Class Isolation and Affluent Americans’ Perception of Social Conditions

Abstract

Rising inequality and pro-affluent housing policy have led affluent Americans to become increasingly isolated into neighborhoods that only they are able to afford. I use an under-utilized and unusually large dataset to measure the effects of this isolation on affluent Americans’ perception of social conditions, including crime, healthcare accessibility, joblessness, and public school quality. I find that the affluent form perceptions of such social conditions by extrapolating from the conditions that exist in their own neighborhoods. When these neighborhoods are predominately affluent, offering little hint of the problems faced by the lower classes, the affluent take on perceptions of social conditions that are significantly more positive than the perceptions of everyone else in society. By leading politically and economically powerful affluent Americans to develop the false sense that others’ lives are as problem-free as their own, class isolation may imperil the prospects for improving social conditions in the United States.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    In addition to Oliver (1999, 2001), others have examined the effects of suburban living on political behavior (e.g., Gainsborough 2001). Yet it is important not to directly equate suburbanization with class isolation. It is now the case that more of America’s poor live in the suburbs than in inner cities, which was not true as recently as 2000 (Kneebone and Berube 2013). As a consequence, affluent Americans may live in suburbs and still live in close proximity to those of lower socioeconomic status.

  2. 2.

    Though Cruces et al. (2013) attribute people’s tendency to extrapolate from neighborhood conditions to the representativeness heuristic, other heuristics may contribute to this tendency as well. For example, the availability heuristic, which involves canvassing memory for relevant examples, may lead people to extrapolate from neighborhood conditions to form perceptions of social conditions if neighborhood conditions are foremost in their memory (Tversky and Kahneman 1973).

  3. 3.

    Due to an error in survey administration, an incomplete version of the survey that does not contain the necessary variables was administered to an additional 4880 respondents in 2010. Though these respondents are present in the publicly available data, I exclude them here.

  4. 4.

    No other variable is missing for more than 4 % of respondents.

  5. 5.

    While this subgroup analysis reflects the limits of a small sample size, it also provides suggestive evidence of substantively important effects. Specifically, there is preliminary evidence to suggest that class isolation may negatively affect affluent blacks’ participation in community-based efforts to address harmful social conditions. More research with a larger sample of affluent blacks is needed to test this potential finding, but if it were to hold, it would have important implications for black politics. Cooperation between affluent and non-affluent blacks to address harmful social conditions is part of the foundation of black political life (Dawson 1994), yet it may be imperiled should class isolation continue to rise. See Supplementary material Appendix p. 12 for more details.

  6. 6.

    The number of affluent respondents from other minority groups in the data, such as affluent Asians and affluent Latinos, is even fewer than the number of affluent blacks, preventing subgroup analyses of these other groups.

  7. 7.

    Throughout the text I use the term “metropolitan community” to reference the communities defined by the Knight Foundation and Gallup for the survey (see Supplementary material Appendix Table A1).

  8. 8.

    Full details on question wordings, coding, and distributions are available in the Supplementary material Appendix for all variables used in the analysis (p. 3).

  9. 9.

    The crime item question is as follows: “On a five-point rating scale, where 5 means extremely low and 1 means extremely high, how would you rate the level of crime in your community?”

  10. 10.

    1 on the original scale is converted to 0 on the new scale, 2 is converted to 25, 3 is converted to 50, 4 is converted to 75, and 5 is converted to 100.

  11. 11.

    This information was learned through extensive conversations with the director of the survey.

  12. 12.

    Notably, this measure compares the affluent’s perceptions to the perceptions of the non-affluent, rather than to objective reality itself. This aligns with H2, which concerns the positivity of the affluent’s perceptions relative to everyone else in society, rather than the accuracy of the affluent’s perceptions per se. While it is not the focus of this paper, objective reality—the aggregate experience of all members of a metropolitan community—is likely to lie in between the perceptions of the affluent and non-affluent. As the non-affluent are typically more vulnerable to each of the four social conditions under study than the affluent (Adler and Newman 2002; Benach et al. 2014; Levitt 1999; Reardon 2013), their average rating is likely to overestimate the true severity of social conditions by not accounting for the experience of the affluent. Conversely, the average affluent respondent would be expected to underestimate the true severity of social conditions by not accounting for the experience of the non-affluent, leaving the objective reality in between the perceptions of the two groups. The affluent’s tendency to underestimate the objective severity of social conditions may increase as their isolation from the non-affluent increases, a hypothesis that warrants investigation in future research.

  13. 13.

    I also check to see that results are consistent when the full range of the variable is used.

  14. 14.

    The diversity of Americans’ voluntary activity is also reflected in data collected by the Corporation for National and Community Service. Among those who volunteered with a group or organization, most volunteered with religious organizations (36 %), followed by educational and youth service organizations (27 %), with social or community service organizations—the category most directly related to addressing harmful social conditions—coming in third at 14 % (CNCS 2010).

  15. 15.

    Results for voter registration and voter turnout should be interpreted in light of the finding that over-reporting often biases self-reported measures of electoral participation (Bernstein et al. 2001). Ninety-six percent of affluent respondents report being registered to vote, while 88 % of affluent respondents in the SOTC survey report voting in a local election in the last 12 months. This issue is not unique to the SOTC survey: In the 1990 American Citizen Participation Study, one of the few other surveys to ask about voting in local elections, 80 % of affluent respondents (with incomes adjusted for year) report having voted in a “local community election.” By comparison, the best available data (see Oliver et al. 2012, p. 65) suggest that actual turnout in local elections for all social class groups ranges from below 35 % when there is no concurrent federal election to upwards of 75 % when there is a concurrent presidential election (there is no available data with which to measure actual turnout in local elections among the affluent in particular).

  16. 16.

    Measures of individual-level partisanship and ideology are not available in the Soul of the Community survey. I note that past studies of the effects of economic segregation have not included either as controls (Oliver 1999). I also test for bias from the omission of these controls by rerunning the main analyses controlling on whether a respondent lives in a “red state” or a “blue state” as a proxy for individual-level partisanship and ideology (see Supplementary material Appendix p. 16).

  17. 17.

    The lowest level of geo-coding available in the survey is the county.

  18. 18.

    Two SOTC communities, Miami, FL, and Palm Beach, FL, share the same MSA.

  19. 19.

    In measuring the isolation index, affluence is defined as having an income larger than four times the poverty threshold for a family of four ($20,650), making the limit $82,600.

  20. 20.

    Class isolation and income inequality are only moderately correlated among the MSAs in the dataset, preventing issues with multicollinearity (Supplementary material Appendix p. 6).

  21. 21.

    Results are identical in direction and significance with and without standardized non-binary independent variables.

  22. 22.

    The same also holds true in a multilevel ordered logit model.

  23. 23.

    An alternative interpretation of these results is that respondents are ignoring the survey taker’s instructions (p. 10) by providing ratings of the crime level that are only meant to apply to their neighborhood rather than their larger metropolitan community, leading to a strong relationship between Neighborhood Experience and perceptions of crime. If this were the case, respondents could not be said to be extrapolating from neighborhood conditions to form perceptions of social conditions. Yet this alternative interpretation is contradicted by results showing that MSA-level factors, most notably Percent Black, also have significant effects on crime perceptions. Respondents appear to be taking MSA-level factors into account in rating the crime level, suggesting that they are complying with the instructions to provide ratings that apply to their larger metropolitan community rather than their neighborhood alone.

  24. 24.

    See p. 20 in the Supplementary material Appendix for regression results from the fixed effects model.

  25. 25.

    The regression results from which this figure is derived are available in the Supplementary material Appendix (p. 21).

  26. 26.

    The effect of class isolation on group membership is also null when the full range of the variable is included in a multilevel linear model (B = −0.04, p = 0.40).

  27. 27.

    I note that the effect of class isolation on voter registration is no longer significant (B = 0.07, p = 0.43) when state-level partisanship is added as a control (see Supplementary material Appendix p. 19). This suggests that electoral context may matter more than class context in shaping this outcome. All other results are consistent when state-level partisanship is controlled for.

References

  1. Adler, N. E., & Newman, K. (2002). Socioeconomic disparities in health: Pathways and policies. Health Affairs, 21(2), 60–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Atkinson, R. (2008). The great cut: The support for private modes of social evasion by public policy. Social Policy & Administration, 42(6), 593–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bartels, L. M. (2008). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Benach, J., Vives, A., Amable, A., Vanroelen, C., Tarafa, G., & Muntaner, C. (2014). Precarious employment: Understanding an emerging social determinant of health. Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 229–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bernstein, R., Chadha, A., & Montjoy, R. (2001). Overreporting voting: Why it happens and why it matters. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65(1), 22–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Blumer, H. (1971). Social problems as collective behavior. Social Problems, 18(3), 298–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Carnes, N. (2013). White-collar government: The hidden role of class in economic policy making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Corporation for National and Community Service. (2010). Civic life in America: Key findings on the civic health of the nation. Washington, DC: Corporation for National and Community Service.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cruces, G., Perez-Truglia, R., & Tetaz, M. (2013). Biased perceptions of income distribution and preferences for redistribution: Evidence from a survey experiment. Journal of Public Economics, 98, 100–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dawson, M. C. (1994). Behind the mule: Race and class in African-American politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. de Tocqueville, A. (2003). Democracy in America. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dreier, P., Mollenkopf, J. H., & Swanstrom, T. (2013). Place matters: Metropolitcs for the twenty-first century. Lawrence, Kan.: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Elo, I. T., Mykyta, L., Margolis, R., & Culhane, J. F. (2009). Perceptions of neighborhood disorder: The role of individual and neighborhood characteristics. Social Science Quarterly, 90(5), 1298–1320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Eulau, H. (1986). Politics, self, and society: A theme and variations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gainsborough, J. F. (2001). Fenced off: The suburbanization of American politics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gilens, M. (2012). Affluence and influence: Economic inequality and political power in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hilgartner, S., & Bosk, C. L. (1988). The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology, 94(1), 53–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hopkins, D. J. (2010). Politicized places: Explaining where and when immigrants provoke local opposition. American Political Science Review, 104(1), 40–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Huckfeldt, R. (1984). Political loyalties and social class ties: The mechanisms of contextual influence. American Journal of Political Sciecne, 28(2), 399–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Key, V. O. (1949). Southern politics: In state and nation. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kluegel, J. R., Tilly, C., & Bobo, L. D. (2001). Perceived group discrimination and policy attitudes: The sources and consequences of the race and gender gaps. In L. Bobo & A. O’Connor (Eds.), Urban inequality: Evidence from four cities (pp. 163–198). New York: Russel Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kneebone, E., & Berube, A. (2013). Confronting suburban poverty in America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Krivo, L. J., Washington, H. M., Peterson, R. D., Browning, C. R., Calder, C. A., & Kwan, M.-P. (2013). Social isolation of disadvantage and advantage: The reproduction of inequality in urban space. Social Forces, 92(1), 141–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Levine, A. S. (2015). American insecurity: Why our economic fears lead to political inaction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Levitt, S. D. (1999). The changing relationship between income and crime victimization. Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review, 5(3), 87–98.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Logan, J. R. (2011). Separate and unequal: The neighborhood gap for Blacks, Hispanics and Asians in metropolitan America. US2010 Project.

  28. Massey, D. S., Albright, L., Casciano, R., Derickson, E., & Kinsey, D. N. (2013). Climbing Mount Laurel: The struggle for affordable housing and social mobility in an American suburb. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1988). The dimensions of residential segregation. Social Forces, 67(2), 281–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of an underclass. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. McCall, L. (2013). The undeserving rich: American beliefs about inequality, opportunity, and redistribution. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. McCarty, N. M., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Michener, J. (2013). Neighborhood disorder and local participation: Examining the political relevance of “broken windows”. Political Behavior, 35(4), 777–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mooney, L. A., Knox, D., & Schacht, C. (2012). Understanding social problems. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Newman, B. J., Johnston, C. D., & Lown, P. L. (2015). False consciousness or class awareness? Local income inequality, personal economic position, and belief in American meritocracy. American Journal of Political Science, 59(2), 326–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Oliver, J. E. (1999). The effects of metropolitan economic segregation on local civic participation. American Journal of Political Science, 43(1), 186–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Oliver, J. E. (2001). Democracy in suburbia. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Oliver, J. E., Ha, S. E., & Callen, Z. (2012). Local elections and the politics of small-scale democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Oliver, J. E., & Mendelberg, T. (2000). Reconsidering the environmental determinants of white racial attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 44(3), 574–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Putnam, R. D. (2015). Our kids: The American Dream in crisis. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Reardon, S. (2013). The widening income achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 70(8), 10–16.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Reardon, S. F., & Bischoff, K. (2011). Income inequality and income segregation. American Journal of Sociology, 116(4), 1092–1153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Redlawsk, D. P., & Lau, R. R. (2013). Behavioral decision-making. In L. Huddy, D. O. Sears, & J. S. Levy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 130–164). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Reich, R. (2006). Philanthropy and its uneasy relation to equality. In W. Damon & S. Verducci (Eds.), Taking philanthropy seriously: Beyond noble intentions to responsible giving (pp. 33–49). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Ridgeway, C. L., & Fisk, S. R. (2012). Class rules, status dynamics, and gateway interactions. In S. R. Fisk, S. T. Fiske, & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Facing social class: Social psychology of social class, essay (pp. 131–151). New York: Russel Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Rose, M., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2013). Framing the poor: Media coverage and U.S. poverty policy, 1960–2008. Policy Studies Journal, 41(1), 22–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Rossi, P. H. (1980). Why families move. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Rothwell, J. (2012). Housing costs, zoning, and access to high-scoring schools. Metropolitan Policy Program at Bookings.

  49. Rothwell, J. T., & Massey, D. S. (2010). Density zoning and class segregation in U.S. metropolitan areas. Social Science Quarterly, 91(5), 1123–1143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Sandy, J., & Duncan, K. (2010). Examining the achievement test score gap between urban and suburban students. Education Economics, 18(3), 297–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Schlozman, K. L., Verba, S., & Brady, H. E. (2012). The unheavenly chorus: Unequal political voice and the broken promise of American democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 677–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Widestrom, A. (2015). Displacing democracy: Economic segregation in America. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. (2010). The spirit level: Why greater equality makes societies stronger. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

I would like to thank Tali Mendelberg for her guidance throughout this project, and Martin Gilens for helpful feedback. I would also like to thank Douglas Massey and his co-author Jacob Rugh for providing me with data on class isolation. Finally, I would like to thank Mary Kroeger, Vladimir Medenica, Katherine McCabe, participants in the Princeton American Politics Graduate Research Seminar, and participants in the Princeton American Political Behavior Workshop for their comments. The data and code necessary to replicate the results in this paper are available in the Political Behavior Dataverse: https://www.dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/polbehavior.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam Thal.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 3462 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thal, A. Class Isolation and Affluent Americans’ Perception of Social Conditions. Polit Behav 39, 401–424 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9361-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Affluent Americans
  • Segregation
  • Isolation
  • Perceptions
  • Social class
  • Inequality