Avoid terms like ‘poverty’ and talk about specific issues
Sometimes we use language which triggers stereotypical beliefs people hold about the causes of inequality. Because these beliefs are based upon stereotypes rather than analysis, they are likely to be simplistic and distorted.11
The power of these stereotypes appears to come from the ease with which they ‘take hold’ in public consciousness. However, when applied to real-life scenarios stereotypes often no longer make sense.12 For example, stereotypical beliefs that people receiving benefits are “lazy scroungers” no longer make sense when people are presented with information on the high proportion of recipients who are in work, in low paid jobs or working longer hours.
Interestingly, people often use multiple explanations about an issue at the same time (see box, below). One option is to provide an alternative explanation to the stereotypical
ones provided in the media or by politicians. It may be helpful to provide explanations which clearly demonstrate the connection between poverty and specific issues such as zero-hour contracts, low pay and the rising cost of living. For example, explaining the problem of not being able to pay all of one’s bills in terms of the cost of housing as a percentage of income rather than the individual not being thrifty enough.12 It is important that this message is communicated as clearly and simply as possible, as our attention is more likely to be drawn to something we understand. For example, the size of a government department budget is more likely to attract someone’s attention when expressed as an amount per taxpayer rather than as the overall amount.13
People use multiple explanations
People use different explanations of poverty in different contexts, and often give apparently contradictory explanations at the same time.11,12 For example the same person may make sense of poverty using both individual victim-blaming alongside government-based explanations. This is important because different explanations lead to different solutions and explanations that blame the poor or fate mean that societal changes aren’t required.
References
11 Edelman, M. (1998). Language, myths and rhetoric. Society, 35(2), 131-139.
12 Harper, D. (2003). Poverty and Discourse. In Stuart C. Carr & Tod S. Sloan (eds), Poverty and Psychology: From global perspective to local practice (pp.185 – 203). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
13 Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D., & Vlaev, I. (2014). Mindspace: Influencing behaviour through public policy. London: Cabinet Office/ Institute for Government.
Sometimes we use language which triggers stereotypical beliefs people hold about the causes of inequality. Because these beliefs are based upon stereotypes rather than analysis, they are likely to be simplistic and distorted.11
The power of these stereotypes appears to come from the ease with which they ‘take hold’ in public consciousness. However, when applied to real-life scenarios stereotypes often no longer make sense.12 For example, stereotypical beliefs that people receiving benefits are “lazy scroungers” no longer make sense when people are presented with information on the high proportion of recipients who are in work, in low paid jobs or working longer hours.
Interestingly, people often use multiple explanations about an issue at the same time (see box, below). One option is to provide an alternative explanation to the stereotypical
ones provided in the media or by politicians. It may be helpful to provide explanations which clearly demonstrate the connection between poverty and specific issues such as zero-hour contracts, low pay and the rising cost of living. For example, explaining the problem of not being able to pay all of one’s bills in terms of the cost of housing as a percentage of income rather than the individual not being thrifty enough.12 It is important that this message is communicated as clearly and simply as possible, as our attention is more likely to be drawn to something we understand. For example, the size of a government department budget is more likely to attract someone’s attention when expressed as an amount per taxpayer rather than as the overall amount.13
People use multiple explanations
People use different explanations of poverty in different contexts, and often give apparently contradictory explanations at the same time.11,12 For example the same person may make sense of poverty using both individual victim-blaming alongside government-based explanations. This is important because different explanations lead to different solutions and explanations that blame the poor or fate mean that societal changes aren’t required.
References
11 Edelman, M. (1998). Language, myths and rhetoric. Society, 35(2), 131-139.
12 Harper, D. (2003). Poverty and Discourse. In Stuart C. Carr & Tod S. Sloan (eds), Poverty and Psychology: From global perspective to local practice (pp.185 – 203). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
13 Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D., & Vlaev, I. (2014). Mindspace: Influencing behaviour through public policy. London: Cabinet Office/ Institute for Government.
