American Political Science Review (2018)112.4,721-741 doi:10.1017/S0003055418000412 American Political Science Association 2018 When Do the Advantaged See the Disadvantages of Others?A Quasi-Experimental Study of National Service CECILIA HYUNJUNG MO University of California,Berkeley KATHARINE M.CONN Columbia University re there mechanisms by which the advantaged can see the perspectives of the disadvantaged?Ifad- vantaged individuals have prolonged engagement with disadvantaged populations and confront issues of inequality through national service,do they see the world more through the lens of the op//s poor?We explore this question by examining Teach For America(TFA),as TFA is a prominent national service program that integrates top college graduates into low-income communities for two years and employs a selection model that allows for causal inference.A regression discontinuity approach,utilizing an original survey ofover 32,000 TFA applicants and TFA's selection data for the 2007-2015 application cycles,reveals that extended intergroup contact in a service context causes advantaged Americans to adopt beliefs that are closer to those of disadvantaged Americans.These findings have broad implications for our understanding of the impact of intergroup contact on perceptions of social justice and prejudice reduction. socioeconomically advantaged view the ladder have significantly more political influence than American dream as more attainable than those at the bottom(Bartels 2003,2008;Carnes 2013; the disadvantaged,with both race(Kinder and Gilens 2012;Page,Bartels,and Seawright 2013;Putnam Sanders 1996)and class(Newman.Johnston,and Lown 2015).Because income inequality depresses political 2015)profoundly coloring perceptions of economic, interest and participation among those at the bottom social,and political opportunities.Such perceptions are of the ladder (Solt 2008),the gap between the rich well founded.Those at the top of the socioeconomic and poor,which continues to widen with each passing year(Keeley 2015;Saez 2013),will tend to undermine representational equality,a key feature of democracy Cecilia Hyunjung Mo is an Assistant Professor of Political Science. (Dahl1971). University of California,Berkeley,210 Barrows Hall #740,Berkeley, CA 94720-1950(cecilia.h.mo@berkelev.edu). The advantaged will not remove the obstacles that Katharine M.Conn is a Senior Research Scientist,Consortium disadvantaged Americans face unless they recognize for Policy Research in Education,Teachers College,Columbia that these obstacles exist(Putnam 2015).Such recog- University,525 West 120th Street,New York,NY 10026-6696 nition requires that one group see the world from the (kmc2169@columbia.edu). other's perspective,what scholars call "perspective- We are grateful to representatives from Teach For America especially Raegen Miller,Yoon Ha Choi,Tameka Brigham.and taking."Are there mechanisms by which the "haves" Johann von Hoffmann,for their assistance in collecting the data nec- can see the world from the lens of the "have nots"?1 essary for this project.We thank representatives from Teach For All Might national service,an experiment used by many especially Laura Lewis,Robbie Dean,Alonso Sanchez,and Leigh democratic societies to cultivate the values and norms Kincaid,for their partnership.We also acknowledge the excellent re. of healthy democracies (James 1910).be one such search assistance of Allison Archer,Claire Evans.Virginia Lovison. Laura Sellers,Joseph Stigall,and Bryce Williams-Tuggles.The au- mechanism?Since President John.F.Kennedy fa- thors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from Vanderbilt mously challenged Americans-"Ask not what your University's Discovery Grant Program and the World Bank's Devel- country can do for you,ask what you can do for your opment Grant Facility.We would also like to thank Brooke Ackerly. country"-national service programs have multiplied Larry Bartels,Jonathan Bendor,Joshua Clinton,Marc Hethering with over 1.25 million Americans answering Kennedy's ton,Martin Gilens,Cindy Kam,Brenton Kenkel,David Lewis,Neil Malhotra,Bruce Oppenheimer,Efren Perez,Alan Wiseman,Hye call to serve.2 More recent political leaders,regardless Young You,Elizabeth Zechmeister,and participants of the Annual of political party,have trumpeted service programs, Meetings of APSA.ISPP MPSA.and WPSA.Brigham Young Uni- believing "citizen service changes people for the versity's Political Science Seminar,Columbia University's Political Economy Workshop,Princeton University's Kahneman-Treisman better"(Clinton 2001;Corporation for National and Center for Behavioral Science and Public Policy Behavioral Pol- Community Service 2014).Such programs were not icy Speaker Series,Princeton University's Center of the Study of only created to assist communities in need,they were Democratic Politics Seminar,Stanford University's Political Psychol- also designed to help promote a better understanding ogy Research Group,Vanderbilt University's RIPS Lab Research of the communities they serve. Group,Washington University in St.Louis's Political Science Sem- inar,the Toulouse School of Economics IAST Political Economy and Political Science Conference,UC Berkeley's Research Work- shop in American Politics Colloquium,and Yale University's CSAP Summer Conference for their helpful comments and feedback.The While we employ“haves”and“have nots”as a shorthand for ad- data,code,and any additional materials required to replicate all vantaged and disadvantaged segments of society,it is important to analyses in this article are available at the American Political Sci- note that being advantaged is a continuum.For instance,one can si. ence Review Dataverse within the Harvard Dataverse Network.at multaneously be advantaged from the perspective of economic status https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/VTUSLV and disadvantaged from the perspective of social status This includes approximately 220,000 Peace Corps volunteers Received:August 2,2016;revised:October 1,2016;accepted:June 24, 980,000 AmeriCorps volunteers,and 50,000 Teach For America 2018.First published online:August 23,2018. corps members. 721
American Political Science Review (2018) 112, 4, 721–741 doi:10.1017/S0003055418000412 © American Political Science Association 2018 When Do the Advantaged See the Disadvantages of Others? A Quasi-Experimental Study of National Service CECILIA HYUNJUNG MO University of California, Berkeley KATHARINE M. CONN Columbia University Are there mechanisms by which the advantaged can see the perspectives of the disadvantaged? If advantaged individuals have prolonged engagement with disadvantaged populations and confront issues of inequality through national service, do they see the world more through the lens of the poor? We explore this question by examining Teach For America (TFA), as TFA is a prominent national service program that integrates top college graduates into low-income communities for two years and employs a selection model that allows for causal inference. A regression discontinuity approach, utilizing an original survey of over 32,000 TFA applicants and TFA’s selection data for the 2007–2015 application cycles, reveals that extended intergroup contact in a service context causes advantaged Americans to adopt beliefs that are closer to those of disadvantaged Americans. These findings have broad implications for our understanding of the impact of intergroup contact on perceptions of social justice and prejudice reduction. The socioeconomically advantaged view the American dream as more attainable than the disadvantaged, with both race (Kinder and Sanders 1996) and class (Newman, Johnston, and Lown 2015) profoundly coloring perceptions of economic, social, and political opportunities. Such perceptions are well founded. Those at the top of the socioeconomic Cecilia Hyunjung Mo is an Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley, 210 Barrows Hall #740, Berkeley, CA 94720-1950 (cecilia.h.mo@berkeley.edu). Katharine M. Conn is a Senior Research Scientist, Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, 525 West 120th Street, New York, NY 10026-6696 (kmc2169@columbia.edu). We are grateful to representatives from Teach For America, especially Raegen Miller, Yoon Ha Choi, Tameka Brigham, and Johann von Hoffmann, for their assistance in collecting the data necessary for this project. We thank representatives from Teach For All, especially Laura Lewis, Robbie Dean, Alonso Sanchez, and Leigh Kincaid, for their partnership.We also acknowledge the excellent research assistance of Allison Archer, Claire Evans, Virginia Lovison, Laura Sellers, Joseph Stigall, and Bryce Williams-Tuggles. The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from Vanderbilt University’s Discovery Grant Program and the World Bank’s Development Grant Facility. We would also like to thank Brooke Ackerly, Larry Bartels, Jonathan Bendor, Joshua Clinton, Marc Hetherington, Martin Gilens, Cindy Kam, Brenton Kenkel, David Lewis, Neil Malhotra, Bruce Oppenheimer, Efrén Pérez, Alan Wiseman, Hye Young You, Elizabeth Zechmeister, and participants of the Annual Meetings of APSA, ISPP, MPSA, and WPSA, Brigham Young University’s Political Science Seminar, Columbia University’s Political Economy Workshop, Princeton University’s Kahneman-Treisman Center for Behavioral Science and Public Policy Behavioral Policy Speaker Series, Princeton University’s Center of the Study of Democratic Politics Seminar, Stanford University’s Political Psychology Research Group, Vanderbilt University’s RIPS Lab Research Group, Washington University in St. Louis’s Political Science Seminar, the Toulouse School of Economics IAST Political Economy and Political Science Conference, UC Berkeley’s Research Workshop in American Politics Colloquium, and Yale University’s CSAP Summer Conference for their helpful comments and feedback. The data, code, and any additional materials required to replicate all analyses in this article are available at the American Political Science Review Dataverse within the Harvard Dataverse Network, at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/VTUSLV. Received: August 2, 2016; revised: October 1, 2016; accepted: June 24, 2018. First published online: August 23, 2018. ladder have significantly more political influence than those at the bottom (Bartels 2003, 2008; Carnes 2013; Gilens 2012; Page, Bartels, and Seawright 2013; Putnam 2015). Because income inequality depresses political interest and participation among those at the bottom of the ladder (Solt 2008), the gap between the rich and poor, which continues to widen with each passing year (Keeley 2015; Saez 2013), will tend to undermine representational equality, a key feature of democracy (Dahl 1971). The advantaged will not remove the obstacles that disadvantaged Americans face unless they recognize that these obstacles exist (Putnam 2015). Such recognition requires that one group see the world from the other’s perspective, what scholars call “perspectivetaking.” Are there mechanisms by which the “haves” can see the world from the lens of the “have nots”?1 Might national service, an experiment used by many democratic societies to cultivate the values and norms of healthy democracies (James 1910), be one such mechanism? Since President John. F. Kennedy famously challenged Americans—“Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”—national service programs have multiplied with over 1.25 million Americans answering Kennedy’s call to serve.2 More recent political leaders, regardless of political party, have trumpeted service programs, believing “citizen service changes people for the better” (Clinton 2001; Corporation for National and Community Service 2014). Such programs were not only created to assist communities in need, they were also designed to help promote a better understanding of the communities they serve. 1 While we employ “haves” and “have nots” as a shorthand for advantaged and disadvantaged segments of society, it is important to note that being advantaged is a continuum. For instance, one can simultaneously be advantaged from the perspective of economic status and disadvantaged from the perspective of social status. 2 This includes approximately 220,000 Peace Corps volunteers, 980,000 AmeriCorps volunteers, and 50,000 Teach For America corps members. 721 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Shanghai JiaoTong University, on 26 Oct 2018 at 03:53:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000412
Cecilia Hyunjung Mo and Katharine M.Conn If serving in a national service program can cul- catalyzes beliefs that systemic injustices are more to tivate an understanding of the perspectives of the blame for the positions of disadvantaged Americans disadvantaged communities they work in,then it than their positions being a natural consequence of may reduce prejudice as well.Indeed.scholars have the individuals'own decisions and merit.In addition. shown that knowledge gains,increased perspective- participation lessens prejudice toward disadvantaged taking,and empathy for the out-group are central to populations and increases amity toward these groups. reducing prejudice(Pettigrew and Tropp 2008).3 As The effects we find are both substantively large and such,a durable "real-world"intervention in which durable.These findings provide insight on the impact the advantaged segment of the population gains the of national service programs,which is significant perspective of the disadvantaged should also reduce given the amount of public and private investments prejudice toward the poor,and the racial and ethnic made in creating and maintaining such programs both minorities who are disproportionately poor.This is domestically and globally.More broadly,these results significant given that social scientists know very little have implications for understanding the impact of about specific policies and programs that have the intergroup contact on perceptions of social justice in capacity to decrease prejudice.A recent meta-analyses American society and prejudice reduction. of research on prejudice reduction found a paucity of internally valid research;only 11 percent of prejudice reduction studies test the causal effects of real-world interventions (Paluck and Green 2009;Paluck 2016; DIVISIONS BY CLASS AND COLOR Paluck,Green,and Green 2018). Income inequality has increased in the United States Studying the effects of national service programs since the 1970s(Keeley 2015;Saez 2013),and the pro- and the intergroup contact that is at the core of these portion of Americans believing that the United States programs,however,has been elusive due to problems is stratified into groups of "haves"and "have nots" of selection bias.When an individual participates in a has grown in concert(Newport 2015).With wealth and 4号元 national service organization.does that individual al- power increasingly concentrated among those in the ready see the perspectives of the"have nots"?Or does top income brackets,scholars have noted a develop- participation in a service experience alter perceptions ment of two Americas,with the rich and poor lacking of social justice?Our study overcomes this selection common experiences.Worse.those who reside in the bias problem.Teach For America(TFA)is a prominent more privileged America do not even realize a differ- national service organization that focuses on inequal- ent America exists for others,which may perpetuate ity.It recruits top college graduates and integrates them inequality (Putnam 2015).At a minimum,the "haves" into low-income communities for two years.Crucially, and "have nots"perceive the world differently.Re- TFA began in 2007 to implement a selection process search into the antecedents of beliefs about poverty that lends itself to a quasi-experimental regression has found that persons of higher socioeconomic status discontinuity design (RDD).Having a threshold point to the ostensible fairness of the economic,social. admission score allows us to compare the attitudes and and political system,emphasizing the centrality of hard belief systems of applicants who fell just short of the work to achieve their privileged positions.In contrast, acceptance threshold score (and were not accepted low-income Americans increasingly doubt the veracity S5.501g to TFA)against those who fell just past the threshold of the American dream in which prosperity and success score (and were accepted into the program)to make can be acquired through hard work alone(Kreidl 2000: causal claims.We collect responses from over 32,000 Kluegel and Smith 1986;Newman,Johnston,and Lown TFA applicants across nine cohorts of applicants 2015) between 2007 and 2015 in an original survey,and A similar divide about the fairness of the status quo combine this data with over 120,000 TFA applicant and the opportunity gap exists along racial lines.White files with admissions scores.The scope of the data Americans view the economic system as notably more and the nature of the program being studied provides just than black Americans (Newport 2015;Sigelman us with novel leverage over a research question of and Welch 2009)and Hispanic Americans(Hunt 1996) enduring interest that has proven difficult to answer. Kinder and Sanders (1996)found a similar racial cleav- Our results suggest that service in TFA has had a age relative to the role of government in providing strong impact on participants'attitudes and beliefs assistance to African Americans to remedy structural that reflect greater empathy and perspective-taking racial inequality.Although minority groups recognize toward disadvantaged communities.Relative to non- that individualistic factors like hard work are key,they participants,participants are more likely to believe are more inclined than white Americans to believe that that the economic,social,and political status quo in the such factors are not enough in light of an unfair sys- United States is unfair.Ceteris paribus,participation tem.In contrast,the average white American feels no such structural remedies are necessary,instead tending to blame victims of poverty and their perceived defi- L Perspective-taking and empathy are similar concepts,and there is ciencies (Lipset 1996;Ryan 1971).The same is true of evidence that each can give rise to the other;however,they are dis- the criminal justice system.Most white Americans be- tinct concepts.Empathy is an emotional response that involves "feel- ing for"another.Perspective-taking is more cognitive and involves lieve that the criminal justice system is fundamentally imagining another's point of view (Vorauer and Quesnel 2015).Here, fair,while most African Americans do not (Hurwitz we do not make this nuanced distinction. and Peffley 2005).Perceptions of the criminal justice 722
Cecilia Hyunjung Mo and Katharine M. Conn If serving in a national service program can cultivate an understanding of the perspectives of the disadvantaged communities they work in, then it may reduce prejudice as well. Indeed, scholars have shown that knowledge gains, increased perspectivetaking, and empathy for the out-group are central to reducing prejudice (Pettigrew and Tropp 2008).3 As such, a durable “real-world” intervention in which the advantaged segment of the population gains the perspective of the disadvantaged should also reduce prejudice toward the poor, and the racial and ethnic minorities who are disproportionately poor. This is significant given that social scientists know very little about specific policies and programs that have the capacity to decrease prejudice. A recent meta-analyses of research on prejudice reduction found a paucity of internally valid research; only 11 percent of prejudice reduction studies test the causal effects of real-world interventions (Paluck and Green 2009; Paluck 2016; Paluck, Green, and Green 2018). Studying the effects of national service programs and the intergroup contact that is at the core of these programs, however, has been elusive due to problems of selection bias. When an individual participates in a national service organization, does that individual already see the perspectives of the “have nots”? Or does participation in a service experience alter perceptions of social justice? Our study overcomes this selection bias problem.Teach For America (TFA) is a prominent national service organization that focuses on inequality. It recruits top college graduates and integrates them into low-income communities for two years. Crucially, TFA began in 2007 to implement a selection process that lends itself to a quasi-experimental regression discontinuity design (RDD). Having a threshold admission score allows us to compare the attitudes and belief systems of applicants who fell just short of the acceptance threshold score (and were not accepted to TFA) against those who fell just past the threshold score (and were accepted into the program) to make causal claims. We collect responses from over 32,000 TFA applicants across nine cohorts of applicants between 2007 and 2015 in an original survey, and combine this data with over 120,000 TFA applicant files with admissions scores. The scope of the data and the nature of the program being studied provides us with novel leverage over a research question of enduring interest that has proven difficult to answer. Our results suggest that service in TFA has had a strong impact on participants’ attitudes and beliefs that reflect greater empathy and perspective-taking toward disadvantaged communities. Relative to nonparticipants, participants are more likely to believe that the economic, social, and political status quo in the United States is unfair. Ceteris paribus, participation 3 Perspective-taking and empathy are similar concepts, and there is evidence that each can give rise to the other; however, they are distinct concepts. Empathy is an emotional response that involves “feeling for” another. Perspective-taking is more cognitive and involves imagining another’s point of view (Vorauer and Quesnel 2015).Here, we do not make this nuanced distinction. catalyzes beliefs that systemic injustices are more to blame for the positions of disadvantaged Americans than their positions being a natural consequence of the individuals’ own decisions and merit. In addition, participation lessens prejudice toward disadvantaged populations and increases amity toward these groups. The effects we find are both substantively large and durable. These findings provide insight on the impact of national service programs, which is significant given the amount of public and private investments made in creating and maintaining such programs both domestically and globally. More broadly, these results have implications for understanding the impact of intergroup contact on perceptions of social justice in American society and prejudice reduction. DIVISIONS BY CLASS AND COLOR Income inequality has increased in the United States since the 1970s (Keeley 2015; Saez 2013), and the proportion of Americans believing that the United States is stratified into groups of “haves” and “have nots” has grown in concert (Newport 2015).With wealth and power increasingly concentrated among those in the top income brackets, scholars have noted a development of two Americas, with the rich and poor lacking common experiences. Worse, those who reside in the more privileged America do not even realize a different America exists for others, which may perpetuate inequality (Putnam 2015). At a minimum, the “haves” and “have nots” perceive the world differently. Research into the antecedents of beliefs about poverty has found that persons of higher socioeconomic status point to the ostensible fairness of the economic, social, and political system, emphasizing the centrality of hard work to achieve their privileged positions. In contrast, low-income Americans increasingly doubt the veracity of the American dream in which prosperity and success can be acquired through hard work alone (Kreidl 2000; Kluegel and Smith 1986; Newman, Johnston, and Lown 2015). A similar divide about the fairness of the status quo and the opportunity gap exists along racial lines.White Americans view the economic system as notably more just than black Americans (Newport 2015; Sigelman and Welch 2009) and Hispanic Americans (Hunt 1996). Kinder and Sanders (1996) found a similar racial cleavage relative to the role of government in providing assistance to African Americans to remedy structural racial inequality. Although minority groups recognize that individualistic factors like hard work are key, they are more inclined than white Americans to believe that such factors are not enough in light of an unfair system. In contrast, the average white American feels no such structural remedies are necessary, instead tending to blame victims of poverty and their perceived deficiencies (Lipset 1996; Ryan 1971). The same is true of the criminal justice system. Most white Americans believe that the criminal justice system is fundamentally fair, while most African Americans do not (Hurwitz and Peffley 2005). Perceptions of the criminal justice 722 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Shanghai JiaoTong University, on 26 Oct 2018 at 03:53:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000412
When Do the Advantaged See the Disadvantages of Others? system are crucial,as people who believe the criminal 1999).Relative to AmeriCorps volunteers,specifically, justice system to be unfair tend to evaluate the entire Einfeld and Collins (2008)argue that not only did political system more negatively (Lind and Tyler 1988). many participants increase their awareness of inequal- Attitudes regarding the economic realm are deeply ity but they also developed increased empathy,attach- intertwined with racial attitudes in the United States. ment,trust,and respect for those they worked with. Since the mid-1960s,the coverage of poverty in the Similarly,Giles and Eyler(1994)observed that partic- media has strengthened the association of racial mi- ipants of a college service program became less likely norities with the "undeserving poor"(Gilens 1999).As to "blame social service clients for their misfortunes,' a result,Americans have increasingly viewed poverty and more likely to stress a need for equal opportunity through a racial lens(Gilens 2003).Indeed,many white (p.327) Americans perceive poor individuals as members of a different group than themselves,creating the percep- tion of the poor as "others,"rather than as in-group THE POTENTIAL OF EXTENDED members (Alesina,Glaeser,and Sacerdote 2001).As 4 CONTEXTUALIZED INTERGROUP CONTACT such,when considering the opinions of advantaged Americans about economic position and class,race is A crucial mechanism by which many nonmilitary often consciously or unconsciously part of their calcu- national service programs purport to foster under- lations.In other words,any inquiry about the advan standing,tolerance,and bridge-building is intergroup taged and disadvantaged socioeconomic segments of contact between advantaged and disadvantaged com- our population must examine racial animus. munities.Service in TFA typically involves integrat- ing a high-achieving college-educated adult into a pre- dominantly poor and minority neighborhood to teach THE PROMISE OF CIVILIAN NATIONAL for two years.Does this type of service-oriented con- SERVICE tact that occurs between an advantaged group with a disadvantaged population result in added perspective- Civilian national service programs have aspired not taking and prejudice reduction? only to benefit the populations they serve,but to in Extant research has shown that intergroup contact fluence the beliefs,values.and careers of those that does not always foster bridge-building.In fact.contact serve,through prolonged meaningful contact with vul- can lead to greater polarization.In the face of eco- nerable populations and a social ill.The hope is that nomic class heterogeneity,advantaged high-income in- when advantaged citizens work with disadvantaged cit- dividuals are more likely to uphold a meritocratic ide- izens to advance their well-being,they will become bet- ology than those residing in more economically ho- ter able to understand the perspective and life situ- mogeneous contexts,and believe that their hard work ations of the marginalized.William James (1910),for rather than luck and privilege facilitated their more one,argued that national service could serve the inter- ideal circumstance (Newman.Johnston.and Lown ests of a healthy nation calling for universal national 2015).Meanwhile,disadvantaged low-income individ- service to form“the moral equivalent of war'”to“re- uals who see inequality are more likely to reject mer- deem the society from a dull existence built upon a itocratic ideology.In other words,intergroup proxim- pleasure economy'of insipid consumerism."He de- ity along economic lines has been found to lead to scribed the youths of a "pleasure economy"in peace- contrasting views around fairness and the justness of time as "gilded youths,"and argued that they ought to the status quo by income status,increasing class-based be "drafted off"to do some form of civilian national polarization.Similarly,previous research on "racial service "to get the childishness knocked out of them, threat"(e.g.,Key 1949;Blalock 1967;Goldman and and to come back into society with healthier sympa- Hopkins 2015)suggests that concentrated geographic thies and soberer ideas."His essay rallied Americans racial diversity can catalyze more negative racial atti- behind service in the interest of the nation,ultimately tudes.Putnam(2000)found that virtually all measures contributing to the creation of organized national ser- of civic health(e.g.,voting,volunteering,and trust)are vice like depression-era Civilian Conservation Corps, lower in more diverse settings.What emerged in more and later,the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps. racially diverse communities was an unpropitious pic- Subsequent studies of national service and small- ture of civic desolation,negatively affecting everything scale service learning programs provide preliminary from political engagement to the state of social ties. 四 indications that national service can.in fact,trigger But,under the right circumstances,intergroup con "healthier sympathies and soberer ideas."Numerous tact can accomplish a great deal in fostering un- descriptive and qualitative explorations of service pro- derstanding and prejudice reduction.Early studies grams have found suggestive evidence that service on desegregation revealed encouraging trends.After learning results in heightened social awareness(Con- the U.S.military began desegregating,Brophy (1945) way,Amel,and Gerwien 2009:Yorio and Ye 2012) found that the more deployments white seamen had increased amity toward the community they service with black seamen,the more positive their racial atti- (Lee et al.2007;Seider,Gillmor,and Rabinowicz 2012). tudes became.Similarly,white police officers who had reduced reliance on stereotypes about marginalized worked with black police officers later objected less groups(Greene 1995),and higher appreciation for di- to teaming with and taking orders from black officers versity and tolerance (Astin and Sax 1998;Primavera (Kephart 1957). 723
When Do the Advantaged See the Disadvantages of Others? system are crucial, as people who believe the criminal justice system to be unfair tend to evaluate the entire political system more negatively (Lind and Tyler 1988). Attitudes regarding the economic realm are deeply intertwined with racial attitudes in the United States. Since the mid-1960s, the coverage of poverty in the media has strengthened the association of racial minorities with the “undeserving poor” (Gilens 1999). As a result, Americans have increasingly viewed poverty through a racial lens (Gilens 2003). Indeed,many white Americans perceive poor individuals as members of a different group than themselves, creating the perception of the poor as “others,” rather than as in-group members (Alesina, Glaeser, and Sacerdote 2001). As such, when considering the opinions of advantaged Americans about economic position and class, race is often consciously or unconsciously part of their calculations. In other words, any inquiry about the advantaged and disadvantaged socioeconomic segments of our population must examine racial animus. THE PROMISE OF CIVILIAN NATIONAL SERVICE Civilian national service programs have aspired not only to benefit the populations they serve, but to influence the beliefs, values, and careers of those that serve, through prolonged meaningful contact with vulnerable populations and a social ill. The hope is that when advantaged citizens work with disadvantaged citizens to advance their well-being, they will become better able to understand the perspective and life situations of the marginalized. William James (1910), for one, argued that national service could serve the interests of a healthy nation calling for universal national service to form “the moral equivalent of war” to “redeem the society from a dull existence built upon a ‘pleasure economy’ of insipid consumerism.” He described the youths of a “pleasure economy” in peacetime as “gilded youths,” and argued that they ought to be “drafted off” to do some form of civilian national service “to get the childishness knocked out of them, and to come back into society with healthier sympathies and soberer ideas.” His essay rallied Americans behind service in the interest of the nation, ultimately contributing to the creation of organized national service like depression-era Civilian Conservation Corps, and later, the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps. Subsequent studies of national service and smallscale service learning programs provide preliminary indications that national service can, in fact, trigger “healthier sympathies and soberer ideas.” Numerous descriptive and qualitative explorations of service programs have found suggestive evidence that service learning results in heightened social awareness (Conway, Amel, and Gerwien 2009; Yorio and Ye 2012), increased amity toward the community they service (Lee et al.2007; Seider,Gillmor, and Rabinowicz 2012), reduced reliance on stereotypes about marginalized groups (Greene 1995), and higher appreciation for diversity and tolerance (Astin and Sax 1998; Primavera 1999). Relative to AmeriCorps volunteers, specifically, Einfeld and Collins (2008) argue that not only did many participants increase their awareness of inequality but they also developed increased empathy, attachment, trust, and respect for those they worked with. Similarly, Giles and Eyler (1994) observed that participants of a college service program became less likely to “blame social service clients for their misfortunes,” and more likely to stress a need for equal opportunity (p. 327). THE POTENTIAL OF EXTENDED CONTEXTUALIZED INTERGROUP CONTACT A crucial mechanism by which many nonmilitary national service programs purport to foster understanding, tolerance, and bridge-building is intergroup contact between advantaged and disadvantaged communities. Service in TFA typically involves integrating a high-achieving college-educated adult into a predominantly poor and minority neighborhood to teach for two years. Does this type of service-oriented contact that occurs between an advantaged group with a disadvantaged population result in added perspectivetaking and prejudice reduction? Extant research has shown that intergroup contact does not always foster bridge-building. In fact, contact can lead to greater polarization. In the face of economic class heterogeneity, advantaged high-income individuals are more likely to uphold a meritocratic ideology than those residing in more economically homogeneous contexts, and believe that their hard work rather than luck and privilege facilitated their more ideal circumstance (Newman, Johnston, and Lown 2015). Meanwhile, disadvantaged low-income individuals who see inequality are more likely to reject meritocratic ideology. In other words, intergroup proximity along economic lines has been found to lead to contrasting views around fairness and the justness of the status quo by income status, increasing class-based polarization. Similarly, previous research on “racial threat” (e.g., Key 1949; Blalock 1967; Goldman and Hopkins 2015) suggests that concentrated geographic racial diversity can catalyze more negative racial attitudes. Putnam (2000) found that virtually all measures of civic health (e.g., voting, volunteering, and trust) are lower in more diverse settings. What emerged in more racially diverse communities was an unpropitious picture of civic desolation, negatively affecting everything from political engagement to the state of social ties. But, under the right circumstances, intergroup contact can accomplish a great deal in fostering understanding and prejudice reduction. Early studies on desegregation revealed encouraging trends. After the U.S. military began desegregating, Brophy (1945) found that the more deployments white seamen had with black seamen, the more positive their racial attitudes became. Similarly, white police officers who had worked with black police officers later objected less to teaming with and taking orders from black officers (Kephart 1957). 723 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Shanghai JiaoTong University, on 26 Oct 2018 at 03:53:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000412
Cecilia Hyunjung Mo and Katharine M.Conn While the formulation of intergroup contact the- rect contact)-which allows for personal relationships ory in Allport (1954)has inspired extensive research to form-as well as the duration of exposure (contact over the past half century to determine whether inter- over time),as prolonged contact allows for greater op- group contact can increase perspective-taking and re- portunities for individuals to learn about the out-group. duce intergroup prejudice,it is perhaps not surprising change their own behavior,develop affective ties,and that the effects of contact have been mixed given the re-appraise their in-group(Pettigrew 1998).Theoreti- range of what "contact"can mean (Amir 1969;Ford cally,greater perspective-taking toward disadvantaged 1986;Hopkins,Reicher,and Levine 1997;McClendon Americans could take hold when advantaged Amer- 1974).So what are the conditions for propitious inter- icans "walk a mile in someone else's shoes"rather group contact?Allport's (1954)formulation of inter- than a meager step by having extended and meaningful group contact theory maintained that ideal contact be- interactions with disadvantaged Americans.The TFA tween groups requires four optimal conditions:equal two-year service experience,in which the participant is status between the groups within the situation;com- tasked to interact with the "out-group"as a full-time mon goals;intergroup cooperation;and support of au- teacher in their school meets both criteria of poten- thorities,law,or custom.National service programs like tially cohesion-enhancing intergroup contact:duration TFA foster contact that largely meet these conditions. and depth. With an aim to assist communities in need,the goals Additionally,the particular context in which inter- of participants are not in conflict with the goals of the group contact occurs matters profoundly.Institutional community members,and there is no intergroup com- and societal norms structure the form and impacts of petition.As evident in the history of prominent na- contact situations (Kinloch 1981,1991).Indeed,All- tional service programs like the Peace Corps,TFA,and port(1954)noted the importance of a supportive en- AmeriCorps,national service programs are supported vironment in which there is authority sanction and a by political elites,the law,and custom.One might argue cooperative context.For instance,consider the effects that the status between groups is not necessarily equal of living in a racially mixed neighborhood in South as the advantaged group could be in a position of au- Africa with the apartheid policy of racial segregation. thority (e.g.,teachers)in relation to the disadvantaged The context of state-condoned systemic discrimination population(e.g.,students and their parents).However, was found to poison intergroup contact,as interactions Allport emphasized status within situations as opposed between white and black South Africans were neither to status generally.In a national service context,par- cooperative nor discouraged (Russell 1961).Beyond ticipants of the program are evaluated based upon the a context of cooperation and authority sanction,what conditions of the community they are serving.As such. if contact with the out-group occurred with a service- participants may not view themselves as having higher orientation toward the out-group?Consider the ef- status within the service situation.With that said fects of contact between nurses and patients in hospi contact theory research suggests that while Allport's tals that not only condone but commit to serving low- scope conditions facilitate prejudice reduction,all of income communities.Redman and Clark(2016)exam- them are by no means necessary(Pettigrew and Tropp ined the case of preservice nurses in low-income areas 2006). and observed that as these nurses interacted with low- Meta-analyses on intergroup contact has highlighted income individuals in the context of being a service the import of Allport's scope conditions(Paluck and provider,they critically reflected on the social justice is- Green 2009:Paluck.Green.and Green 2018):however. sues of their patient population and "began to grapple are there other conditions that could help foster op- with causes and explanations of the disproportionate timal intergroup contact?Two additional conditions share of social and health risks concentrated in par- that have the potential to increase the likelihood of en- ticular segments of society";they thus "experienced" gendering empathy and reducing prejudice are as fol- rather than solely "intellectualized"inequality and so- lows:(1)extended contact with regards to duration and cial injustice(p.446).As such,it matters if intergroup depth and(2)contact within a service context. contact occurs in a setting where both the structures Research examining the potency of cross-group in which people are disadvantaged and remain disad- friendships in reducing prejudice demands a fifth con- vantaged are more likely to be visible to the advan- dition for the contact hypothesis:the contact situa- taged,and the social norms in which the interaction oc- tion must provide participants with the opportunity to curs have a mission to help advance the disadvantaged form an intimate relationship,like friendship.Living in out-group. a neighborhood with an out-group member that one Deep prolonged contact,which is contextualized might bump into is quite different from contact with a in a service context where inequality is a salient roommate or workmate with whom you have to reg- problem that needs to be tackled,can lead to en- ularly interact.Having an opportunity to closely see hanced understanding that has advantaged individu- the life of an individual and their families,hear their als see the world more through the lens of the dis- stories,and develop a causal understanding of their advantaged segment of society.We hereafter refer life history can be a more powerful form of contact to this form of context as extended contextualized (Amir 1976;Patchen 1999;Pettigrew 1998;Pettigrew intergroup contact.Extant research on perspective- and Tropp 2006).Contact with diversity has been found taking over the last five decades indicates that to be a more positive and cohesion-enhancing experi- perspective-taking translates to real shifts in atti- ence with both greater depth of exposure(regular di- tudes and beliefs,as "the representation of the 724
Cecilia Hyunjung Mo and Katharine M. Conn While the formulation of intergroup contact theory in Allport (1954) has inspired extensive research over the past half century to determine whether intergroup contact can increase perspective-taking and reduce intergroup prejudice, it is perhaps not surprising that the effects of contact have been mixed given the range of what “contact” can mean (Amir 1969; Ford 1986; Hopkins, Reicher, and Levine 1997; McClendon 1974). So what are the conditions for propitious intergroup contact? Allport’s (1954) formulation of intergroup contact theory maintained that ideal contact between groups requires four optimal conditions: equal status between the groups within the situation; common goals; intergroup cooperation; and support of authorities,law, or custom. National service programs like TFA foster contact that largely meet these conditions. With an aim to assist communities in need, the goals of participants are not in conflict with the goals of the community members, and there is no intergroup competition. As evident in the history of prominent national service programs like the Peace Corps, TFA, and AmeriCorps, national service programs are supported by political elites, the law, and custom.One might argue that the status between groups is not necessarily equal, as the advantaged group could be in a position of authority (e.g., teachers) in relation to the disadvantaged population (e.g., students and their parents). However, Allport emphasized status within situations as opposed to status generally. In a national service context, participants of the program are evaluated based upon the conditions of the community they are serving. As such, participants may not view themselves as having higher status within the service situation. With that said, contact theory research suggests that while Allport’s scope conditions facilitate prejudice reduction, all of them are by no means necessary (Pettigrew and Tropp 2006). Meta-analyses on intergroup contact has highlighted the import of Allport’s scope conditions (Paluck and Green 2009; Paluck, Green, and Green 2018); however, are there other conditions that could help foster optimal intergroup contact? Two additional conditions that have the potential to increase the likelihood of engendering empathy and reducing prejudice are as follows: (1) extended contact with regards to duration and depth and (2) contact within a service context. Research examining the potency of cross-group friendships in reducing prejudice demands a fifth condition for the contact hypothesis: the contact situation must provide participants with the opportunity to form an intimate relationship, like friendship. Living in a neighborhood with an out-group member that one might bump into is quite different from contact with a roommate or workmate with whom you have to regularly interact. Having an opportunity to closely see the life of an individual and their families, hear their stories, and develop a causal understanding of their life history can be a more powerful form of contact (Amir 1976; Patchen 1999; Pettigrew 1998; Pettigrew and Tropp 2006).Contact with diversity has been found to be a more positive and cohesion-enhancing experience with both greater depth of exposure (regular direct contact)—which allows for personal relationships to form—as well as the duration of exposure (contact over time), as prolonged contact allows for greater opportunities for individuals to learn about the out-group, change their own behavior, develop affective ties, and re-appraise their in-group (Pettigrew 1998). Theoretically, greater perspective-taking toward disadvantaged Americans could take hold when advantaged Americans “walk a mile in someone else’s shoes” rather than a meager step by having extended and meaningful interactions with disadvantaged Americans. The TFA two-year service experience, in which the participant is tasked to interact with the “out-group” as a full-time teacher in their school meets both criteria of potentially cohesion-enhancing intergroup contact: duration and depth. Additionally, the particular context in which intergroup contact occurs matters profoundly. Institutional and societal norms structure the form and impacts of contact situations (Kinloch 1981, 1991). Indeed, Allport (1954) noted the importance of a supportive environment in which there is authority sanction and a cooperative context. For instance, consider the effects of living in a racially mixed neighborhood in South Africa with the apartheid policy of racial segregation. The context of state-condoned systemic discrimination was found to poison intergroup contact, as interactions between white and black South Africans were neither cooperative nor discouraged (Russell 1961). Beyond a context of cooperation and authority sanction, what if contact with the out-group occurred with a serviceorientation toward the out-group? Consider the effects of contact between nurses and patients in hospitals that not only condone but commit to serving lowincome communities. Redman and Clark (2016) examined the case of preservice nurses in low-income areas and observed that as these nurses interacted with lowincome individuals in the context of being a service provider, they critically reflected on the social justice issues of their patient population and “began to grapple with causes and explanations of the disproportionate share of social and health risks concentrated in particular segments of society”; they thus “experienced” rather than solely “intellectualized” inequality and social injustice (p. 446). As such, it matters if intergroup contact occurs in a setting where both the structures in which people are disadvantaged and remain disadvantaged are more likely to be visible to the advantaged, and the social norms in which the interaction occurs have a mission to help advance the disadvantaged out-group. Deep prolonged contact, which is contextualized in a service context where inequality is a salient problem that needs to be tackled, can lead to enhanced understanding that has advantaged individuals see the world more through the lens of the disadvantaged segment of society. We hereafter refer to this form of context as extended contextualized intergroup contact. Extant research on perspectivetaking over the last five decades indicates that perspective-taking translates to real shifts in attitudes and beliefs, as “the representation of the 724 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Shanghai JiaoTong University, on 26 Oct 2018 at 03:53:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000412
When Do the Advantaged See the Disadvantages of Others? target comes to resemble the perspective-taker's own THE CASE OF TEACH FOR AMERICA self-representation"(Galinsky and Moskowitz 2000. p.709).Namely,perspective-takers make the same at- TFA is a prominent civilian national service program, tributions for others that they would have made if they established in 1990 with a mission "to enlist,develop had found themselves in that situation.In this study,the and mobilize as many as possible of our nation's most perspective-takers"are advantaged Americans and promising future leaders to grow and strengthen the the“targets"”are disadvantaged Americans.. movement for educational equity and excellence.'4 While extended contextualized intergroup contact TFA was created with a two-pronged theory of change is with a set of individuals,perspective-taking gener- In the short-term,TFA aspires for its teachers or corps alizes to an entire out-group.Specifically,contact that members to affect positive change in the classroom in leads to more positive evaluations of individuals one their two years of service.In the longer term,TFA as- interacts with leads to more positive evaluations of pires for its corps members to be so transformed by those individuals'most salient group category (e.g., their experiences in the classroom that they would lead racial group and class).According to rich research on systemic change from their positions of power after perspective-taking,these positive evaluations include their service in TFA (Foote 2008).In 1993.TFA be a decrease in the denial of discrimination,which is the came a charter program of AmeriCorps,an organiza- tendency to believe that intergroup disparities do not tion created by the federal government to expand na- stem from institutional and individual-level discrimi tional service,and in 2004.TFA began receiving direct nation (Todd,Bodenhausen,and Galinsky 2012),en- appropriations from the federal government.Over the gendering more positive attitudes toward social policy last 25 years,more than 50,000 Americans have par- designed to redress intergroup inequalities.Given the ticipated in TFA,working with 10 million children in target group becomes more "selflike"with enhanced 52 regions within 36 states.And TFA has become an perspective-taking,there should also be a reduction attractive opportunity for recent college graduates and in "actor-observer bias"-a tendency to attribute one's one of the most visible national service programs;over 4号 own actions to the particular situation and attribute an- 50,000 individuals applied to TFA's 2015 corps alone. other person's actions to the actor's overall disposition At more than 130 U.S.colleges and universities,over 5 rather than to situational factors (Jones and Nisbett percent of the senior class applied to TFA. 1971).Thus,if perspective-taking occurs,the following TFA is a strong case to consider the effects of two predictions should come into fruition. nonmilitary national service on perspective-taking be- Prediction 1:Decrease in"denial of discrimination" tween advantaged and disadvantaged communities for increasing perceptions of injustice.Extended contextu- a number of reasons.First,TFA attracts a large group alized intergroup contact through national service will of high socioeconomic status Americans.A college de- cause advantaged Americans to question the fairness gree is an eligibility requirement to join TFA.7 With of the status quo and see economic,political,and social only 34 percent of Americans holding a college de- systems as more unfair. gree (DOE 2014),TFA admits can be considered ad- Prediction 2:Decrease in "actor-observer bias"en- vantaged members of America's social fabric from the hancing perceptions of out-group victimization.Ex- fact that they are all college graduates.TFA admits tended contextualized intergroup contact through na- can also be considered advantaged as most participants tional service will cause advantaged Americans to shift have college-educated parents (93 percent of alumni their beliefs for why low-income individuals and racial survey respondents),and educational attainment is a minorities are in a lower socioeconomic position to key factor in the reproduction of socioeconomic in- 8 be more external.Participants will increase their focus equality (Black.Devereux.and Salvanes 2005:Rouse on structuralistic as opposed to individualistic explana- and Kane 1995).Over 80 percent of our alumni survey tions of poverty. respondents are from the middle or upper economic Additionally,if there is greater perspective-taking class,with nearly half noting they are at least from the then prejudice reduction should also take hold.An upper middle class.Moreover,64.2 percent are white increase in perspective-taking for a particular group and to the extent that "white privilege"exists (Roith- is a meaningful mechanism by which prejudice for mayr 2014),this is another indicator that the average that particular group declines (Pettigrew and Tropp TFA participant is part of a more advantaged class. 2008).Moreover,in viewing an out-group in more "selflike"terms,increased perspective-taking should 四 translate to increased identification with the targeted 4 Source:www.teachforamerica.org/about-us/our-mission(accessed out-group (Todd,Bodenhausen,and Galinsky 2012). March 27 2016). As such,if predictions 1 and 2 hold,we should see the Source: www.teachforamerica.org/about-us/annual-report (ac following. cessed February 19,2016). Source: www.teachforamerica.org/sites/default/files/2012-13 Prediction 3:Decrease in prejudice and increase in Press_Kit_Updated_06_19_12.pdf(accessed October 1,2017). identification with the out-group.Extended contextu- Source: www.teachforamerica.org/teach-with-tfa/tfa-and-you/ alized intergroup contact through national service will applicant-prerequisites(accessed March 72016). cause advantaged individuals to have decreased lev- TFA participants are advantaged on several dimensions;however, els of prejudice and increased levels of positive af- TFA is not a monolithic organization with regards to race and class,and diversity is a core value of TFA.Source:https://www fect toward the disadvantaged groups with which they teachforamerica.org/about-us/our-story/our-values (accessed Octo- interact. ber1,2017). 725
When Do the Advantaged See the Disadvantages of Others? target comes to resemble the perspective-taker’s own self-representation” (Galinsky and Moskowitz 2000, p. 709). Namely, perspective-takers make the same attributions for others that they would have made if they had found themselves in that situation. In this study, the “perspective-takers” are advantaged Americans and the “targets” are disadvantaged Americans. While extended contextualized intergroup contact is with a set of individuals, perspective-taking generalizes to an entire out-group. Specifically, contact that leads to more positive evaluations of individuals one interacts with leads to more positive evaluations of those individuals’ most salient group category (e.g., racial group and class). According to rich research on perspective-taking, these positive evaluations include a decrease in the denial of discrimination, which is the tendency to believe that intergroup disparities do not stem from institutional and individual-level discrimination (Todd, Bodenhausen, and Galinsky 2012), engendering more positive attitudes toward social policy designed to redress intergroup inequalities. Given the target group becomes more “selflike” with enhanced perspective-taking, there should also be a reduction in “actor-observer bias”—a tendency to attribute one’s own actions to the particular situation and attribute another person’s actions to the actor’s overall disposition rather than to situational factors (Jones and Nisbett 1971). Thus, if perspective-taking occurs, the following two predictions should come into fruition. Prediction 1: Decrease in “denial of discrimination” increasing perceptions of injustice. Extended contextualized intergroup contact through national service will cause advantaged Americans to question the fairness of the status quo and see economic, political, and social systems as more unfair. Prediction 2: Decrease in “actor-observer bias” enhancing perceptions of out-group victimization. Extended contextualized intergroup contact through national service will cause advantaged Americans to shift their beliefs for why low-income individuals and racial minorities are in a lower socioeconomic position to be more external. Participants will increase their focus on structuralistic as opposed to individualistic explanations of poverty. Additionally, if there is greater perspective-taking, then prejudice reduction should also take hold. An increase in perspective-taking for a particular group is a meaningful mechanism by which prejudice for that particular group declines (Pettigrew and Tropp 2008). Moreover, in viewing an out-group in more “selflike” terms, increased perspective-taking should translate to increased identification with the targeted out-group (Todd, Bodenhausen, and Galinsky 2012). As such, if predictions 1 and 2 hold, we should see the following. Prediction 3: Decrease in prejudice and increase in identification with the out-group. Extended contextualized intergroup contact through national service will cause advantaged individuals to have decreased levels of prejudice and increased levels of positive affect toward the disadvantaged groups with which they interact. THE CASE OF TEACH FOR AMERICA TFA is a prominent civilian national service program, established in 1990 with a mission “to enlist, develop, and mobilize as many as possible of our nation’s most promising future leaders to grow and strengthen the movement for educational equity and excellence.”4 TFA was created with a two-pronged theory of change. In the short-term, TFA aspires for its teachers or corps members to affect positive change in the classroom in their two years of service. In the longer term, TFA aspires for its corps members to be so transformed by their experiences in the classroom that they would lead systemic change from their positions of power after their service in TFA (Foote 2008). In 1993, TFA became a charter program of AmeriCorps, an organization created by the federal government to expand national service, and in 2004, TFA began receiving direct appropriations from the federal government. Over the last 25 years, more than 50,000 Americans have participated in TFA, working with 10 million children in 52 regions within 36 states. And TFA has become an attractive opportunity for recent college graduates and one of the most visible national service programs; over 50,000 individuals applied to TFA’s 2015 corps alone.5 At more than 130 U.S. colleges and universities, over 5 percent of the senior class applied to TFA.6 TFA is a strong case to consider the effects of nonmilitary national service on perspective-taking between advantaged and disadvantaged communities for a number of reasons. First, TFA attracts a large group of high socioeconomic status Americans. A college degree is an eligibility requirement to join TFA.7 With only 34 percent of Americans holding a college degree (DOE 2014), TFA admits can be considered advantaged members of America’s social fabric from the fact that they are all college graduates. TFA admits can also be considered advantaged as most participants have college-educated parents (93 percent of alumni survey respondents), and educational attainment is a key factor in the reproduction of socioeconomic inequality (Black, Devereux, and Salvanes 2005; Rouse and Kane 1995). Over 80 percent of our alumni survey respondents are from the middle or upper economic class, with nearly half noting they are at least from the upper middle class. Moreover, 64.2 percent are white, and to the extent that “white privilege” exists (Roithmayr 2014), this is another indicator that the average TFA participant is part of a more advantaged class.8 4 Source: www.teachforamerica.org/about-us/our-mission (accessed March 27, 2016). 5 Source: www.teachforamerica.org/about-us/annual-report (accessed February 19, 2016). 6 Source: www.teachforamerica.org/sites/default/files/2012-13_ Press_Kit_Updated_06_19_12.pdf (accessed October 1, 2017). 7 Source: www.teachforamerica.org/teach-with-tfa/tfa-and-you/ applicant-prerequisites (accessed March 7, 2016). 8 TFA participants are advantaged on several dimensions; however, TFA is not a monolithic organization with regards to race and class, and diversity is a core value of TFA. Source: https://www. teachforamerica.org/about-us/our-story/our-values (accessed October 1, 2017). 725 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Shanghai JiaoTong University, on 26 Oct 2018 at 03:53:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000412
Cecilia Hyunjung Mo and Katharine M.Conn Second,TFA places their participants in the lowest decision,matriculation decision,placement informa- income schools in America.Over 80 percent of the stu- tion,and demographic characteristics),and we utilize dents taught by TFA corps members qualify for free this information for all applicants who made it to the or reduced-price lunch(FRPL)and are either African final round of interviews in the application process for American or Hispanic.The socioeconomic make-up the 2007-2015 application cycles.While over 380,000 of the student population is intentional,as TFA seeks applied to TFA during this period,we restrict our fo- "partnership with communities where there is a dispar- cus to the third of applicants who were finalists for ad- ity in educational opportunity along lines of race and mission,and hence,at least close to being admitted. class,"and all partner schools have "at least 60 per- This amounts to a sample size of 120,417 Our primary cent of students eligible for FRPL,a common proxy focus is on alumni starting from the 2007 cohort be- for need."10 cause a selection process that involved the creation of Third,extended contextualized intergroup contact an admission cutoff score was instituted in 2007 Since between advantaged and disadvantaged populations at the time of data collection,the 2014 and 2015 cohorts occurs.As full-time teachers charged to help address were still participating in TFA,they have not fully been education inequality for two years,TFA corps mem- "treated,"and are excluded from the main analyses.For bers are actively in contact with low-income students the 2007 to 2013 cohorts,we have data on 91,752 appli- and their families for an extended period.Participants cants(see Online Appendix A for a detailed descrip- have the opportunity to view their students'well-being tion of the final sample size). and level of achievement in light of their familial, school,community,and societal context,which gives them a more nuanced view of the realities under Survey Data which systemic inequalities might form.Moreover. their interactions with disadvantaged communities Data Collection.On October 1.2015.we emailed ap plicants invitations to participate in an online survey. are contextualized within a social and institutional The survey stayed active for six months,closing on service context to advance the economic success of March 31,2016.12 Of the 91,752 TFA applicants from low-income students. the 2007-2013 cohorts that were targeted,272 at least Finally.TFA is nearly ideal from the standpoint of started the survey and 21.1 percent completed the sur- teasing out causality.In 2007 TFA instituted a selection vey.13 Among the 31,376 TFA alumni(2007-2013 corps process with a cutoff threshold that enables us to im- members),33.8 percent at least started the survey and plement a quasi-experimental regression discontinuity 271 percent completed the survey.Of the 60,376 ap- analysis.Our identification strategy exploits the fact plicants who did not participate in TFA,23.8 percent that TFA admission is a discontinuous function of an at least started the survey and 179 percent finished the applicant's selection score,which represents TFA's as- survey.The survey completion response rate(AAPOR sessment of how effective the applicant will be in the RR1 response rate)and partial response rate(AAPOR classroom.The ability to leverage a selection process RR2 response rate)information by application cycle that enables causal inference.coupled with the visibil- are shown in Figure A.1a and Figure A.1b in Online ity and attractiveness of TFA as a national service pro- Appendix A,respectively.There are no notable differ- gram for advantaged individuals to come into extended ences in response rates by application year. S5.501g contextualized intergroup contact with disadvantaged The average participant in our survey is 29 years individuals,makes TFA a strong case to consider in this old,has a college GPA of 3.52,and went to a selec- study tive undergraduate school (see Table B.2 in Online Ap- pendix B).A minority received a Pell Grant in college DATA AND MEASUREMENT (31.0 percent).Approximately 70 percent of the study sample are female (72.5 percent)and white(69.8 per- TFA selection data and an original national survey of cent),and 94.1 percent of study participants have par- TFA applicants are employed to test our predictions. ents with a post-secondary education.Over half of the Exact question wordings and coding schemes of each participants identify with a religion(58.1 percent).and of our measures are provided in Online Appendix F. nearly half of the study participants are upper class Unless noted otherwise,questions were recoded to be or upper middle class Americans (49.0 percent).Al- between 0 and 1 so that treatment effects can be inter- laying concerns of survey response bias,we find that preted in percentage point terms. our participant population is generally representative of the overall TFA applicant population that made it to the final stage of the application process on each of Selection Data TFA maintains detailed selection data (e.g.,contact in- 11 We used email addresses that applicants provided during the ap. formation,application year,selection score,admissions plication process.We did not update email addresses for alumn based on TFA records to ensure that we did not have fewer invalid emails for alumni. 12 Participants received uptoeight email reminders regarding survey 9 Source:Teach For America's "School and Student Demographics participation,and incentives were offered to increase response rates 2014-2015." see Online Appendix G for additional details) 10 Source:www.teachforamerica.org/tfa-on-the-record/responses/ Among applicants for the 2014 and 2015 cohorts,26.8 percent at april-22-2014-nation (accessed March 18,2016). least started the survey,and 19.4 percent completed the survey. 726
Cecilia Hyunjung Mo and Katharine M. Conn Second, TFA places their participants in the lowest income schools in America. Over 80 percent of the students taught by TFA corps members qualify for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) and are either African American or Hispanic.9 The socioeconomic make-up of the student population is intentional, as TFA seeks “partnership with communities where there is a disparity in educational opportunity along lines of race and class,” and all partner schools have “at least 60 percent of students eligible for FRPL, a common proxy for need.”10 Third, extended contextualized intergroup contact between advantaged and disadvantaged populations occurs. As full-time teachers charged to help address education inequality for two years, TFA corps members are actively in contact with low-income students and their families for an extended period. Participants have the opportunity to view their students’ well-being and level of achievement in light of their familial, school, community, and societal context, which gives them a more nuanced view of the realities under which systemic inequalities might form. Moreover, their interactions with disadvantaged communities are contextualized within a social and institutional service context to advance the economic success of low-income students. Finally, TFA is nearly ideal from the standpoint of teasing out causality. In 2007, TFA instituted a selection process with a cutoff threshold that enables us to implement a quasi-experimental regression discontinuity analysis. Our identification strategy exploits the fact that TFA admission is a discontinuous function of an applicant’s selection score, which represents TFA’s assessment of how effective the applicant will be in the classroom. The ability to leverage a selection process that enables causal inference, coupled with the visibility and attractiveness of TFA as a national service program for advantaged individuals to come into extended contextualized intergroup contact with disadvantaged individuals,makes TFA a strong case to consider in this study. DATA AND MEASUREMENT TFA selection data and an original national survey of TFA applicants are employed to test our predictions. Exact question wordings and coding schemes of each of our measures are provided in Online Appendix F. Unless noted otherwise, questions were recoded to be between 0 and 1 so that treatment effects can be interpreted in percentage point terms. Selection Data TFA maintains detailed selection data (e.g., contact information, application year, selection score, admissions 9 Source: Teach For America’s “School and Student Demographics 2014–2015.” 10 Source: www.teachforamerica.org/tfa-on-the-record/responses/ april-22-2014-nation (accessed March 18, 2016). decision, matriculation decision, placement information, and demographic characteristics), and we utilize this information for all applicants who made it to the final round of interviews in the application process for the 2007–2015 application cycles. While over 380,000 applied to TFA during this period, we restrict our focus to the third of applicants who were finalists for admission, and hence, at least close to being admitted. This amounts to a sample size of 120,417. Our primary focus is on alumni starting from the 2007 cohort because a selection process that involved the creation of an admission cutoff score was instituted in 2007. Since at the time of data collection, the 2014 and 2015 cohorts were still participating in TFA, they have not fully been “treated,” and are excluded from the main analyses.For the 2007 to 2013 cohorts, we have data on 91,752 applicants (see Online Appendix A for a detailed description of the final sample size). Survey Data Data Collection. On October 1, 2015, we emailed applicants invitations to participate in an online survey.11 The survey stayed active for six months, closing on March 31, 2016.12 Of the 91,752 TFA applicants from the 2007–2013 cohorts that were targeted, 27.2 at least started the survey and 21.1 percent completed the survey.13 Among the 31,376 TFA alumni (2007–2013 corps members), 33.8 percent at least started the survey and 27.1 percent completed the survey. Of the 60,376 applicants who did not participate in TFA, 23.8 percent at least started the survey and 17.9 percent finished the survey. The survey completion response rate (AAPOR RR1 response rate) and partial response rate (AAPOR RR2 response rate) information by application cycle are shown in Figure A.1a and Figure A.1b in Online Appendix A, respectively. There are no notable differences in response rates by application year. The average participant in our survey is 29 years old, has a college GPA of 3.52, and went to a selective undergraduate school (see Table B.2 in Online Appendix B). A minority received a Pell Grant in college (31.0 percent). Approximately 70 percent of the study sample are female (72.5 percent) and white (69.8 percent), and 94.1 percent of study participants have parents with a post-secondary education. Over half of the participants identify with a religion (58.1 percent), and nearly half of the study participants are upper class or upper middle class Americans (49.0 percent). Allaying concerns of survey response bias, we find that our participant population is generally representative of the overall TFA applicant population that made it to the final stage of the application process on each of 11 We used email addresses that applicants provided during the application process. We did not update email addresses for alumni based on TFA records to ensure that we did not have fewer invalid emails for alumni. 12 Participants received up to eight email reminders regarding survey participation, and incentives were offered to increase response rates (see Online Appendix G for additional details). 13 Among applicants for the 2014 and 2015 cohorts, 26.8 percent at least started the survey, and 19.4 percent completed the survey. 726 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Shanghai JiaoTong University, on 26 Oct 2018 at 03:53:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000412
When Do the Advantaged See the Disadvantages of Others? the demographic characteristic in the application file, effort or the system,we assessed three questions.We apart from race,alongside selection score and appli- measured beliefs on whether poor families do not value cation year.Our participant sample skews somewhat education as much as richer families,and whether sys- more white:however,the skew is similar for both our temic injustices perpetuating inequity throughout so- admitted and nonadmitted survey sample (see Online ciety"are contributors to the inequality in educational Appendix B for additional details). achievement in the US"(response options:0 not a contributor/does not occur->1=main contributor). Outcome Measurement.There are four batteries that were asked to capture whether there is enhanced Additionally,we assess the extent to which a respon- dent believes that "students from low income back perspective-taking for disadvantaged populations with grounds have the same educational opportunities as respect to class and race:(1)systemic injustice,(2) students from high income backgrounds"(response class-based injustice,(3)the relationship between class and education inequality,and(4)racial injustice.These options:0=strongly disagree1 strongly agree). Racial Injustice:The racial injustice battery included questions map onto our three predictions:(1)reduction four questions from the standard racial resentment or in“denial of discrimination,”(2)reduction in“actor symbolic racism measures forwarded by Kinder and observer bias,"and (3)reduction in prejudice levels and increased identification with disadvantaged popu- Sanders (1996)and Henry and Sears (2002).15 Addi- tionally,we asked"How much racial discrimination do lations.Table B.3 in Online Appendix B provides sum- mary statistics of each of our outcome measures.14 you feel there is in the US today,limiting the chances of Systemic Injustice:We measured attitudes around individuals from particular racial groups to get ahead?" systemic injustice with two measures from a political (response options:0 none at all 1 a great deal).We also considered an index of this discrimina support index(Booth and Seligson 2009)that assess tion measure and the four racial resentment measures, the level of respect an individual has for U.S.political institutions (response options:0=not at all1 =a which we refer to as the racial resentment index,given the Cronbach's alpha score is 0.86. lot)and the extent to which citizens'basic rights are We also asked a series of questions about the respon- protected by the U.S.political system (response op- dent's level of satisfaction with the treatment of each of tions:0=not at all-1 =a lot).We also consider an the of the following minority groups(response options: & index of these two measures(system support index);the Cronbach's alpha score is 0.71,which is acceptably high. 0=very dissatisfied-1 very satisfied):Asians,His- Class-Based Injustice:We considered four questions panics,blacks,Muslims and immigrants.We consider each measure separately,and as a simple index,which from the World Values Survey that center on blaming we refer to as the discrimination index given high in- those who are poor for being poor as opposed to an ternal consistency of these measures:the Cronbach's external entity (e.g.,government)or force (e.g.,misfor- alpha score is 0.85. tune or lack of fairness),which have been found to be Racial Prejudice:We employed two measures to cap- strongly predictive of support for government welfare policies(Alesina,Glaeser,and Sacerdote 2001).For in- ture prejudice.First,we implemented a skin-tone Im- plicit Association Test(IAT),a method for gauging un- stance,if people perceive the poor as lazy,then indi- viduals are less likely to support redistributive policies. conscious antipathy toward various groups.The IAT has commonly been used in psychology(Greenwald, Namely,we provided the respondent with four pairs of McGhee.and Schwartz 1998:Greenwald.Nosek.and statements and assess which statement in each pair in dividuals agree with more:(1)"We need larger income Banaji 2003),and increasingly in political science to predict political behavior (Arcuri et al.2008:Mo 2015) differences as incentives for individual effort"(coded and policy judgments (Malhotra,Margalit,and Mo as 0)versus "Incomes should be made more equal" 2013;Perez 2010).The IAT is a method designed to (coded as 1);(2)"People should take more responsi- bility to provide for themselves"(coded as 0)versus capture the strength of associations linking social cate- gories (dark skin color versus light skin color)to eval- 'Government should take more responsibility to en- sure that everyone is provided for"(coded as 1);(3) uative anchors (good versus bad). "In the long run,hard work usually brings a better life' The difference in categorization performance is ar- (coded as 0)versus "Hard work doesn't generally bring gued to capture"implicit"(system 1)attitudes that are success-it's more a matter of luck and connections automatic,as opposed to "explicit"(system 2)attitudes that are effortful and conscious(Kahneman 2003).The (coded as 1):and (4)"People are poor because of lazi- IAT effect is a D score,which ranges from-2 to 2, ness and lack of willpower"(coded as 0)versus"People where negative (positive)numbers indicate an implicit are poor because of an unfair society"(coded as 1).We bias favoring darker(lighter)skin tones over lighter also consider an index of these four measures,which (darker)skin-tones and 0 indicates neutrality (see On- we call the class-based injustice index:the Cronbach's alpha score is 0.77 line Appendix C for additional details on the IAT). Class-Based Education Inequality:To capture beliefs on whether education inequality is due to individual i5 We included a question on the extent to which respondents agree that black Americans have gotten less than they deserve;agree that black Americans should overcome prejudice without special favors; agree that it is really just a matter of black Americans working harder 14 Direct questions of whether a respondent feels increased to be just as well off as whites;and agree that slavery and discrimina- perspective-taking were not asked given social desirability bias con- tion has made it difficult for black Americans to work their way up siderations. (response options:0=strongly disagree1 strongly agree). 727
When Do the Advantaged See the Disadvantages of Others? the demographic characteristic in the application file, apart from race, alongside selection score and application year. Our participant sample skews somewhat more white; however, the skew is similar for both our admitted and nonadmitted survey sample (see Online Appendix B for additional details). Outcome Measurement. There are four batteries that were asked to capture whether there is enhanced perspective-taking for disadvantaged populations with respect to class and race: (1) systemic injustice, (2) class-based injustice, (3) the relationship between class and education inequality, and (4) racial injustice. These questions map onto our three predictions: (1) reduction in “denial of discrimination,” (2) reduction in “actorobserver bias,” and (3) reduction in prejudice levels and increased identification with disadvantaged populations. Table B.3 in Online Appendix B provides summary statistics of each of our outcome measures.14 Systemic Injustice: We measured attitudes around systemic injustice with two measures from a political support index (Booth and Seligson 2009) that assess the level of respect an individual has for U.S. political institutions (response options: 0 = not at all → 1 = a lot) and the extent to which citizens’ basic rights are protected by the U.S. political system (response options: 0 = not at all → 1 = a lot). We also consider an index of these two measures (system support index); the Cronbach’s alpha score is 0.71,which is acceptably high. Class-Based Injustice: We considered four questions from the World Values Survey that center on blaming those who are poor for being poor as opposed to an external entity (e.g., government) or force (e.g., misfortune or lack of fairness), which have been found to be strongly predictive of support for government welfare policies (Alesina,Glaeser, and Sacerdote 2001). For instance, if people perceive the poor as lazy, then individuals are less likely to support redistributive policies. Namely, we provided the respondent with four pairs of statements and assess which statement in each pair individuals agree with more: (1) “We need larger income differences as incentives for individual effort” (coded as 0) versus “Incomes should be made more equal” (coded as 1); (2) “People should take more responsibility to provide for themselves” (coded as 0) versus “Government should take more responsibility to ensure that everyone is provided for” (coded as 1); (3) “In the long run, hard work usually brings a better life” (coded as 0) versus “Hard work doesn’t generally bring success-it’s more a matter of luck and connections” (coded as 1); and (4) “People are poor because of laziness and lack of willpower” (coded as 0) versus “People are poor because of an unfair society” (coded as 1).We also consider an index of these four measures, which we call the class-based injustice index; the Cronbach’s alpha score is 0.77. Class-Based Education Inequality:To capture beliefs on whether education inequality is due to individual 14 Direct questions of whether a respondent feels increased perspective-taking were not asked given social desirability bias considerations. effort or the system, we assessed three questions. We measured beliefs on whether poor families do not value education as much as richer families, and whether systemic injustices perpetuating inequity throughout society “are contributors to the inequality in educational achievement in the US” (response options: 0 = not a contributor/does not occur → 1 = main contributor). Additionally, we assess the extent to which a respondent believes that “students from low income backgrounds have the same educational opportunities as students from high income backgrounds” (response options: 0 = strongly disagree → 1 = strongly agree). Racial Injustice: The racial injustice battery included four questions from the standard racial resentment or symbolic racism measures forwarded by Kinder and Sanders (1996) and Henry and Sears (2002).15 Additionally, we asked “How much racial discrimination do you feel there is in the US today,limiting the chances of individuals from particular racial groups to get ahead?” (response options: 0 = none at all → 1 = a great deal). We also considered an index of this discrimination measure and the four racial resentment measures, which we refer to as the racial resentment index, given the Cronbach’s alpha score is 0.86. We also asked a series of questions about the respondent’s level of satisfaction with the treatment of each of the of the following minority groups (response options: 0 = very dissatisfied → 1 = very satisfied): Asians, Hispanics, blacks, Muslims and immigrants. We consider each measure separately, and as a simple index, which we refer to as the discrimination index given high internal consistency of these measures; the Cronbach’s alpha score is 0.85. Racial Prejudice:We employed two measures to capture prejudice. First, we implemented a skin-tone Implicit Association Test (IAT), a method for gauging unconscious antipathy toward various groups. The IAT has commonly been used in psychology (Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwartz 1998; Greenwald, Nosek, and Banaji 2003), and increasingly in political science to predict political behavior (Arcuri et al. 2008; Mo 2015) and policy judgments (Malhotra, Margalit, and Mo 2013; Pérez 2010). The IAT is a method designed to capture the strength of associations linking social categories (dark skin color versus light skin color) to evaluative anchors (good versus bad). The difference in categorization performance is argued to capture “implicit” (system 1) attitudes that are automatic, as opposed to “explicit” (system 2) attitudes that are effortful and conscious (Kahneman 2003). The IAT effect is a D score, which ranges from −2 to 2, where negative (positive) numbers indicate an implicit bias favoring darker (lighter) skin tones over lighter (darker) skin-tones and 0 indicates neutrality (see Online Appendix C for additional details on the IAT). 15 We included a question on the extent to which respondents agree that black Americans have gotten less than they deserve; agree that black Americans should overcome prejudice without special favors; agree that it is really just a matter of black Americans working harder to be just as well off as whites; and agree that slavery and discrimination has made it difficult for black Americans to work their way up (response options: 0 = strongly disagree → 1 = strongly agree). 727 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Shanghai JiaoTong University, on 26 Oct 2018 at 03:53:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000412
Cecilia Hyunjung Mo and Katharine M.Conn Second,we asked about feelings of closeness to mi- above the cutoff can then act as an instrumental vari- nority groups.We assessed this by asking,"Here is a list able for receipt of the treatment(D): of groups.Please read over the list and check the box for those groups you feel particularly close to-people 1, who are most like you in their ideas and interests and ifX≥c (2) feelings about things."We are interested in whether 0, ifXi<c. individuals check that they feel close to"blacks"and "Hispanics"given over 80 percent of the communities Namely,if participating in TFA is based upon a cut- TFA serves in are African American and Hispanic.We off score and the distribution of unobservable deter- also considered two additional groups to act as placebo minants of future outcomes is continuous at the selec- checks;namely,our treatment should have no effect on how close they feel toward "the elderly"and "Chris- tion threshold,our parameter of interest,t,can then be identified without bias through an RDD.TFA partici- tians."16 These questions translate to four dichotomous pation is indeed based upon a cutoff score,and as we measures,where 1 indicates whether the respondent 4 noted that he/she feels particularly close to the group will show below,pretreatment characteristics are con- tinuous at the cutoff.Note that as the cutoff differs for in question. each TFA cohort,and we consider seven cohorts,we 4 standardize the cutoff for each cohort to be zero(c=0). IDENTIFICATION STRATEGY However,TFA does not employ a sharp cutoff strat- egy.While a cutoff score is employed in the admissions To measure the causal effect of participating in TFA process,admission(rejection)into TFA is not necessar- on its program participants,we employ a quasi- ily guaranteed if an applicant scores above(below)the experimental method that exploits the fact that accep- application score cutoff;rather,the probability of ad- tance into TFA is a discontinuous function of an ap- mission dramatically increases(decreases)if an appli- 4号元 plicant's selection score.This type of design allows for cant receives an admission score that is higher(lower) an identification strategy that compares the outcomes than the cutoff,as those close to the threshold score are of those who fall just short of the threshold score(and reevaluated to ensure that the admissions recommen- are not accepted)against those who fall just above the dation based on the score should be upheld.Moreover threshold score (and are accepted into the program). while the vast majority of admitted applicants decide This is important because of selection bias concerns. to matriculate into the program,take-up of the pro- Consider the following model: gram is imperfect.For the 2007-2013 application cy. cles,the matriculation rate was 83.20 percent.As such, yi=a+tDi+ei, we employ a fuzzy RDD,which does not require a 100- percent jump in the probability of receiving the treat- 是 ment at the cutoff,and only requires the following to where i represents the individual,yi is our outcome hold: measure of interest,Di denotes receipt of the treatment (serving in TFA),&is measurement error,and t is our parameter of interest-the relationship between serv- lim Pr[D=1X=c+△]≠lim Pr[D=1X=c+△]. S5.501g ing in TFA and our outcome measures of interest.If (3) individuals select into service organizations because of As the probability of treatment jumps by less than one unobserved determinants of later outcomes,which is at the threshold,the jump in the relationship between plausible,direct estimation of r by estimating model outcome y and the score X can no longer be inter- Equation(1)would be biased. preted as an average treatment effect.As in an instru- Say that each individual receives an application mental variable setting,however,the treatment effect score X;as part of the admission score,and c is the can be estimated by dividing the jump in the relation- cutoff score for admission.We can overcome this bias ship between Y and X at c(the reduced form estimate) if the distribution of unobserved characteristics of indi- by the fraction induced to take up the treatment at the viduals just shy of being admitted and not receiving the threshold (the first-stage estimate).Thus,our treatment treatment,and the distribution of those just above the effect tF for outcome Y is the following: bar for admission and receiving the treatment,are es- sentially drawn from the same population.The follow- limaL0 E[YIX=c+△]-limato E[Y1X=c+△] TF= eys ing indicator variable for whether an individual scored limaL0 E[D1X=c+△]-limato E[DX=c+△] (4) where we assume the distribution of unobserved char- 16 Identification with Christians may not be a perfectly clean placebo. acteristics is continuous at c,Equation (3)holds,and as a majority of African Americans and Hispanics are Christian(Pew the F subscript refers to the fuzzy RDD. Research Center 2009,2014).However,while many students TFA Per Lee and Card(2008),potential concerns that the participants interact with may be from Christian homes,meaningful admission score is coarse,due to the score being dis- change in closeness to Christians is unlikely.First,TFA participants crete rather than continuous,is addressed by clustering are placed in public schools,which prohibit school-sponsored prayer or religious indoctrination.Second,religion is not salient in the way our standard errors at the admission score level.We race and income are in discussions about education inequality within control for each application year to allow for differ- the United States. ences in averages by cohort year.Finally,the choice of 728
Cecilia Hyunjung Mo and Katharine M. Conn Second, we asked about feelings of closeness to minority groups.We assessed this by asking, “Here is a list of groups. Please read over the list and check the box for those groups you feel particularly close to—people who are most like you in their ideas and interests and feelings about things.” We are interested in whether individuals check that they feel close to “blacks” and “Hispanics” given over 80 percent of the communities TFA serves in are African American and Hispanic.We also considered two additional groups to act as placebo checks; namely, our treatment should have no effect on how close they feel toward “the elderly” and “Christians.”16 These questions translate to four dichotomous measures, where 1 indicates whether the respondent noted that he/she feels particularly close to the group in question. IDENTIFICATION STRATEGY To measure the causal effect of participating in TFA on its program participants, we employ a quasiexperimental method that exploits the fact that acceptance into TFA is a discontinuous function of an applicant’s selection score. This type of design allows for an identification strategy that compares the outcomes of those who fall just short of the threshold score (and are not accepted) against those who fall just above the threshold score (and are accepted into the program). This is important because of selection bias concerns. Consider the following model: yi = α + τDi + i, (1) where i represents the individual, yi is our outcome measure of interest,Di denotes receipt of the treatment (serving in TFA), εi is measurement error, and τ is our parameter of interest—the relationship between serving in TFA and our outcome measures of interest. If individuals select into service organizations because of unobserved determinants of later outcomes, which is plausible, direct estimation of τ by estimating model Equation (1) would be biased. Say that each individual receives an application score Xi as part of the admission score, and c is the cutoff score for admission. We can overcome this bias if the distribution of unobserved characteristics of individuals just shy of being admitted and not receiving the treatment, and the distribution of those just above the bar for admission and receiving the treatment, are essentially drawn from the same population. The following indicator variable for whether an individual scored 16 Identification with Christians may not be a perfectly clean placebo, as a majority of African Americans and Hispanics are Christian (Pew Research Center 2009, 2014). However, while many students TFA participants interact with may be from Christian homes, meaningful change in closeness to Christians is unlikely. First, TFA participants are placed in public schools, which prohibit school-sponsored prayer or religious indoctrination. Second, religion is not salient in the way race and income are in discussions about education inequality within the United States. above the cutoff can then act as an instrumental variable for receipt of the treatment (Di): Di = 1, if Xi ≥ c 0, if Xi < c. (2) Namely, if participating in TFA is based upon a cutoff score and the distribution of unobservable determinants of future outcomes is continuous at the selection threshold, our parameter of interest, τ , can then be identified without bias through an RDD. TFA participation is indeed based upon a cutoff score, and as we will show below, pretreatment characteristics are continuous at the cutoff. Note that as the cutoff differs for each TFA cohort, and we consider seven cohorts, we standardize the cutoff for each cohort to be zero (c = 0). However, TFA does not employ a sharp cutoff strategy. While a cutoff score is employed in the admissions process, admission (rejection) into TFA is not necessarily guaranteed if an applicant scores above (below) the application score cutoff; rather, the probability of admission dramatically increases (decreases) if an applicant receives an admission score that is higher (lower) than the cutoff, as those close to the threshold score are reevaluated to ensure that the admissions recommendation based on the score should be upheld. Moreover, while the vast majority of admitted applicants decide to matriculate into the program, take-up of the program is imperfect. For the 2007–2013 application cycles, the matriculation rate was 83.20 percent. As such, we employ a fuzzy RDD, which does not require a 100- percent jump in the probability of receiving the treatment at the cutoff, and only requires the following to hold: lim ↓0 Pr[D = 1|X = c + ] = lim ↑0 Pr[D = 1|X = c + ]. (3) As the probability of treatment jumps by less than one at the threshold, the jump in the relationship between outcome Y and the score X can no longer be interpreted as an average treatment effect. As in an instrumental variable setting, however, the treatment effect can be estimated by dividing the jump in the relationship between Y and X at c (the reduced form estimate) by the fraction induced to take up the treatment at the threshold (the first-stage estimate).Thus, our treatment effect τ F for outcome Y is the following: τF = lim↓0 E[Y|X = c + ] − lim↑0 E[Y|X = c + ] lim↓0 E[D|X = c + ] − lim↑0 E[D|X = c + ] , (4) where we assume the distribution of unobserved characteristics is continuous at c, Equation (3) holds, and the F subscript refers to the fuzzy RDD. Per Lee and Card (2008), potential concerns that the admission score is coarse, due to the score being discrete rather than continuous, is addressed by clustering our standard errors at the admission score level. We control for each application year to allow for differences in averages by cohort year. Finally, the choice of 728 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Shanghai JiaoTong University, on 26 Oct 2018 at 03:53:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000412
When Do the Advantaged See the Disadvantages of Others? FIGURE 1.Two-Stage Least Squares(2SLS)Estimates-Baseline Pretreatment Characteristics Age Female White Callege GPA Undergraduate School Selectivity Parental Education- Received Pell Grant Upper Class e asn Upper Middle Class Lower Middle Class- Upper Lower Class- Lower Class Identity With Religion 0.0 Treatment Effect Notes:The 95 percent confidence intervals surround point estimates;the thicker lines between the bars represent one standard error bandwidth for the RDD estimator follows Imbens and to enable this exercise,which included demographic Kalyanaraman(2011),which is a conservative estimate data on whether applicants qualified for financial aid for fuzzy RDD estimates. when applying to college,college GPA,and the ap- An important threat to a causal interpretation of plicant's undergraduate institution's school selectivity. our estimates is the possibility of response selectiv- Additionally,we consider a number of pretreatment ity.Namely,the response rate of nonadmits might be demographic characteristics that were collected in our lower than admits,creating imbalance in unobserved survey:age,sex,race,whether a parent received post- characteristics at the cutoff.Figures A.2a and A.2b in secondary education,socioeconomic class while grow- Online Appendix A plot the completion response rate ing up,and identification with a religion.When we con- (AAPOR RR1 response rate)and partial response rate duct a fuzzy RDD analysis for each of these demo- (AAPOR RR2 response rate),respectively.There is no graphic characteristics,there is not one measure that significant difference in the response rates at the cutoff is significantly different at the cutoff(see column (3) (p =0.104 for RR1,and p =0.294 for RR2;see Table of Table E.6 in Online Appendix E,where each coeffi- A.1 in Online Appendix A). cient is visualized in Figure 1).17 The assumption that Response selectivity bias can still hold if there is there are no meaningful differences in pretreatment a discontinuous difference in respondent characteris- measures at the cutoff holds.18 tics around the score threshold.We test for this by assessing whether observable pretreatment measures 17See Figures D.4 and D.5 in Online Appendix D for a visualization of the study participants trend smoothly at the cutoff. TFA provided detailed selection data of all applicants went houschold incom.but itspauibe that participating in TFA altered people's career trajectory.With that 729
When Do the Advantaged See the Disadvantages of Others? FIGURE 1. Two-Stage Least Squares (2SLS) Estimates—Baseline Pretreatment Characteristics Identify With Religion Lower Class Upper Lower Class Lower Middle Class Upper Middle Class Upper Class Received Pell Grant Parental Education Undergraduate School Selectivity College GPA White Female Age −0.1 0.0 0.1 Treatment Effect Dependent Variable Notes: The 95 percent confidence intervals surround point estimates; the thicker lines between the bars represent one standard error. bandwidth for the RDD estimator follows Imbens and Kalyanaraman (2011), which is a conservative estimate for fuzzy RDD estimates. An important threat to a causal interpretation of our estimates is the possibility of response selectivity. Namely, the response rate of nonadmits might be lower than admits, creating imbalance in unobserved characteristics at the cutoff. Figures A.2a and A.2b in Online Appendix A plot the completion response rate (AAPOR RR1 response rate) and partial response rate (AAPOR RR2 response rate), respectively. There is no significant difference in the response rates at the cutoff (p = 0.104 for RR1, and p = 0.294 for RR2; see Table A.1 in Online Appendix A). Response selectivity bias can still hold if there is a discontinuous difference in respondent characteristics around the score threshold. We test for this by assessing whether observable pretreatment measures of the study participants trend smoothly at the cutoff. TFA provided detailed selection data of all applicants to enable this exercise, which included demographic data on whether applicants qualified for financial aid when applying to college, college GPA, and the applicant’s undergraduate institution’s school selectivity. Additionally, we consider a number of pretreatment demographic characteristics that were collected in our survey: age, sex, race, whether a parent received postsecondary education, socioeconomic class while growing up, and identification with a religion.When we conduct a fuzzy RDD analysis for each of these demographic characteristics, there is not one measure that is significantly different at the cutoff (see column (3) of Table E.6 in Online Appendix E, where each coefficient is visualized in Figure 1).17 The assumption that there are no meaningful differences in pretreatment measures at the cutoff holds.18 17 See Figures D.4 and D.5 in Online Appendix D for a visualization of averages at the cutoff. 18 We also examined current household income, but it is plausible that participating in TFA altered people’s career trajectory.With that 729 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Shanghai JiaoTong University, on 26 Oct 2018 at 03:53:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000412
Cecilia Hyunjung Mo and Katharine M.Conn Another threat to causal interpretation is if appli- Broadly,our results indicate that TFA participants cants and interviewers can manipulate the admission are much more likely to lose faith in political insti- score.This is theoretically impossible because neither tutions than the nonadmit "control"group,indicat- the applicants nor the interviewers are aware of the ing a sense that the political status quo is not fair- cutoff score.For further verification of nonmanipula- a decrease in"denial of discrimination."On our in- tion at the cutoff,we test the null hypothesis of continu- dex of systemic injustice measures,we find that par- ity of the density of the forcing variable-the admission ticipating in TFA decreases an individual's support for score-at the cutoff.Reassuringly,we find that there is the current political system by 10.4 percentage points no discontinuity at the cutoff in the density function of (p=0.005).Specifically,participants are 9.1 percentage the admissions score(p =0.27). points (p=0.032)less likely to respect "the political institutions of the United States"and are 10.2 percent- RESULTS age points(p=0.003)less likely to feel that"citizens basic rights are well protected."These drops are quite First we verify that being above the cutoff is an appro- large.Let us consider our results against Haiti,a coun- priate instrument for admission into and participating try that has consistently had among the lowest levels in TFA.This assumption is indeed robust;at the cutoff, of political system support in the Americas over the there is a 28.7 percentage point(p <0.001)bump in the last decade.We see that the decrease in system support admission rate and a 24.9 percentage point(p<0.001) due to TFA participation,as measured by our index, increase in TFA participation(see Figures A.3(a)and is nearly equivalent to the difference in political sys- A.3(b),respectively,and Table A.1 in Online Appendix tem support between the United States and Haiti(86 A). percent;see column(7),row (3)of Table E.9 in Online Paipaopepecv talimg Appendix E).23 Participation in TFA is also linked to a greater per- We detect (1)an increase in perceptions of systemic ception of class-based injustice,and participants are 4号元 injustice against the disadvantaged per prediction 1;(2) more likely to attribute poverty to underlying sys- a decrease in both class-based and racial resentment- temic issues and other external factors than to a lack increased beliefs that situational or environmental fac- of individual effort.We detect a 9.3 percentage point tors are the root cause of outcomes for those who are (p =0.004)increase in participants'support of pro- disadvantaged rather than the disposition of disadvan- poor policy perspectives (class-based injustice index), taged individuals per prediction 2:and(3)a decrease in which represents a 20-percent increase relative to the prejudice and an increase in identification with disad- mean value of this measure for nonadmits (see Table vantaged minorities per prediction 3.20 B.4 in Online Appendix B for the mean value of each We implement the quasi-experimental estimation outcome measure by admission and participation sta- strategy described above.21 The causal effect estimates tus:(1)nonadmit,(2)nonmatriculants,and (3)matricu- 是 from a fuzzy RDD analyses are reported in column(3) lants).Specifically,TFA participants are more likely to of Table 1 and visualized in Figure 2.22 All our find- argue for greater income redistribution(5.8 percentage ings reported below are based on optimum bandwidth points,p=0.049)and greater government responsi- calculations according to Imbens and Kalyanaraman bility to ensure everyone is provided for(75 percent- (2011)unless stated otherwise:however,the signifi- age points,p=0.011).To understand the magnitude cance of the RDD results are generally not sensitive to of these effects,we benchmark our effect sizes against 吧 alternative bandwidths (see Table E.7 in Online Ap- the German population,as Americans tend to priori- pendix E). tize individualism over the role of the state,whereas Germans tend to prioritize state interference over in- dividualism (Pew Research Center 2011).These two effects are equivalent to 30 percent and 37 percent, said,there is no meaningful differences in household income (p 0.654). respectively,of the difference between how the aver- With 26 outcomes,the Bonferroni correction a and the Sidak cor- age American answers these questions compared to rection a are both 0.002.Ten comparisons reported in Table 1 meet the average German (see column(7),rows (4)-(5)of the 0.002 threshold.However,it is unnecessary to employ the ad- Table E.9 in Online Appendix E).24 Further,TFA par- justed a because we find that all 26 measures are statistically mean- ticipation is linked to an increase in the belief that ingful at standard levels,and the probability of seeing this by chance is essentially zero. having a "better life"is more closely linked to "luck 30 When the average response of participants is compared to those and connections"than to hard work alone (9.3 per who declined their admission,as well as to nonadmits,we see that the centage points,p=0.026)and that "poor people are direction of differences are largely consistent with each of our three poor due to an unfair society"as opposed to "lazi- predictions(see Table B.4 in Online Appendix B).More specifically matriculants,on average,display higher perceptions of class-based ness and lack of willpower"(72 percentage points, injustice and lower racial resentment and prejudice levels than both p=0.001). This general dissatisfaction with the broader politi- An inspection of response averages by score near the cutoff for cal system and external blame attribution is detectable each outcome of interest are provided in the Figures D.6-D.7 in On- line Appendix D,and provide visual evidence that there are shifts at First-stage and reduced-form results are reported in column (1) 23 Source:2010 AmericasBarometer. and column(2),respectively,in Table 1. 24 Source:World Values Survey (Wave 6). 730
Cecilia Hyunjung Mo and Katharine M. Conn Another threat to causal interpretation is if applicants and interviewers can manipulate the admission score. This is theoretically impossible because neither the applicants nor the interviewers are aware of the cutoff score. For further verification of nonmanipulation at the cutoff, we test the null hypothesis of continuity of the density of the forcing variable—the admission score—at the cutoff. Reassuringly, we find that there is no discontinuity at the cutoff in the density function of the admissions score (p = 0.27). RESULTS First we verify that being above the cutoff is an appropriate instrument for admission into and participating in TFA. This assumption is indeed robust; at the cutoff, there is a 28.7 percentage point (p < 0.001) bump in the admission rate and a 24.9 percentage point (p < 0.001) increase in TFA participation (see Figures A.3(a) and A.3(b), respectively, and Table A.1 in Online Appendix A). Overall, we find strong evidence that, ceteris paribus, participation in TFA increases perspective-taking.19 We detect (1) an increase in perceptions of systemic injustice against the disadvantaged per prediction 1; (2) a decrease in both class-based and racial resentment— increased beliefs that situational or environmental factors are the root cause of outcomes for those who are disadvantaged rather than the disposition of disadvantaged individuals per prediction 2; and (3) a decrease in prejudice and an increase in identification with disadvantaged minorities per prediction 3. 20 We implement the quasi-experimental estimation strategy described above.21 The causal effect estimates from a fuzzy RDD analyses are reported in column (3) of Table 1 and visualized in Figure 2. 22 All our findings reported below are based on optimum bandwidth calculations according to Imbens and Kalyanaraman (2011) unless stated otherwise; however, the significance of the RDD results are generally not sensitive to alternative bandwidths (see Table E.7 in Online Appendix E). said, there is no meaningful differences in household income (p = 0.654). 19 With 26 outcomes, the Bonferroni correction α and the Sidak correction α are both 0.002. Ten comparisons reported in Table 1 meet the 0.002 threshold. However, it is unnecessary to employ the adjusted α because we find that all 26 measures are statistically meaningful at standard levels, and the probability of seeing this by chance is essentially zero. 20 When the average response of participants is compared to those who declined their admission, as well as to nonadmits, we see that the direction of differences are largely consistent with each of our three predictions (see Table B.4 in Online Appendix B). More specifically, matriculants, on average, display higher perceptions of class-based injustice and lower racial resentment and prejudice levels than both nonadmits and nonmatriculants. 21 An inspection of response averages by score near the cutoff for each outcome of interest are provided in the Figures D.6– D.7 in Online Appendix D, and provide visual evidence that there are shifts at the cutoff. 22 First-stage and reduced-form results are reported in column (1) and column (2), respectively, in Table 1. Broadly, our results indicate that TFA participants are much more likely to lose faith in political institutions than the nonadmit “control” group, indicating a sense that the political status quo is not fair— a decrease in “denial of discrimination.” On our index of systemic injustice measures, we find that participating in TFA decreases an individual’s support for the current political system by 10.4 percentage points (p = 0.005). Specifically, participants are 9.1 percentage points (p = 0.032) less likely to respect “the political institutions of the United States” and are 10.2 percentage points (p = 0.003) less likely to feel that “citizens’ basic rights are well protected.” These drops are quite large. Let us consider our results against Haiti, a country that has consistently had among the lowest levels of political system support in the Americas over the last decade.We see that the decrease in system support due to TFA participation, as measured by our index, is nearly equivalent to the difference in political system support between the United States and Haiti (86 percent; see column (7), row (3) of Table E.9 in Online Appendix E).23 Participation in TFA is also linked to a greater perception of class-based injustice, and participants are more likely to attribute poverty to underlying systemic issues and other external factors than to a lack of individual effort. We detect a 9.3 percentage point (p = 0.004) increase in participants’ support of propoor policy perspectives (class-based injustice index), which represents a 20-percent increase relative to the mean value of this measure for nonadmits (see Table B.4 in Online Appendix B for the mean value of each outcome measure by admission and participation status: (1) nonadmit, (2) nonmatriculants, and (3) matriculants). Specifically, TFA participants are more likely to argue for greater income redistribution (5.8 percentage points, p = 0.049) and greater government responsibility to ensure everyone is provided for (7.5 percentage points, p = 0.011). To understand the magnitude of these effects, we benchmark our effect sizes against the German population, as Americans tend to prioritize individualism over the role of the state, whereas Germans tend to prioritize state interference over individualism (Pew Research Center 2011). These two effects are equivalent to 30 percent and 37 percent, respectively, of the difference between how the average American answers these questions compared to the average German (see column (7), rows (4)–(5) of Table E.9 in Online Appendix E).24 Further, TFA participation is linked to an increase in the belief that having a “better life” is more closely linked to “luck and connections” than to hard work alone (9.3 percentage points, p = 0.026) and that “poor people are poor due to an unfair society” as opposed to “laziness and lack of willpower” (7.2 percentage points, p = 0.001). This general dissatisfaction with the broader political system and external blame attribution is detectable 23 Source: 2010 AmericasBarometer. 24 Source: World Values Survey (Wave 6). 730 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Shanghai JiaoTong University, on 26 Oct 2018 at 03:53:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000412
