Anastasia Knight
Homelessness, defined as lacking a “fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence” by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD; 2016, p. 2), is a pervasive issue in the United States. Emerging as a social epidemic in the 1870s, over half a million individuals today are homeless (HUD, 2016). Despite an indicated increase in the support of homeless rights, negative stigma targeting homeless individuals in individual interactions persists (Agans et al., 2011; Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2008; Tsai, Yun See Lee, Pietrzak, & Southwick, 2017). Perceptions of homeless individuals include negative and skewed interpretations of their honesty, responsibility, and intelligence (Agans et al., 2011; Boster et al., 2016; Cuddy et al., 2008). Research suggests that public displays of panhandling, sleeping on the street, and other survival behaviors intensify negative stigmas by triggering the emotional reactions of guilt, shame, and disgust on the part of the observer. Thus, in an attempt to avoid these emotions, the general public often increases their social distance from homeless individuals (Boster et al., 2016; Phelan, Link, Moore, & Stueve, 1997).
Negative stigmas and perceptions of the homeless population are further impacted by the disproportionate homelessness rates of Black and African-American individuals since the 1980s (Carter, 2011; Whaley & Link, 1998). In the United States, 41% of the national homeless population identifies as Black or African-American, despite being only 14% of the country’s population (Carter, 2011; HUD, 2016). Racial biases, therefore, play a major role in the explicit beliefs and actions taken towards homeless individuals, including increased social distance and differences in stereotypes (Parrillo & Donoghue, 2005; Whaley & Link, 1998). For example, White individuals who believe that the homeless population has a higher representation of Black individuals are more likely to perceive the homeless as dangerous, and subsequently homeless individuals report high rates of racial discrimination (Whaley & Link, 1998; Zerger et al., 2014). Additionally, Black homeless individuals who perceive racial bias from others tend to have worse physical and mental health outcomes than their White counterparts (Weisz & Quinn, 2018). Negative health outcomes can often lead to social avoidance on the part of the marginalized individual, increasing isolation and feelings of subhuman status (Torino & Sisselman-Borgia, 2016; Zerger et al., 2014). As homeless individuals continue to report that they experience racial bias, as portrayed through looks and comments from non-homeless individuals, the negative consequences may continue to snowball, and homeless individuals may even place blame on the non-homeless individuals for their housing context (Torino & Sisselman-Borgia, 2016; Zerger et al., 2014).
Furthermore, regardless of how racial bias is portrayed, perceived racial biases by the homeless remains the same, which may be due to implicit bias theory (Greenwald & Kreiger, 2006; Torino & Sisselman-Borgia, 2016; Weisz & Quinn, 2018; Zerger et al., 2014). Implicit biases, or unconscious beliefs, have become a popular subject in psychological research and have been shown to impact human behavior regardless of explicit, or conscious, beliefs (Greenwald & Krieger, 2006; Holroyd, Scaife, & Stafford, 2017). In particular, implicit racial biases (i.e., implicit biases that target people of color) have a strong effect on social interactions (Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2002; McConnell & Leibold, 2001). While implicit racial bias has been studied in various work environments and has been shown to impact the outcomes of legal treatment and health care (Hall et al., 2015; Kang et al., 2011), it has not yet been investigated in the context of homelessness.
Therefore, the current study aimed to explore how implicit racial bias affects one’s propensity to help homeless individuals, since actions are often driven by implicit bias, rather than explicit beliefs (Dovidio et al., 2002; Wilson, Lindsey, & Schooler, 2000). Consideration to this topic is important given the direct implications it has for Black homeless individuals in particular. In fact, implicit racial bias could significantly decrease one’s inclination to support and assist Black homeless individuals, compared to their White counterparts, since perceptions of their ability to contribute to society are negatively skewed (Greenwald & Krieger, 2006; Torino & Sisselman-Borgia, 2016; Weisz & Quinn, 2018). Furthermore, as racial and homeless biases increase social distance between non-homeless and Black homeless individuals, a lack of action taken to help them may cause further separation, thus increasing isolation and social avoidance on the part of the marginalized individuals (Greenwald & Krieger, 2006; Parrillo & Donoghue, 2005; Torino & Sisselman-Borgia, 2016). Consequently, the current study addressed the following three-part question: Does making the race of homeless individuals more salient lead individuals to respond less positively in their a) stated beliefs, b) implicit biases, c) actions towards homeless individuals?
Method
Participants
This study consists of 51 participants, all of whom were attending a private school in the Northeast. Participants were ages 18-34, and 80% studied psychology. Participants were 88% women, and 42% White.
Procedure
Using simple random assignment, 25 participants were assigned to the control group, and 26 participants to the treatment group. Both groups came to a lab setting and took a 15-20 minute survey designed to prime participants with implicit racial bias. There were two versions of the survey, with each survey consisting of four parts. Parts two through four were identical, while part one differed by condition.
For part one of the survey, the control group was primed with a majority of photos of white homeless individuals, and the treatment group was primed with a majority of photos of black homeless individuals. This was intended to increase the salience of race in the minds of the treatment group. Participants were asked six questions, one question per photo, in response to either a 4:2 ratio of photos of white-to-black homeless individuals (control), or a 4:2 ratio of photos of black-to-white homeless individuals (treatment). The two photos of Black homeless individuals for the control group, and White homeless individuals for the treatment group, acted as a reliability component to conclude that differing results were attributable to race. The same questions on both versions were switched to avoid confounding factors that were not associated with race. Part two was the Implicit Attitudes Test (IAT; Greenwald, T. & Banaji, 1998), and part three included a questionnaire assessing participants’ explicit perceptions of the homeless, using an 5-point Likert scale, followed by a participant demographic survey. Part four was an optional action of donating to Pathways Housing First, an organization which houses individuals off the streets with no prerequisite conditions.
Coding
All variables assessed on a Likert scale were dichotomously coded for simplicity. Demographic variables were dichotomously coded based on the majority identity of the sample. As a rough assessment of participants’ socioeconomic status, a standardized ‘home appliances’ index was created. IAT results were dichotomously coded for either a preference for White faces versus Black faces. T-tests were then conducted on all variables individually by treatment condition. Donation amounts were calculated by hand, and a t-test was run to assess significance. The one open-ended, written response from question one was quantitatively coded for times participants used the words ‘homeless’ and ‘begging,’ and/or mentioned race, to assess participant’s immediate perceptions of homelessness or race as more salient. Upon reflection of results, a standardized ‘negative attitudes’ index was created by combining all answers assessing explicit beliefs to see if overall beliefs leaned significantly in one direction. A t-test was then run on the index, by treatment condition.
Results
In answering the first open-ended question in which participants reported explicit beliefs in response to photos, 45% of participants noted the race or homeless status of the individual in the photo. Participants in the control group (i.e., in response to photos of White homeless individuals) were 33% more likely to mention the individual’s homeless identity, and 100% more likely to say the individual was “begging,” whereas participants in the treatment group (i.e., those who were shown photos of Black homeless individuals) were 56% more likely to mention the individual’s race.
Increasing the salience of race did not appear to motivate a negative change in stated beliefs about the homeless population. The control group that was not exposed to racial priming was more likely to lean towards negative views of the homeless, including believing that a homeless individual was more likely to spend time using drugs and alcohol (p = .02). Participants in the treatment group were significantly more likely to believe that if the individual had been arrested, it would have been for low risk behaviors, such as jumping a turnstile (p < .001), and sleeping in public places (p = .02). Additionally, the two questions in which the control group was shown a Black individual and the treatment group was shown a White individual, attitudes appeared to switch. When the treatment group was shown a photo of a White individual, they were significantly more likely to believe that the individual had been homeless for over a year (p = .00), whereas the control group, which was shown photos of Black homeless individuals, believed that they were homeless for less than a year.
Increasing the salience of race appeared to have triggered participants’ implicit biases. Participants in the treatment group were significantly more likely (p = .01) to present a preference for White or European American individuals on the IAT. However, the increased salience of race did appear to impact actions taken towards the homeless, as participants in the control group donated twice as often (6:3 ratio) with a significant difference of a mean $3.16 more per donation (p = .07). Participants in the control group donated a total of $35, while participants in the treatment group donated only $8.
Discussion
In line with previous literature, the salience of an identity, either through homelessness or race, appeared to influence the beliefs that arose for participants (Devine, 1989; Kidder, White, Hinojos, Sandoval, & Crites, 2018). Participants in the control group seemed to exhibit higher rates of negative stigma towards homeless individuals, while the those in the treatment group seemed to exhibit an awareness of societal inequalities towards Black individuals, and often expressed more positive views. The lack of significant difference in explicit beliefs overall supports previous findings which state that when given time to consider their answer, individuals will report their explicit beliefs (Devine, 1989). However, despite reported beliefs, those primed with photos of black individuals were more likely to indicate ‘White Preference’ on the IAT, suggesting that the racial priming had a significant impact and triggered negative implicit biases.
Furthermore, it was found that participants in the control group were in fact more likely to take action by donating money. Prior research showed that ‘White preference’ IAT scores in particular were correlated with actions (McConnell & Leibold, 2001), which appears to hold true in the current study as well. And although the control group did donate significantly more, only 17% of total participants donated at all. Furthermore, only participants randomly assigned to the treatment group individually chose the conclusive option, ‘I would prefer not to donate, versus ‘I will consider it for another time.’ These results are particularly troublesome, considering every participant agreed with the statement, “We should do everything we can to help the homeless,” further implying a disconnect between explicit beliefs on homelessness and our corresponding implicit biases and subsequent actions (Greenwald & Krieger, 2004; Phelan et al., 1997). Collectively, results suggest that regardless of explicit views, implicit racial bias has an impact on participant actions, or their propensity to help White homeless individuals more than Black homeless individuals.
This current, ongoing study complements research conducted about attitudes towards homelessness through the lens of implicit bias. Implications of this research include a deeper understanding of how implicit racial biases impact individual charitable behaviors, even as explicit views remain positive. By recognizing the heightened negative implicit biases towards black homeless individuals, members of the general public can make conscious choices to act in line with their explicit values. Further research is required to apply this issue to policy, homeless services, and education for the additional support that black homeless individuals may require.
References
Agans, R. P., Liu, G., Jones, M., Verjan, C., Silverbush, M., & Kalsbeek, W. D. (2011). Public attitudes toward the homeless. Paper presented at the 66th American Association for Public Opinion Research, Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved from http://www.amstat.org/Sections/Srms/ Proceedings/y2011/Files/400188.pdf
Boster, F. J., Liu, R. W., Poorisat T., Cheng, Y., Kim, W., Salmon-Seidmann, N.D., & Salmon, C. T. (2016). Communicating to influence perceptions of social stigma: Implications for the use of signs by the homeless as a means of soliciting funds. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(11), 1293-1305.
Carter, G.R. (2011). From exclusion to destitution: Race, affordable housing, and homelessness. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 13(1), 33-70.
Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in experimental social psychology, 40, 61-149.
Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 5-18.
Dovidio, J.F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S.L. (2002). Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1), 62-68.
Greenwald, A. G., & Krieger, L. H. (2006). Implicit bias: Scientific foundations. California Law Review, 94(4), 945-967.
Greenwald, T. & Banaji, M. (1998). Implicit Attitudes Test (IAT). Project Implicit. Retrieved from: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html.
Hall, W. J., Chapman, M. V., Lee, K. M., Merino, Y. M., Thomas, T. W., Payne, B. K., … & Coyne-Beasley, T. (2015). Implicit racial/ethnic bias among health care professionals and its influence on health care outcomes: a systematic review. American Journal of Public Health, 105(12), 60-76.
Holroyd, J., Scaife, R., & Stafford, T. (2017). Responsibility for implicit bias. Philosophy Compass, 12(3), 1-13.
Kang, J., Bennett, M., Carbado, D., Casey, P., Dasgupta, N., Faigman, D., … Mnookin, J. (2011). Implicit bias in the courtroom. UCLA Law Review, 59(5), 1124-1186.
Kidder, C. K., White, K. R., Hinojos, M. R., Sandoval, M., & Crites, S. L. (2018). Sequential stereotype priming: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(3), 199-227.
McConnell, A. R., & Leibold, J.M. (2001). Relations among the implicit associations test, discriminatory behavior, and explicit measures of racial discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(5), 435-442.
Parrillo, V. N., & Donoghue, C. (2005). Updating the Bogardus social distance studies: A new national survey. The Social Science Journal, 42(2), 257-271.
Phelan, J., Link, B. G., Moore, R. E., & Stueve, A. (1997). The stigma of homelessness: The impact of the label “homeless” on attitudes toward poor person. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60(4), 323-337.
Torino, G. C., & Sisselman-Borgia, A. G. (2016). Homeless microaggressions: Implications for education, research, and practice. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 26(1), 153-165.
Tsai, J., Yun See Lee, C., Byrne, T., Pietrzak, R. H., Southwick, S. M. (2017). Changes in public attitudes and perceptions about homelessness between 1990 and 2016. American Journal of Community Psychology, 60(3-4), 599-606.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (2016). The Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress: Pt. 1: Point-in-time estimates of homelessness.
Weisz, C., & Quinn, D.M. (2018). Stigmatized identities, psychological distress and physical health: Intersections of homelessness and race. Journal of Stigma and Health, 3(3), 229-240.
Whaley, A. L., & Link, B. G. (1998). Racial categorization and stereotype-based judgments about homeless people. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(3), 189-205.
Wilson, T. D., Lindsey, S., & Schooler, T. Y. (2000). A model of dual attitudes. Psychological Review, 107(1), 101–126.
Zerger, S., Bacon, S., Corneau, S., Skosireva, A., McKenzie, K., Gapka, S. O.,… Stergiopoulos, V. (2014). Differential experiences of discrimination among ethnoracially diverse persons experiencing mental illness and homelessness. BMC Psychiatry, 14(1), 353–364.
Click here to return to the Spring 2019 Issue Contents page.