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. 721American 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 ad￾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 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 nec￾essary 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 re￾search assistance of Allison Archer, Claire Evans, Virginia Lovison, Laura Sellers, Joseph Stigall, and Bryce Williams-Tuggles. The au￾thors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from Vanderbilt University’s Discovery Grant Program and the World Bank’s Devel￾opment Grant Facility. We would also like to thank Brooke Ackerly, Larry Bartels, Jonathan Bendor, Joshua Clinton, Marc Hethering￾ton, 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 Uni￾versity’s Political Science Seminar, Columbia University’s Political Economy Workshop, Princeton University’s Kahneman-Treisman Center for Behavioral Science and Public Policy Behavioral Pol￾icy Speaker Series, Princeton University’s Center of the Study of Democratic Politics Seminar, Stanford University’s Political Psychol￾ogy Research Group, Vanderbilt University’s RIPS Lab Research 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 data, code, and any additional materials required to replicate all analyses in this article are available at the American Political Sci￾ence 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 recog￾nition requires that one group see the world from the other’s perspective, what scholars call “perspective￾taking.” 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 fa￾mously 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 ad￾vantaged and disadvantaged segments of society, it is important to note that being advantaged is a continuum. For instance, one can si￾multaneously 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