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). 727When Do the Advantaged See the Disadvantages of Others? the demographic characteristic in the application file, apart from race, alongside selection score and appli￾cation 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 “actor￾observer bias,” and (3) reduction in prejudice levels and increased identification with disadvantaged popu￾lations. Table B.3 in Online Appendix B provides sum￾mary 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 op￾tions: 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., misfor￾tune or lack of fairness), which have been found to be strongly predictive of support for government welfare policies (Alesina,Glaeser, and Sacerdote 2001). For in￾stance, if people perceive the poor as lazy, then indi￾viduals are less likely to support redistributive policies. Namely, we provided the respondent with four pairs of statements and assess which statement in each pair in￾dividuals 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 responsi￾bility to provide for themselves” (coded as 0) versus “Government should take more responsibility to en￾sure 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 lazi￾ness 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 con￾siderations. 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 sys￾temic injustices perpetuating inequity throughout so￾ciety “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 respon￾dent believes that “students from low income back￾grounds 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 Addi￾tionally, 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 discrimina￾tion 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 respon￾dent’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, His￾panics, blacks, Muslims and immigrants. We consider each measure separately, and as a simple index, which we refer to as the discrimination index given high in￾ternal consistency of these measures; the Cronbach’s alpha score is 0.85. Racial Prejudice:We employed two measures to cap￾ture prejudice. First, we implemented a skin-tone Im￾plicit Association Test (IAT), a method for gauging un￾conscious 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 cate￾gories (dark skin color versus light skin color) to eval￾uative anchors (good versus bad). The difference in categorization performance is ar￾gued 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 On￾line 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 discrimina￾tion 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