Developing critical consciousness or justifying the system? A qualitative analysis of attributions for poverty and wealth among low-income racial/ethnic minority and immigrant women

Abstract

Objectives

Economic inequality is a growing concern in the United States and globally. The current study uses qualitative techniques to (1) explore the attributions low-income racial/ethnic minority and immigrant women make for poverty and wealth in the U.S., and (2) clarify important links between attributions, critical consciousness development and system justification theory.

Methods

In-depth interview transcripts from 19 low-income immigrant Dominican and Mexican and native African-American mothers in a large Northeastern city were analyzed using open coding techniques. Interview topics included perceptions of current economic inequality and mobility and experiences of daily economic hardships.

Results

Almost all respondents attributed economic inequality to individual factors (character flaws, lack of hard work). Structural explanations for poverty and wealth were expressed by less than half the sample and almost always paired with individual explanations. Moreover, individual attributions included system-justifying beliefs such as the belief in meritocracy and equality of opportunity and structural attributions represented varying levels of critical consciousness.

Conclusions

Our analysis sheds new light on how and why individuals simultaneously hold individual and structural attributions and highlights key links between system justification and critical consciousness. It shows that critical consciousness and system justification do not represent opposite stances along a single underlying continuum, but are distinct belief systems and motivations. It also suggests that the motive to justify the system is a key psychological process impeding the development of critical consciousness. Implications for scholarship and intervention are discussed.

Introduction

Scholars have long recognized the powerful influence the U.S. socioeconomic system exerts on the psychology of marginalized groups such as racial/ethnic minorities. However, comparatively less psychological work has considered how they themselves rationalize and/or criticize the systems and status hierarchies in which they are embedded. The current study explores this issue in the context of current concerns about inequality and mobility in our economic system. We qualitatively examine the attributions made for poverty and wealth in the U.S and identify and clarify important links between attributions, critical consciousness development and system justification theory. In so doing, we illuminate how psychological processes contribute to the maintenance of economic disparities for those disadvantaged by the system (Kay et al., 2009; Gaucher & Jost, 2012).

Three bodies of work have explicitly considered how racial/ethnic minorities, women and other societally-disadvantaged groups make sense of economic hierarchies: attributions for poverty and wealth, critical consciousness development and social-psychological theories on the legitimization of inequality (particularly system justification theory). Despite their similar substantive focus, these bodies approach individuals’ understanding of economic disparities from different disciplinary perspectives (and methods) and have only nominally been theoretically or empirically linked. We use a qualitative analysis of low-income racial/ethnic minority and immigrant women’s discussions about poverty, wealth and economic mobility to examine lay attributions for the causes of poverty and wealth and clarify and explicate connections between attributions, levels of critical consciousness, and motives to justify the system among members of marginalized groups.

Attributions for poverty and wealth

Building on initial work by Feagin (1975), a body of largely sociological research has explored the judgments of blame and responsibility Americans make for poverty and wealth in the U.S. Employing quantitative survey techniques, this research has documented the presence of three distinct categories of attributions (Feagin, 1975; Feather, 1974; Furnham, 1982; Smith, 1985): (1) individual explanations attributing poverty and wealth to individual factors such as personal irresponsibility, and lack of effort, ability or talent; (2) structural explanations attributing poverty and wealth to structural factors such as low wages, discrimination, and poor educational quality; and (3) fatalistic explanations attributing poverty and wealth to bad luck, illness, and unfortunate circumstances. While these categories were initially established a priori, recent studies using factor analytic techniques have largely verified this three-factor structure, albeit with less consistent support for a fatalistic factor (Bullock, Williams & Limbert 2003; Cozzarelli, Wilkinson & Tagler 2001; Zucker & Weiner 1993).

Most research has focused on nationally-representative samples (Feagin, 1975; Kleugel & Smith, 1986) or college and community samples (Bullock, 1999; Bullock & Limbert, 2003; Bullock et al., 2003; Bullock & Waugh, 2005; Cozzarelli et al., 2001; Hunt, 1996; Smith, 1985; Smith & Stone, 1989; Wilson, 1996; Zucker & Weiner, 1993). They find that while Americans endorse both individual and structural attributions, they largely favor individual explanations. However, there is burgeoning evidence that attributions for poverty and wealth may differ for racial/ethnic minorities, immigrants and other marginalized groups. Research has shown that racial/ethnic minorities (Cozzarelli et al., 2001; Hunt, 1996), Mexican immigrants (Bullock & Waugh, 2005), welfare recipients (Bullock 1999; Bullock & Limbert, 2003) and lower-income people (Kleugel & Smith, 1986; Smith, 1985) endorse structural attributions more often than their advantaged counterparts.

A limitation of this work is its focus on primarily quantitative methodologies. Because survey-based techniques do not allow participants to put forth their own understandings of the causes of wealth and poverty, they cannot adequately address their discursive or meaning-making aspects. Moreover, survey-based techniques constrain attributions for poverty and wealth to the explanations provided and thus may not fully represent attributions as they arise in the lived experiences of marginalized individuals. The current study adds to this literature by qualitatively exploring the attributions that low-income racial/ethnic minority women make in the context of their daily experiences with economic inequality, hardship and marginalization. In addition, the majority of extant research has conceptualized attributions as driven by dominant discourse and narratives in society (Foucault, 1972; Marx & Engels, 1846) – for example, mass media’s reliance on individual framing of social issues and the American Dream narrative (Kluegel & Smith, 1986). We complement this perspective by considering the psychological processes and motivations that work in tandem with these societal forces to create attributions for poverty and wealth.

Critical consciousness development

Theories of critical consciousness (Freire, 1970, 1973) and sociopolitical development (Watts et al., 1999; Watts et al., 2003) focus on how members of disadvantaged groups develop an awareness of structural inequality and oppression, and incorporate this consciousness into their understanding of economic and social realities. Central to critical consciousness development is that marginalized people learn to “critically read the world” and attribute social problems and inequities to structural forces rather than individual factors (Watts, Diemer & Voight, 2011). In their original formulations, both theories suggest that individuals move through a series of stages characterized by different cognitions and actions regarding oppression and injustice (Table 2). In the initial stages, individuals are unable to recognize structural barriers to advancement and attribute outcomes to their own personal shortcomings or to supernatural forces. Progressing through the stages, individuals develop an increasing awareness of economic, political, historical and social forces until they arrive at a critical understanding of how these forces have shaped current outcomes, and become poised to take action to redress these disparities. While both theories propose a stage-like progression, recent critiques suggest this linear formulation may be overly simplistic (Guishard, 2009; Watts et al., 2003). Nonetheless, the stages are useful in characterizing varying levels of critical consciousness.

Table 2.

System justifying ideologies and belief systems.

Ideology	Description
Meritocratic ideology	The system rewards individual ability and motivation, therefore success indicates personal deservingness.
Protestant work ethic	Hard work is a virtue, a moral responsibility and its own reward.
Belief in a just world (Lerner, 1980)	The world is a fair and just place where people get what they deserve and deserve what they get.
Right-wing authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1998)	Conventional traditions and established authorities should be followed and rebellion should be squashed.

Attributions are theorized to play a central role in critical consciousness development. However, empirical research examining the attributions critically conscious people make is surprisingly rare, particularly in the context of economic inequality. Qualitative work exploring critical consciousness development in youth organizing contexts comes the closest. For example, Watts and colleagues explored young African-American men’s critical thinking about messages in rap videos in the context of a critical consciousness intervention. They found that young men demonstrated improved critical thinking skills over the course of the intervention, but did not examine the extent to which this altered the individual versus structural attributions they made about the social issues depicted (Watts & Abdul-Adil, 1997; Watts, Abdul-Adil & Pratt, 2002). Similarly, Ginwright and colleagues have documented the organizational features and curricular activities of youth organizing groups that best foster critical consciousness (Ginwright & Cammorata, 2007). However, they also did not explore how youth’s attributions evolved as a result of participation in the group. Thus, exactly how critical consciousness relates to attributions is not empirically known.

System justification theory

Among the psychological theories concerning the maintenance and legitimization of inequality (system justification theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994); social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 2001); social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), system justification theory is the most relevant framework to consider in regard to attributions and critical consciousness. It is the only theory that is specifically concerned with the legitimization of systems of governance (social, economic, political) per se rather than group-based hierarchies. Moreover, it emphasizes the motivational tendencies that lead even disadvantaged individuals to rationalize and legitimize the system and delineates the dispositional and situational factors that exacerbate this motivation (Jost, 2011). Finally, system justification is grounded in the concept of false consciousness – the notion that since powerful groups have control over education, religion, media, culture and economic systems, the political consciousness of disadvantaged peoples is “false” in that it reflects dominant groups’ interests rather than their own (Marx & Engels, 1846; Gramsci, 1971; Lukacs, 1971). Many elements of false consciousness (particularly denial of injustice and exploitation, rationalization of social roles, and false attribution of blame) are directly relevant to attributions for poverty and wealth and are considered to be key mechanisms through which individuals justify the system.

System justification theory proposes that individuals possess a motive to justify and rationalize the status quo, thereby viewing the existing set of social, economic and political arrangements as fair, legitimate and desirable simply because they exist (Jost & Banaji, 1994). Despite the fact that it can lead to negative social and economic consequences for some groups, system justification operates as a powerful motive because it satisfies fundamental epistemic, existential, and relational needs (Jost & van der Toorn, 2012). In fact, people at all levels of the social hierarchy, including those in disadvantaged positions, have been shown to engage in system justification (Jost, Banaji & Nosek, 2004; Jost & Hunyady, 2002; Jost et al., 2003). However, while justifying the system has a palliative effect for members of advantaged groups, it can create psychological conflict for members of disadvantaged groups and harm their psychological well-being (Jost & Thompson, 2000; Jost & van der Toorn, 2012; Rankin, Jost & Wakslak, 2009). The motive to justify the system is satisfied through several cognitive mechanisms, primarily the endorsement of ideologies and beliefs systems (akin to the dominant discourse and narratives (Foucault, 1972)) that bolster current societal arrangements (Jost & Hunyady, 2005). The most common ideologies in Western countries are presented in Table 1. While distinct, these belief systems correlate reliably (at least in Western capitalist societies (Jost et al., 2003; Jost & Thompson, 2000)) and share a common system-justifying function by placing the blame for status hierarchies on the shortcomings of individuals rather than systemic or structural factors.

Table 1.

Stages of critical consciousness/sociopolitical development

Critical Consciousness (Freire 1970, 1973)			Sociopolitical Development (Watts, Griffith & Abdul-Adil 1999; Watts, Williams & Jagers 2003)
	Stage	Description		Stage	Description
1	Semi- intransitive consciousness	Individuals are unable to recognize existing structural barriers and attribute events and outcomes to supernatural forces or to their own personal shortcomings.	1	Acritical	Individuals are either oblivious to social inequity or see it as a reflection of the inferiority of the oppressed.
2	Naïve consciousness	Individuals begin to reflect on one’s own problems and on society, but oversimplify both personal and social problems.	2	Adaptive	Individuals begin to recognize inequity, but do not yet confront it, simply accepting whatever limited opportunities exist.
			3	Pre- critical	Individuals become increasingly aware of the role that oppression and structural barriers play in their disadvantage and start to seek out more information about the nature of these inequities and the historical, cultural, economic, and political processes that maintain them.
3	Critical consciousness	Individuals reach an in-depth understanding of the ways in which social, political, and economic oppressions and history of these oppressions operate to affect individuals and society. In addition, individuals take action against the oppressive elements of society.	4	Critical	Individuals reach an in-depth understanding of social and political and economic forces shaping their outcomes.
			5	Liberation	Individuals reach an in-depth understanding of social and political and economic forces shaping their outcomes. In addition, they hold a belief in one’s ability to change the status quo and express a desire take action to improve social conditions.

The current study

Empirical connections among these three bodies of work are just beginning to be made. For example, while not explicitly informed by system justification theory, recent quantitative research has begun to document a positive relationship between system-justifying ideologies (protestant work ethic; equality of opportunity; color-blind racial ideology) and individual attributions for poverty (Cozzarelli et al., 2001; Flanagan & Tucker, 1999; Neville, Coleman, Falconer & Holmes, 2005; Stephenson, 2003). Similarly, critical consciousness scholars have quantitatively operationalized critical reflection as the inverse of scores on social dominance orientation, which is related to, but distinct from system justification (Jost, 2011). Theoretical insights linking these bodies of work, however, are lacking and are particularly needed to understand how marginalized groups make sense of their economic position and prospects. How are system-justifying ideologies and critical consciousness represented in attributions for poverty and wealth? How do system-justifying motives and critical consciousness development interplay with each other and inform attributions?

The current study seeks to explicate these connections. We draw on qualitative data from low-income Dominican, Mexican, and African-American women to explore naturally-occurring attributions for poverty and wealth and their relationship to critical consciousness and system justification. This intersection of class, race/ethnicity, immigrant status and gender represents a group that is particularly marginalized in today’s society. Their voices are rarely heard in public debates about economic inequality and mobility – despite the fact that they are targets of anti-poverty policy. In addition, women’s perspectives about political and social issues and their unique experiences as political actors and social change agents are under-represented in academic scholarship (Gordon, 2008; Taft, 2006). This work will inform a more complex understanding of how these individuals develop a critical understanding of their economic circumstances or are motivated to justify their own inequality.

Method

Data for this study come from a larger survey study of diverse low-income mothers and children in a large Northeastern city. Mothers were recruited in 2004-2005 within two days of giving birth from three large public hospitals with high concentrations of the study’s target ethnic groups. To participate in the study, mothers had to be over age 18, live in the city, self-identify as Dominican, Mexican, or African American, and have a healthy full-term infant. These ethnic groups were chosen because together they represent over 60% of the population of the city and include the largest immigrant groups (Yoshikawa, 2011).

A random sample (stratified by racial/ethnic group) of 19 respondents from the larger study was recruited to be part of an embedded longitudinal qualitative study (Table 3 presents sample characteristics). Bilingual fieldworkers (trained female graduate students in the social sciences) visited families in their homes every 8-10 weeks when infants were 8 to 24 months old. Fieldworkers represented a variety of racial/ethnic backgrounds, but were primarily Latino (Puerto Rican, Mexican) and white (American and German). Fieldworkers conducted semi-structured interviews covering a sequence of topics including parenting and child development, migration and immigration, economic circumstances, and health and nutrition and also “hung-out” with participants in daily activities (typical days, birthday parties, etc.). All interactions were conducted in the families’ preferred language. Fieldworkers were matched to families on language. However, they were explicitly not matched in terms of country of origin or race in order to surface cultural assumptions that might have otherwise remained implicit (Yoshikawa, 2011). While mothers were the most common respondent for interviews, and always present, it was not uncommon for close family members to also be included in interviews. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, translated and reviewed for accuracy shortly after each visit. Families received financial compensation of $50 per visit.

Table 3.

Sample characteristics (N = 19)

	Percentage	N
Race/Ethnicity
African-American	32%	6
Dominican	37%	7
Mexican	32%	6
Nativity*
Foreign-born	68%	13
US-born	32%	6
High School Degree or GED	47%	9
Currently employed	53%	10
Receiving public assistance (WIC, Medicaid, Housing)	100%	19
Married/cohabiting	68%	13
	Mean	SD
Maternal Age	28	6.61
Family Income	$27,764	$15,237
Number of other children	1.58	2.27

^*All Dominicans and Mexicans were first-generation immigrants; all African-Americans were born in the United States.

The current analysis focuses on data from the third semi-structured interview protocol conducted when children were about one year old. This protocol covered families’ economic circumstances, including experiences with economic hardship, survival strategies, attitudes towards government/community services and beliefs about economic opportunity, inequality and mobility in the U.S. Interviews lasted an average of two hours. The first and second authors analyzed the entire interview transcripts from this protocol using an open coding process to identify recurring themes in respondents’ discussions about economic circumstances and attributions for poverty, wealth and economic mobility (Tesch, 1990). We took both an inductive (bottom-up) and deductive (top-down) approach) to analysis. Following procedures suggested by Corbin and Strauss (2008), we began with an open close reading of a randomly chosen one third of cases to establish a common understanding and develop themes emerging from respondents’ discussions. We developed a coding scheme based off of the themes emerging from the data as well as our knowledge of the literature on attributions for poverty and wealth, critical consciousness and system justification theory. After developing the coding scheme, we both coded the next one third of the interviews, meeting frequently to resolve disagreements, discuss unclear or redundant codes; emerging themes and categories, and disconfirming information. This information was used to revise the coding scheme and all cases were coded using this revised coding scheme (each author coded one half of the interviews: κ ranged from.72 to .85 across codes). Once coding was completed, we reviewed all coded data using memoing techniques and case summaries (Charmaz, 2006) to elaborate on the material in each code, group codes into categories, and describe patterns and relationships within and across respondents. We describe the themes arising from our analysis in detail below, using quotes to illustrate findings (all names are pseudonyms).

Results

Our analysis finds that low-income racial/ethnic minority and immigrant women’s explanations for poverty, wealth and economic mobility fell into two categories representing individual and structural attributions. While this dichotomy is not too surprising given the previous quantitative literature on attributions, what is striking is the extent to which these marginalized women endorsed individual explanations for poverty and wealth. Individual attributions were by far the most common explanation, and when structural attributions were made, they were invariably paired with an individualistic attribution. Furthermore, system justifying and critical consciousness processes were evident in explanations for poverty and wealth. Our analysis suggests that (1) people may make individual attributions to satisfy their need to justify the system, (2) system justification may hamper efforts to develop critical consciousness and (3) system justification and critical consciousness are not opposing ends of a single continuum, but distinct psychological processes that need to be considered in tandem.

Individual attributions

The vast majority of respondents (17 of 19) expressed beliefs that attributed poverty and wealth to individual factors. The most common individual explanation was that character flaws drive differential economic outcomes. More than half of respondents (11) blamed poverty on character deficiencies of the poor. For example, Lucia, a 19-year-old Mexican immigrant who grew up in the U.S., says:

Lucia: …they are poor for a reason, not poor for no reason. If you’re poor is because you don’t want to do nothing with your life, and don’t want to provide money for yourself… You’re poor because you want to be poor. It’s not because…..probably you’re a junkie, a drug addict, it’s your fault that you’re drinking and a drug addict, you know. It’s nobody else’s fault. It’s your fault.

By explicitly attributing poverty to individual shortcomings such as laziness, lack of motivation and addiction, Lucia blames the poor for their economic situation. This kind of blatant victim-blaming (Ryan, 1976) was a surprisingly prevalent way for respondents to attribute the causes of poverty and wealth, especially for this marginalized sample.

Another example comes from Shalonda, a 24-year-old African-American respondent. She explains why there are very rich people and very poor people in the U.S. this way:

Shalonda: I don’t know. I guess it’s because it’s the things they choose, it’s the way they choose to live, to lead their life, ‘cause there’s always, there’s stories you hear where, where children, they grow up in a dirt poor household, that they sharin’ clothes and there’s not enough to eat, and they come out, and they’re rich…And I guess it’s their determination and their values and things that you grow up with.

By using the traditional American “rags-to-riches” myth, Shalonda also attributes economic success to individual character traits such as values, determination and upbringing. In fact, research suggests that more than 40% of Americans raised in the bottom income quintile remain there as adults (Isaacs, Sawhill & Haskins, 2008). Despite this, many of our respondents used these kinds of mobility myths to support individualistic attributions for economic outcomes.

In addition to explanations that explicitly attributed poverty and wealth to individual shortcomings and strengths, respondents also voiced explanations that implicitly blame economic outcomes on individual shortcomings. They did so by endorsing legitimizing myths that uphold the legitimacy of the socioeconomic system at the expense of the individual. Consider, for example, the following quotes from Cecilia (21) and Abelinda (28), both first-generation Dominican immigrants:

Fieldworker: And here in the U.S., how is someone successful?

Cecilia: Working hard. Working a lot.

Fieldworker: Do you think that all people in the U.S., do you think that they have opportunities to get ahead economically?

Abelinda: Yes. If (they) work hard, yes.

By endorsing the meritocratic ideology that hard work leads to success, Cecilia and Abelinda implicitly attribute poverty to individual shortcomings in the ability/desire to work hard. The fact that this belief was expressed in such a straightforward way reflects a lack of awareness or recognition of how structural features of the labor market such as wages, working hours, and opportunity for advancement hinders economic success despite how hard one works. Seven respondents expressed this unqualified belief that hard work leads to success.

Similarly, nine respondents expressed a belief in equality of opportunity in the U.S. by endorsing individual educational attainment as the way to “level the playing field” and garner economic success. An example is the following exchange between Shalonda and her fieldworker:

Fieldworker: Do you know people, or friends or families who’ve done well financially?

Shalonda: Yeah.

Fieldworker: And how do you think they, that they were able to do it?

Shalonda: College. They went and got they Master’s and they did their college or, they did their college.

The people Shalonda has known who have succeeded have done so through education, thus, she implies that education can level the playing field and allow one to succeed financially. Likewise, when asked how people get ahead in the U.S., Estefani, a 23-year-old first-generation Mexican immigrant, says:

Estefani: Well, I think that is it, because almost everywhere, because it is the same here, many people, the first thing they say is study. Study so that you will have a career and that way you have your career and you don’t worry about anything, like that.

Estafani’s belief in the power of education for economic success trumps any assessment of structural barriers in the U.S. or elsewhere. While education is an important contributing factor to economic mobility (Butler, Beach &Winfree, 2008), citing it as the key to economic success fails to recognize the structural barriers to educational access and disparities in school quality that limit the benefits of education for all Americans, particularly those from disadvantaged neighborhoods (Darling-Hammond, 2008).

Our analysis revealed a clear connection between these individual attributions and the initial stages of critical consciousness, in which individuals are unable to recognize social inequity and structural barriers to advancement and attribute lack of advancement to individual shortcomings and the inferiority of the oppressed. More importantly, we find that individual attributions also reflect the need to justify the system. Blaming individuals for their own disadvantage by explicitly attributing poverty to individual character flaws upholds the belief in a just world, an important cognitive mechanism through which individuals can satisfy their motive to justify the system (Jost & Hunyady, 2005). Believing that “people deserve what they get and get what they deserve” has been associated with the tendency to blame the victim across a wide array of groups, including the handicapped, people with AIDS, and survivors of rape as well as the poor (Furnham, 2003). In addition, respondents implicitly attributed poverty and wealth to individual factors by endorsing system-justifying myths and ideologies. The belief in meritocratic ideology is considered a core system-justifying ideology precisely because it assumes the system is fair and implicitly blames economic disparities on the lack of individual ability or motivation, rather than systemic factors (Jost & Hunyady, 2005). Similarly, attributing economic success to differences in individual educational attainment is an expression of the legitimizing myth that America is characterized by equality of opportunity (Feldman, 1988). Believing in equality of opportunity helps one uphold meritocratic ideology: if we all begin with the same set of opportunities, it is fair for the system to reward individual effort, ability and motivation. Thus, attributing economic outcomes to individual flaws and shortcomings not only represents a lack of structural awareness, but may be motivated by the need to justify the system. Current survey measures of attributions do not tap into these kinds of system-justifying ideologies. Moreover, the implications of this motivated process have not been fully considered in scholarship on critical consciousness development.

Structural attributions

Less than half of our respondents (8 of 19) expressed beliefs that attributed poverty and wealth to structural factors. That so few respondents voiced structural explanations is striking given their degree of marginalization in the American economic system. Whereas the individual attributions described above largely reflected system justification tendencies, the structural attributions were intriguing in that they reflected different levels of critical consciousness. As critical consciousness develops, individuals begin to recognize societal inequity and seek out more information about the systemic factors that maintain it. They then develop an in-depth understanding of how inequities are shaped by historical, cultural, economic and political processes and begin to feel empowered to take action against oppressive forces.

Five of these eight respondents voiced structural attributions that reflected the naïve (adaptive) stage of critical consciousness in which individuals begin to reflect on structural barriers to advancement but have not yet reached an in-depth understanding of the systemic forces contributing to these barriers, or begun to confront them. For example, respondents recognized that structural features of the labor market, such as wages, job quality, and job availability, contribute to poverty and economic immobility. Shalonda responds to her fieldworker’s question about whether anyone who works hard can get ahead this way:

Shalonda: Who works hard? It depends on the type of job you are working. Because some jobs, they just leave you stagnated. And you don’t have no chance of getting nowhere. It just depends on where you workin’ at. Some jobs don’t have no room for growth.

In contrast to respondents who accept wholesale the belief that hard work leads to economic success, Shalonda’s statement recognizes the limited opportunities in the labor market that allow some people who work hard to get ahead and not others. However, her statement does not reflect a deeper understanding of the social, historical or economic forces that have led to this situation, and seems to imply a tacit acceptance of it rather than a sense of injustice.

Respondents also recognized family wealth and inheritance as a key structural factor in economic mobility, citing financial help from family members as the primary explanation for one’s ability to succeed financially. One of our African-American respondents, 30-year-old Tamara, sees it this way:

Fieldworker: Uhm, do you know families who have done really well financially?

Tamara: Mmm. Somewhat, yeah.

Fieldworker: How do you think that they were able to do that?

Tamara: Help from they parents.

Fieldworker: Are there any other families that you know that didn’t do that, but did well financially in other ways?

Tamara: No.

Fieldworker: Always through—

Tamara: Help. Family help.

Rather than attributing economic success to individual factors such as determination, hard work or education, Tamara notes that those she knows who have gotten ahead have done so through family wealth, implying a structural understanding that it takes resources to acquire resources. Like Shalonda, however, her comment does not reflect a deeper understanding of the forces driving this reality and seems to simply accept it at face value.

Finally, some respondents noted that structural barriers facing immigrants were key factors limiting economic mobility in the U.S. Nevara, a 30-year-old first-generation Dominican respondent says:

Nevara: That is one of the factors that doesn’t allow you to have a good job. You don’t have the necessary preparation and that maybe even if you know how to do the work, you come with a college degree and it doesn’t have any value for you here.

Fieldworker: Your college degree doesn’t have any value, and why is that?

Nevara: Because what you have to do is to take some exams and if you pass that exam then it has value for you, and if you don’t pass that exam, you come to wash dishes, you understand?

Nevara points out structural barriers faced uniquely by immigrants to the U.S. – such as difficulties with language and education certification – that limit the ability of immigrants to get ahead and leave even the educated to “wash dishes.” As with the other respondents, however, her comment does not yet challenge these structural inequities.

In contrast, three of the eight respondents expressed attributions for poverty and wealth that reflected a more advanced stage of critical consciousness, in which individuals begin to seek out and reach a fuller understanding of the social, political, historical and economic forces contributing to structural inequities. For example, when asked what she would change about the U.S., Shalonda says:

Shalonda: They should tax the rich people more. I think they should tax them more. I think they should just put more, if they have, if they make a seven figure income they should get taxed… If they are makin’ within a seven figures, then they should get taxed a lot more than any, anybody else. I mean, I don’t think the poor people should even have to pay taxes, and I think they should still get a income tax check. Yeah, that’s the way, that’s the way I feel. ‘Cause that at least, that at least levels the playing field. You know, but even though the rich people is the one that controls everything anyway. And you know, they not gonna let that happen. Like, you know, everybody gonna get taxed the same way, don’t matter who you are or how much you make. But I really believe that the rich people should get, should be the ones getting taxed and should be taxed heavily, yeah.

Similarly, Nevara says:

Nevara: Here I would change the system of... that here the rich is richer and the poor is poorer.

Fieldworker: What are you saying? That the rich is richer and the poor is poorer?

Nevara: And the poor is poorer.

Fieldworker: And why do you think that is?

Nevara: Because the poor work and don’t earn very well, they have to pay many taxes, while the rich earn well and don’t pay as many taxes. There are many things that the rich don’t have to pay. Do you understand me? Here the more you have, the better things go for you. You understand?

What distinguishes these comments from Shalonda and Nevara is the awareness that inequities exist as a result of a set of entrenched processes or systems where the “rich is richer and the poor is poorer” and “the more you have, the better things go for you.” In addition, they indicate a deeper understanding of the economic and social processes that maintain inequities: “… (changing the tax code) would at least level the playing field. You know, but, the rich people is the one that controls everything anyway. And you know, they not gonna let that happen.” Thus, these explanations are characteristic of the pre-critical and critical stages of Watts and colleagues’ framework and some aspects of Friere’s critical consciousness stage. However, our respondents’ comments did not go so far as to indicate the desire or ability to take action to redress social inequity that characterizes the highest levels of critical consciousness development.

Interestingly, the explanations we found to be characteristic of the naïve and adaptive stages of critical consciousness are the only ones that map directly onto the structural attributions commonly included in quantitative measures. Our analysis suggests these quantitative measures are missing important variation in respondents’ level of critical consciousness, namely a deeper reflection of the political, economic and social processes that maintain structural barriers and the desire to act to change these disparities, which may have implications for political attitudes, support for social policies and collective action.

Endorsement of both individual and structural attributions

There were virtually no respondents who voiced only structural attributions for poverty and wealth. Almost every respondent who expressed a structural attribution also endorsed an individual attribution. For many respondents, the endorsement of individual and structural attributions occurred at different points in the interview protocol and in the context of different questions. A prototypical example is the following dialogue between Abelinda and her fieldworker. Recall that Abelinda first endorses the belief in meritocratic ideology:

Fieldworker: Do you think that all people in the U.S., do you think that they have opportunities to get ahead economically?

Abelinda: Yes. If (they) work hard, yes.

In a later section of the interview, however, Abelinda expresses something different:

Fieldworker: And what do you think about the opportunities that the people have in the U.S.? Do all the people have the same opportunities to become rich?

Abelinda: No.

Fieldworker: In what way don’t they have the same opportunities?

Abelinda: Because what happens is that some people make great efforts and don’t earn very much.

Her explanation recognizes that there are structural barriers in the labor market that make it difficult to succeed no matter how hard one works.

A surprising number of respondents also expressed individual and structural attributions within a single train of thought. Consider the following response from Shalonda when asked what she thought of there being very rich people and people who struggle to make ends meet:

Shalonda: That there are very rich and very poor? Sometimes I don’t think its fair, because I feel that the rich now, they should more than likely, find a way to at least, you know, uhm, at least get the poor to a middle ground. See who they can help and who they can’t. You know, see who wants to be somewhere and be somebody, or who doesn’t, who just likes, to you know, live the life that they are living. But you know, they, they, most rich people, they give to charities or whatever. And I guess more than likely if you are poor, you know, you need some help or you gotta look into those charities. You know, you just gotta find a charity that’s willing to help you out.

At first, Shalonda makes a structural attribution. She recognizes the unfairness of economic disparities in the U.S. and advocates for a structural solution to this problem by suggesting that the rich (those in control of the system) should at least find a way to “get the poor to a middle ground.” However, she follows this with individual attributions. She places at least some of the blame for poverty on poor individuals who don’t want to “be somebody” and “like the lives they are living.” In the end, she justifies economic inequality by noting that most rich people give to charities and placing the onus on the poor to seek out support from those charities.

The following explanation made by Yolanda, a 32-year-old first-generation Mexican, also oscillates between individual and structural attributions:

Fieldworker: What do you think of the opportunities here in the U.S.? I want to know if you believe that any person can get ahead here in the U.S.?

Yolanda: I think so.

Fieldworker: You think so.

Yolanda: But I think there are a lot of people that do not have a good job. They pay very little… And let’s suppose that they already have children and they live alone it is very difficult.

Fieldworker: So then you say that it is difficult to get ahead or that anybody can get ahead?

Yolanda: I suppose they can get ahead but they have to share the rent.

By endorsing the system-justifying notion of equal opportunity in the U.S., Yolanda first voices an individual attribution. However, she then qualifies this endorsement with a structural attribution, recognizing that structural barriers such as poor job quality and low wages may limit the mobility of some. She finally settles on an explanation that seems to straddle the two – one can get ahead, once one deals with the structural barrier of high rent by sharing the rent. This is, in fact, a strategy taken by many Mexican immigrants to New York City, who often share apartments with multiple families to make ends meet (Yoshikawa, 2011).

Finally, consider one of our African-American respondents’, 19-year-old Veronica, response to questions about equal opportunities and working hard to get ahead:

Fieldworker: Do you think that in the U.S. people who work hard can get ahead?

Veronica: Yeah.

Fieldworker: So do you think people have an equal chance of being wealthy or like everyone has the same chance?

Veronica: No, if you’re already, I guess, raised on top, you know, you have a better advantage than someone else that was born into, you know, the projects or low-income housing or something like that. But if you have low-income housing, you can work yourself up.

Veronica first endorses the belief that anyone who works hard can get ahead. However, when asked whether everyone has an equal chance of becoming wealthy, Veronica suggests that some people in the U.S. are “raised on top” and thus have an advantage over those born into poverty, thereby attributing at least some of the disparities in economic outcomes to structural factors. In the end, she, like Yolanda, seems to settle on a middle ground, recognizing structural barriers to economic success, but indicating that these are mitigated by social services such as low-income housing.

In some senses, this finding is not particularly novel. Freire (1970) himself discussed the notion of “contradictory consciousness” and scholars have since noted that a stage-like progression through critical consciousness development is likely to be overly simplistic. Qualitative work has highlighted how differing roles, settings and experiences may change individuals’ critical analysis of a given situation (Guishard, 2008; Watts et al., 2003). Previous quantitative work on attributions for poverty and wealth has also noted that individuals (especially members of disadvantaged groups) endorse both individual and structural attributions for poverty and wealth (Bullock, 1999; Bullock & Limbert, 2003; Bullock & Waugh, 2005; Hunt 1996; Kleugel & Smith, 1986). Kleugel and Smith (1986) and Hunt (1996) suggest that members of disadvantaged groups hold a “dual consciousness,” perceiving both individual and structural causes of poverty in response to different agents of socialization and with respect to different reference groups. Similarly, Bullock and Waugh (2005) propose that processes similar to the denial of discrimination (where members of disadvantaged groups perceive societal discrimination but not personal discrimination) may account for the endorsement of both individual and structural attributions. We replicate these findings in a novel sample of marginalized individuals using qualitative techniques that more fully represent their understanding of economic disparities. Moreover, by showing how individual attributions are driven by system justification, we provide a motivational explanation for why marginalized individuals may not develop a purely structural understanding of economic disparities.

To summarize, our analysis suggests, first, that low-income racial/ethnic minority and immigrant women hold largely individual attributions for poverty and wealth. These individual attributions represent not only the initial stage of critical consciousness, but system-justifying processes and both explicitly and implicitly blame poverty on the poor. Second, we found that less than half of participants expressed beliefs attributing poverty and wealth to structural factors. These attributions represented varying levels of critical consciousness development: most represented the naïve/adaptive stage of critical consciousness where individuals just begin to recognize structural barriers to advancement, but a few represented a more advanced awareness that inequalities exist as a result of a set of entrenched processes and systems. Third, almost half of all respondents expressed both individual (system-justifying) and structural (critical consciousness) attributions for poverty/wealth. This suggests that system justification and critical consciousness are not opposite ends of the same dimension but separate psychological processes and motivations.

Discussion

The goal of this work was to integrate scholarship on attributions, critical consciousness, and system justification, particularly as it relates to low-income racial/ethnic minority women and their understanding of economic inequality in the U.S. Marginalized individuals’ understanding of economic inequality is important because it has implications for economic and psychological well being as well as support for public policy and action to redress disparities. Our findings make theoretical contributions to these literatures and contribute to our understanding of how economic status hierarchies are internalized and explained by marginalized individuals. These contributions are timely given growing recent concern of economic inequality and mobility in the U.S.

We find that the vast majority of explanations for poverty and wealth placed the blame on individual factors and shortcomings. This is surprising given the degree of marginalization in this sample along multiple dimensions, including socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, immigration status, and gender. Previous research has found that disadvantaged groups still endorse individual attributions, but tend to endorse more structural attributions than their more advantaged counterparts (Bullock 1999; Bullock & Limbert, 2003; Bullock & Waugh, 2005; Cozzarelli et al., 2001; Hunt, 1996; Kleugel & Smith, 1986; Smith, 1985). In our study, less than half of respondents blamed structural factors for poverty and wealth, and these structural attributions were always paired with individual attributions. Overall, then, our findings suggest a high reliance on individual factors to explain economic inequality in the U.S. The fact that we found this high reliance among women is particularly interesting given research suggesting that women display more empathy and perspective-taking (Beutel & Marini, 1995) and tend to score lower on measures of system justification (Jost & Kay, 2005).This is striking evidence of the degree to which false consciousness may be impacting the lives of low-income racial/ethnic minority and immigrant women and also hampering efforts to redress inequality.

Part of the reason for this high tendency to explain economic inequality in individualistic terms may be due to a key innovation and finding of this study. Drawing on system justification theory, we conceptualized individual attributions not only as explanations that explicitly blame individuals for poverty (i.e., character flaws of the poor), but also as those that implicitly blame individuals by endorsing system-justifying myths (i.e., meritocratic ideology, equality of opportunity). These legitimizing myths are not typically incorporated into survey measures of individual attributions, thus current quantitative work on attributions may under-represent the degree to which even marginalized individuals blame the poor for poverty. It is also important to note that the particular system-justifying myths endorsed justified economic disparities in a way that still allows for the potential of individual opportunity and advancement (i.e., if I work hard enough I can get ahead; if I do well enough in school I can get ahead). Thus, they may be particularly important belief systems for members of disadvantaged groups to legitimize the system while still feeling hope for their own economic prospects.

Our analysis also adds to scholarship on critical consciousness development. According to theory, attributing societal inequality to structural forces is at the core of developing critical consciousness. Despite this, qualitative research on critical consciousness thus far has not examined the nature of attributions individuals make for social disparities and has focused primarily on the critical thinking skills of youth participants in youth organizing efforts or other critical consciousness interventions. By exploring attributions for poverty and wealth as they arise in the context of marginalized individuals’ daily lives, we were able to examine naturally-occurring attributions and link them to levels of critical consciousness. We find that structural attributions can be further divided into two categories: those that simply acknowledge the presence of structural barriers that impede economic progress, and those that see those barriers as a result of a set of entrenched systems and socio-cultural, political and historical processes. This distinction represents differing levels of critical consciousness and is not captured in current survey assessments of structural attributions.

More importantly, we shed new light on why individuals simultaneously hold individual and structural attributions. By conceptualizing individual attributions as driven by system justification motives and structural attributions as representing critical consciousness, we see this simultaneous endorsement as a struggle between competing psychological processes to justify versus critically analyze socioeconomic systems. This may be particularly true for disadvantaged individuals for whom the need to justify the system competes with self and group interests (Jost & van der Toorn, 2012). This conceptualization also highlights key links between system justification and critical consciousness that are currently underdeveloped. In particular, it suggests critical consciousness and system justification do not represent opposite stances along a single underlying continuum, but are distinct belief systems and motivations that can operate in tandem or in conflict. Current critical consciousness work has tended to conflate system-justifying and critical consciousness perspectives, for example, by operationalizing critical reflection as the inverse of system-justifying orientations (social dominance orientation scores). An important implication of our work is that the consistency of cognitions across stages of critical consciousness is important to consider and may be an alternative way to characterize critical consciousness development.

Moreover, our findings suggest that the motive to justify the system is a key psychological process impeding the development of critical consciousness. Critical consciousness scholarship has not appreciated the possibility that attributing societal inequality to individual rather than structural factors may be driven by deep-seated psychological needs to (consciously and unconsciously) justify the system. Indeed, research has linked system justification to reduced support for redistributive policies and decreased willingness to engage in collective action (Jost et al., 2012; Wakslak et al., 2007). Community-based efforts to foster critical consciousness and collective action could be strengthened by recognizing the importance of this motive and incorporating system justification research into practice. For example, research suggests that certain factors increase individuals’ motive to justify the system (Kay & Friesen, 2011). Perceiving that the system is under threat or feeling that one is dependent on and cannot escape from the system enhances system justification. So do feelings of low personal control. Altering these factors may be an important first step in effective critical consciousness work. While this possibility requires further research, it stands to reason that decreasing the motive to justify the system would increase individuals’ openness to information critical of the status quo, fostering critical consciousness development and collective action. Thus, critical consciousness interventions should not only foster dialogue, but also strive to improve participants’ sense of personal control, limit feelings of dependence on the system, provide alternative system models, and reframe potentially threatening messages as consistent with system needs (at least initially; see Feygina et al., 2010 for an example.)

While this study makes a number of contributions to the literature, it is not without limitations. First, rather than directly posing questions about the causes of poverty and wealth, we ascertained attributions through responses to a variety of questions about economic disparities as well and open-ended discussions of respondents’ actual economic resources. This was done to elicit naturally-occurring explanations for poverty and wealth; however it is possible that different patterns of responses would have emerged with more direct questions. Similarly, it is possible that respondents provided fieldworkers with what they thought to be ”socially-desirable” responses, rather than their true reactions. We think this is unlikely given the degree of rapport established between respondents and fieldworkers that developed over the course of the ethnography. There was also no evidence of this in other even more sensitive areas of discussion (e.g., immigration experiences). Second, because immigrant status and racial/ethnic background are confounded in the current sample, we could not tease apart the role of immigration from the role of culture and ethnicity. Future research is needed to more fully explore how attributions for poverty and wealth vary by immigration, culture and group status. Finally, this is a qualitative, exploratory study meant to generate new theoretical connections and hypotheses. Additional work is needed to corroborate these results using different research paradigms.

Despite these limitations, this study is an important exploration of attributions for poverty, wealth and economic mobility among a sample of low-income racial/ethnic minority and immigrant women. Our findings both replicate and extend previous work, suggesting that individual and structural attributions for poverty and wealth may stem from competing psychological processes to justify the system and develop a critical consciousness about the status quo. By understanding attributions in this way, we focus attention on the psychological factors contributing to attributions for poverty and wealth and uncover theoretical connections between system justification and critical consciousness theories that suggest promising new avenues for research and intervention.