IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jacres/doi10.1086-719586.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Conservatives Less Likely Than Liberals to Accept Welfare? The Psychology of Welfare Politics

Author

Listed:
  • Shreyans Goenka
  • Manoj Thomas

Abstract

Research has shown that conservatives tend to oppose the distribution of welfare to other people. However, are conservatives less likely than liberals to accept welfare for themselves? We find that the difference in liberals’ and conservatives’ welfare enrollment depends on whether the welfare program has a work requirement policy. A natural field experiment shows that when the supplemental nutritional program (SNAP) had a work requirement, liberals and conservatives were equally likely to enroll in this program. In the absence of a work requirement, conservatives were less likely than liberals to enroll in it. Follow-up experiments replicate this result and demonstrate the underlying mechanism: conservatives’ adherence to binding moral values (loyalty, authority, and purity; Graham, Haidt, and Nosek 2009) makes them hesitant to accept welfare without a work requirement. Policy makers can deploy marketing messages to mitigate this effect and boost conservatives’ enrollment in such welfare programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Shreyans Goenka & Manoj Thomas, 2022. "Are Conservatives Less Likely Than Liberals to Accept Welfare? The Psychology of Welfare Politics," Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 7(3), pages 305-315.
  • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jacres:doi:10.1086/719586
    DOI: 10.1086/719586
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/719586
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/719586
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/719586?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jacres:doi:10.1086/719586. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JACR .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.