TY - JOUR
T1 - Lay explanations for poverty in turkey and their determinants
AU - Morçöl, Göktug
N1 - Funding Information:
The author is now at the Department ofpublic Administration and Human Services, Kennesaw State University. This study was supported by A Research and FACU~DQe velopment Grant from the Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey. The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions made by Ali S. Gitmez and Murat A. Ozkan of the Middle East Technical University in conducting the survey and the helpful comments made on earlier drafts of the manuscript by hfartha Grifith and Michael B. Reiner of Kennesaw State University. Address correspondence to Giiktg MorGol, Department of Public Administration and Human Services, Kennesaw State University, I000 Chastain Road, Kennesaw, GA 30144- 5591; e-mail: GMORCOL@ KSUMAIL.KENNESAWEDU.
Copyright:
Copyright 2017 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 1997/12/1
Y1 - 1997/12/1
N2 - The external and internal causal attributions for poverty in Turkey were examined in an exploratory survey. Factor analysis results confirmed Feagin's 3 conceptual categories (1975) of explanations for poverty, structural, fatalistic, and individualistic. Income, gender, age, and education were important determinants of explanations for poverty. All income groups favored structural (external) explanations. Poor persons preferred more tangible structural explanations, and nonpoor persons gave more abstract structural explanations. Poor persons also favored fatalistic (external) explanations more than higher income groups did. Women and older people offered individualistic and fatalistic explanations more than others. Men and people with higher levels of education preferred abstract structural explanations more than others.
AB - The external and internal causal attributions for poverty in Turkey were examined in an exploratory survey. Factor analysis results confirmed Feagin's 3 conceptual categories (1975) of explanations for poverty, structural, fatalistic, and individualistic. Income, gender, age, and education were important determinants of explanations for poverty. All income groups favored structural (external) explanations. Poor persons preferred more tangible structural explanations, and nonpoor persons gave more abstract structural explanations. Poor persons also favored fatalistic (external) explanations more than higher income groups did. Women and older people offered individualistic and fatalistic explanations more than others. Men and people with higher levels of education preferred abstract structural explanations more than others.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031316892&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031316892&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/00224549709595494
DO - 10.1080/00224549709595494
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:0031316892
VL - 137
SP - 728
EP - 738
JO - Journal of Social Psychology
JF - Journal of Social Psychology
SN - 0022-4545
IS - 6
ER -