Stigma and the Social Safety Net

• In Event: Reducing the Psychological Burden of Administrative Processes

Abstract

Decades of research have documented large “take-up gaps” in social safety net programs, as well as the potential of behavioral interventions that target informational and logistical barriers to participation. But while the existence of “welfare stigma,” a type of psychological burden, has been well-documented, there is little evidence on whether, how, or for whom it affects participation in benefits programs – nor on whether it can be moved. Across four large-scale survey experiments (N = 19,750), we aim to deepen our understanding of the relationship between stigma and behavior in the context of the social safety net.
We first document that stigma can be conceptualized as three distinct constructs, and that these constructs can move independently and each predict different policy-relevant outcomes. For instance, we show that societal stigma strongly predicts burden tolerance (i.e., support for policies that make it more difficult to access programs). Meanwhile, internalized stigma most strongly predicts willingness to participate in programs, especially among low-income populations. We also show that these relationships are moderated significantly by income and are distinct from other related constructs. In other words, stigma predicts policy-relevant outcomes over and above racial prejudice, attributions, or beliefs about deservingness.

Next, we find significant variation in the level of stigma associated with the six largest means-tested programs. For example, we find significantly higher (0.1-0.5 standard deviations) levels of stigma associated with rental assistance and SNAP than with Medicaid and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). We also document significant heterogeneity by experience with benefits programs and political ideology. We then show that this variation can be explained, in part, by perceptions of who participates in and benefits from these programs.

Finally, we test whether seven theoretically-driven framings of two means-tested programs – SNAP and Medicaid (a highly-stigmatized and a less stigmatized program, respectively) – can meaningfully shift stigma. For instance, we examine the impact of making program requirements more salient, correcting misperceptions about beneficiaries, and  emphasizing psychological ownership and social norms – two approaches drawn from related literature. We then explore differences in the effect of message framing by program and by population.   

Taken together, these findings suggest that stigma can meaningfully influence behavior and decision-making in the context of the social safety net, and that moving it will require different policy levers depending on the program, population, and desired behavioral outcome.  These findings make a substantial contribution to existing literature by offering a definition and tool for measuring stigma and by documenting the importance of conceptualizing stigma as different dimensions. This both deepens our understanding of the direct and indirect pathways through which stigma can affect take-up of government programs, and sheds some light on why the few existing studies that have tried to experimentally manipulate stigma have yielded mixed results. These findings also point toward both a need for a further study and a more conscious focus on the role of stigma in this context. 

Authors

• Jessica Lasky-Fink, Harvard University
  Non-Presenting Co-Author

• Elizabeth Linos, Harvard University
  Presenting Author

• Heidi Wallace, Harvard University
  Non-Presenting Co-Author