica. Jou nal
o Applied Social Psychology, 34(1), 34–58. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10.
1111/j. 1559- 1816. 2004. b025 36.x
Ins i u o Nacional de Es adís ica (1994-2001) Eu opean Communi y
Household Panel (ECHP). Ins i u o Nacional de Es adís ica.
Ins i u o Nacional de Es adís ica (2001-2013) Encues a de Población
Ac i a (EPA). Ins i u o Nacional de Es adís ica.
Ins i u o Nacional de Es adís ica (2007-2014) Encues a de Condi-
ciones de Vida (ECV). Ins i u o Nacional de Es adís ica.
Koo s a, A. (2016). Dese ing and undese ing wel a e claiman s
in B i ain and he Ne he lands: Examining he ole o e hnic-
i y and mig a ion s a us using a igne e expe imen . Eu opean
Sociological Re iew, 32(3), 325–338. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1093/
es / jcw010
Lakens, D., Scheel, A. M., & Isage , P. M. (2018). Equi alence es -
ing o psychological esea ch: A u o ial. Ad ances in Me hods
and P ac ices in Psychological Science, 1(2), 259–269. h ps://
doi. o g/ 10. 1177/ 25152 45918 770963
Leach, C. W., Van Zome en, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L., Pennekamp,
S. F., Doosje, B., e al. (2008). G oup-le el sel -de ini ion and
sel -in es men : A hie a chical (mul icomponen ) model o in-
g oup iden i ica ion. Jou nal o Pe sonali y and Social Psychol-
ogy, 95(1), 144–165. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1037/ 0022- 3514. 95.1.
144
Lemieux, A. F., & P a o, F. (2003). Po e y and p ejudice. In S. C.
Ca & T. S. Sloan (Eds.), Po e y and psychology (pp. 147–
161). Sp inge . h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1007/ 978-1- 4615- 0029-2_8
Lepianka, D., Van Oo scho , W., & Gelissen, J. (2009). Popula
explana ions o po e y: A c i ical discussion o empi ical
esea ch. Jou nal o Social Policy, 38(3), 421–438. h ps:// doi.
o g/ 10. 1017/ S0047 27940 90030 92
Luhmann, N. (1990). Poli ical heo y in he wel a e s a e. De
G uy e .
Myles, J. (2006). Commen s on wel a e s a es and public opinion.
Ame ican Sociological Re iew, 71(3), 495–498.
Paugam, S. (2007). Las o mas elemen ales de la pob eza. Alianza
Edi o ial.
Pi , P. K., Wiwad, D., Robinson, A. R., Aknin, L. B., Me cie , B.,
& Sha i , A. (2020). Shi ing a ibu ions o po e y mo i a es
opposi ion o inequali y and enhances egali a ianism. Na u e
Human Beha iou , 4(5), 496–505. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1038/
s41562- 020- 0835-8
R Co e Team (2017). R: A language and en i onmen o s a is ical
compu ing. R Founda ion o S a is ical Compu ing. URL: h ps://
www.R- p oje c . o g/
Rosseel, Y. (2012). La aan: An R package o s uc u al equa ion mod-
eling. Jou nal o S a is ical So wa e, 48(2), 1-36. URL: h ps://
www. js a so . o g/ 48/ i02/
Rucke , D. D., Galinsky, A. D., & Magee, J. C. (2018). The agen ic–
communal model o ad an age and disad an age: How inequali y
p oduces simila i ies in he psychology o powe , social class,
gende , and ace. Ad ances in Expe imen al Social Psychology,
58, 71–125. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/ bs. aesp. 2018. 04. 001
Sainz, M., Ma ínez, R., Moya, M., & Rod íguez-Bailón, R. (2019).
Animalizing he disad an aged, mechanizing he weal hy: The
con e gence o socio-economic s a us and a ibu ion o humani y.
In e na ional Jou nal o Psychology, 54(4), 423–430. h ps:// doi.
o g/ 10. 1002/ ijop. 12485
Sainz, M., Loughnan, S., Ma ínez, R., Moya, M., & Rod íguez-Bailón,
R. (2020a). Dehumaniza ion o socioeconomically disad an-
aged g oups dec eases suppo o wel a e policies ia pe cei ed

Cu en Psychology
1 3
was e ulness. In e na ional Re iew o Social Psychology, 33(1),
1–13. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 5334/ i sp. 414
Sainz, M., Ma ínez, R., Su on, R. M., Rod íguez-Bailón, R., & Moya,
M. (2020b). Less human, mo e o blame: Animalizing poo people
inc eases blame and dec eases suppo o weal h edis ibu ion.
G oup P ocesses & In e g oup Rela ions, 23(4), 546–559. h ps://
doi. o g/ 10. 1177/ 13684 30219 841135
Ski ka, L. J., & Te lock, P. E. (1992). Alloca ing sca ce esou ces: A
con ingency model o dis ibu i e jus ice. Jou nal o Expe imen-
al Social Psychology, 28(6), 491–522. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/
0022- 1031(92) 90043-J
S imson, J. A., MacKuen, M. B., & E ikson, R. S. (1995). Dynamic
ep esen a ion. Ame ican Poli ical Science Re iew, 89(3), 543–
565. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 2307/ 20829 73
Taj el, H. (1981). Human g oups and social ca ego ies: S udies in
social psychology. Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Van Oo scho , W. (2000). Who should ge wha , and why? On dese -
ingness c i e ia and he condi ionali y o solida i y among he
public. Policy & Poli ics, 28(1), 33–48. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1332/
03055 73002 500811
Van Oo scho , W. (2006). Making he di e ence in social Eu ope:
Dese ingness pe cep ions among ci izens o Eu opean wel a e
s a es. Jou nal o Eu opean Social Policy, 16(1), 23–42. h ps://
doi. o g/ 10. 1177/ 09589 28706 059829
Van Oo scho , W. (2010). Public pe cep ions o he economic, mo al,
social and mig a ion consequences o he wel a e s a e: An
empi ical analysis o wel a e s a e legi imacy. Jou nal o Eu o-
pean Social Policy, 20(1), 19–31. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1177/ 09589
28709 352538
Weine , B., Osbo ne, D., & Rudolph, U. (2011). An a ibu ional analy-
sis o eac ions o po e y: The poli ical ideology o he gi e
and he pe cei ed mo ali y o he ecei e . Pe sonali y and Social
Psychology Re iew, 15(2), 199–213. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1177/
10888 68310 387615
Wen, Z., & Fan, X. (2015). Mono onici y o e ec sizes: Ques ioning
kappa-squa ed as media ion e ec size measu e. Psychological
Me hods, 20(2), 193–203. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1037/ me 00 00029
Will, J. A. (1993). The dimensions o po e y: Public pe cep ions o he
dese ing poo . Social Science Resea ch, 22(3), 312–332.h ps://
doi. o g/ 10. 1006/ ss e. 1993. 1016
Win e, M. G., No h, C., & Suga , L. A. (2001). Psychologis s'
esponse o c i icisms abou esea ch based on unde g adua e
pa icipan s: A de elopmen al pe spec i e. Canadian Psychol-
ogy / Psychologie Canadienne, 42(3), 216–225. h ps:// doi. o g/
10. 1037/ H0086 893
Wiwad, D., Me cie , B., Pi , P. K., Sha i , A., y Aknin, L. B. (2020).
The impac o COVID-19 on a i udes owa d po e y and inequal-
i y. Jou nal o Expe imen al Social Psychology, 104083. h ps://
doi. o g/ 10. 1016/j. jesp. 2020. 104083.
Yi, L. & Pach e , L. (2018). Agg ega ion: P- alue agg ega ion me h-
ods. R package e sion 1.0.1. h ps:// CRAN.R- p oje c . o g/ packa
ge= agg e ga ion
Zucke , G. S., & Weine , B. (1993). Conse a ism and pe cep ions o
po e y: An a ibu ional analysis 1. Jou nal o Applied Social
Psychology, 23(12), 925–943. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1111/j. 1559-
1816. 1993. b010 14.x
Publishe ’s no e Sp inge Na u e emains neu al wi h ega d o
ju isdic ional claims in published maps and ins i u ional a ilia ions.