Not all poor are equal: the perpetuation of poverty through blaming those who have been poor all their lives

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.