A STUDY ON POVERTY ATTRIBUTIONS AND SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING AMONG LOW INCOME GROUP: COMPARISON BETWEEN SUBURBAN AND RURAL AREAS OF MALAYSIA
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/hhn8xj95Keywords:
Poverty attribution, decision-making style,, subjective wellbeing,, low-income group, B40Abstract
Although the concepts of attribution is widely used in social psychology, little is known about the relationships between this concepts towards the subjective well-being of the low-income group. This study examines how poverty attributions contribute to the subjective well-being of low income group in Malaysia. In this paper, we hypothesized that how people define the causes of poverty will affect their subjective well-being. We also hypothesized that these factors will differ according to urbanized status of the sampled population. A total of 384 respondents in suburban area in Kuala Lumpur and rural area in Pahang participated in this survey. The findings showed that the respondents mostly attributed poverty to micro-environmental factors (e.g. low income) and fatalistic factors (e.g. having many children to support). There were also significant differences of these poverty attributions between suburban and rural respondents. The multivariable analysis results showed significant associations between several types poverty attributions (micro-environmental, individualistic and fatalistic) and subjective well-being among the respondents. There were consistent significant associations between fatalistic attribution and well-being, even after the data was separately analyzed according to locality (rural vs. suburban). This study implies that poverty attribution is a crucial variable in explaining the mindset and subjective well-being of the general population of Malaysia, especially for the low-income group.
Downloads
References
1. Abouchedid, K., & Nasser, R. (2001). Poverty attitudes and their determinants in Lebanon's plural society.
Journal of Economic Psychology, 22(2), 271-282.
2. Azlina, M. K., & Ma’rof, R. (2013). Poverty attribution among Orang Asli Students in Malaysia (Atribusi kemiskinan dalam kalangan pelajar Orang Asli di Malaysia). Paper presented at the International Conference on Social Science Research,, Penang, Malaysia.
3. Bobo, L. (1991). Social responsibility, individualism, and redistributive policies. Sociological Forum, 6, 71-92.
4. Bolitho, F. H., Carr, S. C., & Fletcher, R. B. (2007). Public thinking about poverty: Why it matters and how to measure it. International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12, 13–22.
5. Bullock, H. (2006). Justifying inequality: A social psychological analysis of beliefs about pverty and the poor. National Poverty Center Working Paper Series. Michigan: National Poverty Center.
6. Carr, S. C. (1996). Social psychology and the management of aid. In S. C. Carr & J. F. Schumaker (Eds.),
Psychology and the developing world (pp. 103–118). Westport: Praeger.
7. Carr, S. C., & MacLachlan, M. (1998). Psychology in developing countries: Reassessing its impact. .
Psychology and Developing Societies, 10(1), 1–20.
8. Castillo Fernández, D. (2007). Hegemony and the U.S. labor model. Latin American Perspectives, 34(1), 64-72.
9. Cozzarelli, C., Wilkinson, A. V., & Tagler, M. J. (2001). Attitudes toward the poor and attributions for poverty. ournal of Social Issues, 57(2), 207–227.
10. Daganzo, M. A. A., & Bernardo, A. B. I. (2018). Socioeconomic status and problem attributions: The mediating role of sense of control. . Cogent Psychology, 5(1), 1525149.
11. Diaz, D., Blanco, A., Bajo, M., & Stavraki, M. (2015). Fatalism and well-being across Hispanic cultures: The Social Fatalism Scales (SFS). Social Indicators Research, 124, 929-945.
12. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.
13. Feagin, J. R. (1972). Poverty: We still believe that God helps those who help themselves. Psychology Today, 6(6), 101-129.
14. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: Mcgraw-Hill.
15. Fox, M. F., & Ferri, V. C. (1992). Women, men and their attributions for success in academe. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(3), 257-271.
16. Gurin, P., Miller, A. H., & Gurin, G. (1980). Stratum identification and consciousness. . Social Psychology Quarterly, 43(1), 30-47.
17. Harper, D. J. (1996). Accounting for poverty: From attribution to discourse. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 6(4), 249-265.
18. Harper, D. J. (2003). Poverty and discourse. In S. C. Carr & S. Sloan (Eds.), Poverty and psychology: From global perspective to local practice (pp. 185–204). New York: Springer.
19. Hayati, D., & Karami, E. (2005). Typology of causes of poverty: The perception of Iranian farmers.
Journal of Economic Psychology, 26(6), 884-901.
20. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
21. Hine, D. W., & Montiel, C. J. (1999). Poverty in developing nations: A cross cultural attributional analysis.
. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 943-959.
22. Hollander, J. A., & Howard, J. A. (2000). Social psychological theories on social inequalities. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 338-351.
23. Hunt, M. O. (1996). The individual, society, or both?: A comparison of Black, Latino, and White beliefs about the causes of poverty. Social Forces, 75, 293-332.
24. Itang. (2013). Causes of poverty and ways to overcome it (Penyebab Kemiskinan dan Cara Menanggulanginya). Islamiconomic: Jurnal Ekonomi Islam, 4(1), 1-25.
25. Iyengar, S. (1990). Framing responsibility for political issues: The case of poverty. Political Behavior, 12, 19–40.
26. Jones, E., & Nisbett, R. (1971). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. New York: General Learning Press.
27. Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881-919.
28. Kish, L. (1965). Survey sampling. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
29. Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, E. R. (1981). Beliefs about stratification. Annual Review of Sociology, 7, 29–56.
30. Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, E. R. (1986). Beliefs about inequality: Americans' views of what is and what ought to be. New York Routledge.
31. Mann, M. (1970). The social cohesion of liberal democaracy. American Sociological Review, 35, 423-439.
32. Matìjù, P. (1996). In search of explanations for the recently left-turns in post communist countries.
International Review of Comparative Public Policy, 7, 43-82.
33. Morçöl, G. (1997). Lay explanations for poverty in Turkey and their determinants. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137(6), 728–738.
34. Murnizam, H., Mohd Dahlan, A. M., Ferlis, B., Norlizah, M., & Webley, P. (2012). Attribution of poverty among Malaysian students in the United Kingdom. Southeast Asia Psychology Journal, 1, 22-30.
35. Raymond r. Tjandrawinata (2016) dietary polyamines for modulation of aging process in the geriatric population. Journal of Critical Reviews, 3 (3), 27-30.
36. Nasser, R. (2007). Does subjective class predict the causal attributions for poverty? Journal of Social Science, 3, 201-207.
37. Nasser, R., Abouchedid, K., & Khashan, H. (2002). Perceptions of the causes of poverty comparing three national groups: Lebanon, Portugal and South Africa. Current Research in Social Psychology, 8(7), 1-13.
38. Nasser, R., Singhal, S., & Abouchedid, K. (2005). Causal attributions for poverty among Indian youth.
Current Research in Social Psychology, 11(1), 1-13.
39. Robinson, J. W. (2009). American poverty cause beliefs and structured inequality legitimation.
Sociological Spectrum, 29(4), 489-518.
40. Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In
L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. (Vol. 10, pp. 173-220). New York: Academic Press.
41. Shadab Md, Gourav K. Singh, Alka Ahuja, Roop K. Khar, Sanjula Baboota, Jasjeet K. Sahni, Javed Ali. "Mucoadhesive Microspheres as a Controlled Drug Delivery System for Gastroretention." Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy 3.1 (2012), 4-14. Print. doi:10.4103/0975-8453.107130
42. Seekings, J. (2007). The mutability of distributive justice attitudes in South Africa. South African Review of Sociology, 38(1), 20-44.
43. Shek, D. (2003). Chinese people's explanations of poverty: The Perceived Causes of Poverty Scale.
Research on Social Work Practice, 13(5), 622-640.
44. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45. Wichowsky, A. (2007). Race, class and place: How perceptions of inequality structure beliefs about the poor. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, USA.
46. Somasundaram, J., Moni, S.S., Makeen, H.A., Intakhabalam, M., Pancholi, S.S., Siddiqui, R., Eltyepelmobark, M.Antibacterial potential of ethanolic extract of broccoli(Brassica oleracea var. italica)against human pathogenic bacteria(2018) International Journal of Pharmaceutical Research, 10 (2),pp.143146.https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2s2.085047190323&partnerID=40&md5=d 58252664442703835d5f2ae69796f2b
47. Wilson, G. (1996). Toward a revised framework for examining beliefs about the causes of poverty. The Sociological Quarterly, 37(3), 413-428.
48. Khan,A.,& Dr. Khushnood,S. (2017). Simple and Efficient Blood Glucose Measurement Technique Using Non Invasive Artificial Intelligence. Bonfring International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management Science, 7(1), 09to13.
49. Omidvar,R. (2015). OOSP (Off-On Sources Problem). International Academic Journal of Science and Engineering, 2(5), 22-31.
50. Khrennikov, A.On the physical basis of theory of "mental waves"(2010) NeuroQuantology, 8 (4 SUPPL. 1), pp. S71-S80.
51. Vimal, R.L.P.Towards a theory of everything part I: Introduction of consciousness in electromagnetic theory, special and general theory of relativity(2010) NeuroQuantology, 8 (2), pp. 206-230.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
