Attitudes Toward The Homeless 1
Attitudes of CSUMB Students Toward the Homeless
Elizabeth Calderon
Capstone Adviser: Dr. Baldwin
SBS 400 and 402: Dr. Bales
California State University Monterey Bay
May 6, 2015
Abstract
The Attitudes Toward Homelessness Inventory was used to measure the attitudes of
Attitudes Toward The Homeless 2
CSUMB students toward the homeless. The ATHI is a 6 point Likert scale survey consisting of
11 items, it was validated in a study of undergraduate students at Georgia State University
(Kingree & Daves, 1997). In the Spring of 2015 the survey was administered to a purposeful
sample of 87 CSUMB students from Social and Behavioral Sciences, Collaborative Health and
Human Services, Biology and Computer Science Information Technology. Erving Goffman’s
stigma theory provided the theoretical framework to interpret the findings. Based on the
literature review and theoretical framework five hypothesis were drawn.
The first hypothesis, that students in majors that focus on societal issues such as SBS and
CHHS would score higher in the ATHI than students in B.S. majors such as BIO and CSIT was
rejected. Although both SBS and CHHS focus on societal issues, there are other factors, besides
a student’s major that need to be considered when measuring attitudes toward the homeless. The
second hypothesis, that female students would score higher in the ATHI than male students was
accepted. The third hypothesis, that students who attributed homelessness to personal causation
would be less likely to affiliate with the homeless was accepted. The fourth hypothesis, that
students who attributed homelessness to societal causation would be more likely to affiliate with
the homeless was accepted. The fifth hypothesis, that students that were likely to believe that
there were viable solutions to homelessness would be likely to affiliate with the homeless was
accepted.
Introduction
This capstone project focuses on the stigma of homelessness, and the way attitudes affect
Attitudes Toward The Homeless 3
this stigma, specifically the attitudes of CSUMB students toward the homeless. The research
questions were: Do students in majors that focus on societal issues, such as Social and
Behavioral Sciences and Collaborative Health and Human Services have more positive attitudes
toward the homeless than students in B.S. majors, such as Biology and Computer Science
Information Technology? Do female students have more positive attitudes toward the homeless
than male students? Does attributing homelessness to personal causation, or societal causation
affect a student’s willingness to affiliate with the homeless? Will students be more likely to
affiliate with the homeless if they believe there are viable solutions to this problem? In order to
measure the attitudes of CSUMB students a purposeful sample of 87 students was surveyed,
using the Attitudes Toward Homelessness Inventory. This survey assessed if there was a
difference in attitudes between students of different majors. It also measured differences in
attitude based on gender. The ATHI assessed if students who attributed homelessness to personal
causation or societal causation were willing to affiliate with the homeless. It also assessed
whether students that believed there were viable solutions to homelessness were likely to affiliate
with the homeless. The results were analyzed, and the findings were interpreted with Erving
Goffman’s stigma theory.
Homelessness is an enduring problem in the United States, although we are a developed
nation the number of homeless individuals has not significantly decreased over the years. The
homeless face many obstacles, and stigmatizing attitudes from society can have a detrimental
effect on this fragile population. Being homeless is just one of the reasons why this population
experiences stigma. Other stigma bearing labels include being mentally ill, having a dependency
on alcohol or drugs, or being lazy (Farrel, Lee, & Link, 2004). Adjusting to life in the streets is
not easy, and a lot of negative consequences accompany this experience. Homeless people
Attitudes Toward The Homeless 4
benefit from any assistance and services that can be offered to them.
I am interested in this topic because my concentration is Sociology, and my minor is
Social Work. These two disciplines focus on social issues, particularly those that affect
vulnerable populations. In the field of social work it is a professional’s duty to provide services
for those in need, and a professional must respect the dignity and worth of every person,
regardless of socioeconomic status. Social workers can help homeless people to access needed
resources, and can serve as advocates. Sociologists have traditionally taken an interest in
homelessness, they have conducted research that has provided important information on this
population. Students in these majors have the power to help shape public opinion, and policies.
They provide a voice for the homeless, and have the ability to mobilize social action. For these
reasons it is important to measure their attitudes toward the homeless.
Literature Review
In the following literature review, I discuss the sociological definition of homelessness,
and the way it’s measured in the United States. I also report on the paths that lead to
homelessness. I examine the use of focus groups, and surveys to measure attitudes toward the
homeless, and the theoretical frameworks that are used to interpret the findings. Finally I report
on the effects that stigma has on the homeless.
Sociological Definition of Homelessness
A homeless person is defined as “an individual who lacks a fixed, regular and adequate
nighttime residence” this includes people with a temporary accommodation, such as individuals
living in a shelter, welfare hotel, car, public and private spaces (Curtis, Corman, Noonan &
Reichman, 2013).
Measuring Homelessness in the U.S.
Attitudes Toward The Homeless 5
It is difficult to calculate the exact number of homeless individuals in the United States,
this is mainly because we lack a standard method for counting the homeless, and the figures are
underrepresented in household surveys, also this condition can be short term and thus hard to be
counted (Curtis et al, 2013). Curtis (2013) states that Despite these shortcomings the U.S
Department of Housing and Urban Development has devised a way to provide a point-in-time
count of homeless individuals in a single night in January. In the Housing and Urban
Development's 2014 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress it was estimated that
578,424 people were “experiencing homelessness on a single night in 2014” (U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, 2014). This report includes sheltered and unsheltered
individuals, veterans, families with children, and unaccompanied minors. Homeless individuals
can be found in rural areas, suburbs, and to a large degree in metropolitan areas, sometimes they
form niches away from business areas where they feel more at ease (Lee, Tyler, & Wright, 2010).
Paths that Lead to Homelessness
The causes of homelessness are attributed to personal deficiencies or societal defects.
Curtis et al. (2013) explain that prior to becoming homeless people usually experience problems
with mental illness, poor health, and domestic violence. The loss of family ties is another factor
behind homelessness, such as becoming estranged from family or getting a divorce (Williams &
Stickley, 2011). When these personal deficiencies are combined with a societal defect such as
unemployment it can lead to homelessness.
The reasons behind homelessness are varied and complex, it is not a single personal
deficiency or societal defect that pushes one to this extreme form of poverty. A combination of
circumstances can result in an individual becoming homeless. The literature on this topic shows
that often times the public over generalizes the reasons behind homelessness. Rokach (2005)
Attitudes Toward The Homeless 6
outlines the three categories homeless individuals get classified into, these are the “slackers” who
are responsible for their homelessness due to their laziness, the “lackers” who are not to blame
for their situation such as the mentally ill and children, “unwilling victims” people that become
homeless due to circumstances beyond their control which can include economic hardships and
abuse. Biswas-Diener and Diener (2006) explain that it is also not correct to generalize when
speaking of the homeless because besides the many issues that lead to homelessness the
demographic is diverse, it affects people of different ages, gender, and ethnicity. The homeless
are not a homogenous population, each person’s individual circumstances must be taken into
account.
Measuring Attitudes Toward the Homeless
In this section I discuss how attitudes toward the homeless are measured, and the
theoretical frameworks used to interpret the findings.
Phelan, Link, Moore and Stueve (1997) conducted research that is referenced in a lot of
literature on the stigma of homelessness. They measured stigma toward the homeless by
conducting a telephone survey with a random sample of participants. They used Erving
Goffman’s stigma theory to interpret their findings. They designed a vignette, with four different
possible scenarios. The vignette depicted a man named Jim that could be poor and domiciled, or
homeless, have back problems or mental illness. After reading one of the scenarios to the
participants they asked 16 questions that measured the social distance between the respondent
and Jim, Jim’s level of dangerousness, how much economic support they would provide for Jim,
and how much blame was placed on him. These four categories were drawn from Goffman’s
stigma theory, which states that certain circumstances could disqualify an individual from full
social acceptance (Phelan et al., 1997). The researchers found that regardless of Jim’s health
Attitudes Toward The Homeless 7
there was more social distance, perceived dangerousness and blame when he was portrayed as
homeless. Overall, the label “homeless” showed a greater level of social rejection towards Jim
than being labeled poor.
Schneider and Remillard (2013) strived to differentiate themselves from research such as
the one conducted by Phelan et al. They did not administer surveys or implement Erving
Goffman’s stigma theory. They created 7 focus groups, composed of self-selected members, to
investigate the ways in which seemingly caring statements about the homeless hold stigma. They
used Foucault’s work on “dividing practices” which examines the way people are categorized
and excluded. Schineider and Remillard (2013) used HyperRESEARCH a program used in
qualitative studies to transcribe the statements from the focus groups. They found that people in
the focus groups presented themselves in a positive way by stating that they helped the homeless,
and saying they felt the homeless were just like them. However, within these seemingly caring
statements they found that the people in the focus groups felt the homeless were responsible for
their homelessness, and incapable of bettering themselves. They thought that any charity or
resources given to the homeless should be controlled because the homeless were incapable of
properly managing this help (Schneider & Remillard, 2013). Their research is important because
it shows that even in caring statements there is some underlying stigma toward the homeless.
The aforementioned research was conducted to measure the attitudes of the general
public. Kingree and Daves (1997) designed the Attitudes Toward Homelessness Inventory to
measure the attitudes of students at Georgia State University toward the homeless. The ATHI
consists of 11 items that were derived from literature on homelessness. Attitudes are measured
with a 6 point Likert scale. There are 4 categories that measure whether homelessness is
attributed to personal deficiencies or a societal defect. It also measures willingness to affiliate
Attitudes Toward The Homeless 8
with the homeless, and if students believe there are effective solutions for homelessness (Kingree
& Daves, 1997). Borgadus’ theory on social distance was used to interpret the students’
willingness to affiliate. The results showed that students generally expressed non-stigmatizing
attitudes toward the homeless. The students believed that homelessness was attributed to societal
defects, and not so much to personal deficiencies, they did not show much willingness to affiliate
with the homeless but they did believe that homelessness could be solved. Kingree and Davis
warned that these findings could differ from those of the general population.
Schneider and Remillard (1997) state that stigma toward the homeless can also be found
in health care settings. Buchanan, Rohr, Kehoe, Glick and Jain (2004) use the ATHI created by
Kingree and Davis to assess the change in attitudes toward the homeless, after medical students
had a two week rotation in homeless healthcare. During the two week rotation students had
lectures and discussions, they also performed services under the supervision of physicians that
work with homeless patients. The ATHI was administered to 18 students at the beginning of the
two week rotation, and at the end of the rotation. Buchanan et al. (2004) found that the total
scores improved by 7 points. At the end of the rotation students were more likely to attribute
homelessness to a societal defect, and they were also more willing to affiliate with the homeless.
Buchanan et al., show that although there might be some stigma toward the homeless in health
care settings, the attitudes of health care professionals can improve through the implementation
of programs such as the two week rotation where they work one on one with the homeless.
Wiseheart, Whatley and Briihl (2013) also administered the ATHI to assess if
undergraduate students exhibited a change in attitudes toward the homeless after participating in
a short term homeless education program. A total of 72 undergraduate students took the survey.
Through random selection 38 of the 72 students were chosen to watch Faces of Homelessness.
Attitudes Toward The Homeless 9
34 students were part of the control group and watched Planet Earth, Oceans Deep. Students that
watched Faces of Homelessness scored higher in the ATHI, this showed more positive attitudes
toward the homeless than the control group. They were more likely to believe that homelessness
was due to personal deficiencies, and were more likely to believe that homelessness could be
solved. However there was not a significant difference in their attribution of homelessness to
societal defects or willingness to affiliate. Like Buchanan et al. this study showed that the ATHI
can effectively assess a change in students’ attitudes toward the homeless. Both of these studies
also demonstrate that programs that educate and expose students to the homeless have a positive
effect on students’ attitudes.
The ATHI was also used as a tool to measure a change in students’ attitudes toward the
homeless at Virginia Wesleyan College. Hotaling, Kiser and Stolley (2008) explain that
volunteers at the college set up a winter shelter for the local homeless. The shelter provided food,
showers, healthcare, extracurricular activities and transportation. The attitudes of the student and
faculty volunteers were measured before and after their participation at the shelter. Paired sample
t-tests of the 11 items in the survey showed a positive change in attitudes. Change was seen both
at the micro and macro level. The volunteers were more likely to affiliate with the homeless after
their participation at the shelter. The ATHI showed that they would feel more comfortable
sharing a meal with the homeless and would feel more at easy when meeting homeless people.
The volunteers’ attitude toward housing, welfare, and minimum wage also changed. They now
saw these as having a deep effect on the homeless. The volunteers were also more likely to
believe that homeless people could adapt to a normal lifestyle. Qualitative data collected through
interviews further showed the effect that this experience had on the volunteers. One of the
volunteers stated that they knew someone at the shelter, which made him realize that
Attitudes Toward The Homeless 10
homelessness could happen to anyone. Another volunteer stated that the shelter experience
helped to break the “us” vs. “them” barrier that was often placed on the homeless. A third
volunteer stated that he no longer saw homeless people as responsible for their homelessness, but
as victims of circumstance. This experience challenged and changed the volunteers’ attitudes
toward the homeless.
Effects of Stigma on the Homeless
The literature on stigma of the homeless also focuses on the ways stigma affects homeless
people. Stigma affects their social identity, it causes them to feel victimized, rejected, and
oppressed by society (Williams & Sitckley, 2011). It also affects their mental state, causing
feelings of anger, frustration and extreme loneliness, the homeless are unable to cope with this
loneliness in ways in which other members of society cope (Rokach, 2005). Stigma can go
beyond everyday citizens and filter into the very institutions that are put in place to help alleviate
the hardships experienced by the homeless (Crawley et al., 2013). This can deter the homeless
from seeking assistance or health care (Murray & Johnsen, 2011). Stigma also affects the way
they cope with their status as homeless individuals, many homeless people resort to drug and
alcohol use as a way to escape their reality (Williams & Stickley, 2011). Ultimately this stigma
can be so intense that it can pose an actual threat to the lives of the homeless, when we justify the
maltreatment of these individuals it can fuel acts of violence against the homeless such as
beatings, rape and even setting a homeless man on fire (Subcommittee on Crimes and Drugs,
2010). Often seen as blemishes in public spaces, homeless individuals are policed and expelled
from these areas. Behavior, such as sitting in sidewalks, sleeping on park benches, and
panhandling is increasingly criminalized (Stuart, 2014). When homelessness itself is seen as the
problem, and not the reasons behind it, the attitudes that members of society have toward the
Attitudes Toward The Homeless 11
homeless warrant some attention.
Theory
Erving Goffman’s stigma theory provides the theoretical framework to analyze the
results. In his book Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity Goffman explains that
a stigma is an undesirable attribute, it can also be called a failing, shortcoming or handicap.
Stigma bearing attributes make people different from normal people (who possess desired
attributes set forth by society). A person with a stigma is reduced from “a whole and usual person
to a tainted, discounted one” (Goffman, 1963, p. 2). Levels of stigma vary, visibility is a crucial
factor in determining how stigmatic an attribute is, in the case of the homeless their
homelessness is displayed for the public to see. There are also different types of stigma, one is
physical disability, the second is blemishes of individual character, and the third is tribal stigma
based on a person’s nationality or religious affiliation (Goffman, 1963). Homeless individuals
are often seen as having blemishes of individual character, which can include being mentally ill,
being an addict, and unemployed. The ATHI will be able to assess if CSUMB student’s attitudes
toward the homeless bear stigma, if there is a difference amongst majors, and gender. It will also
assess how stigma affects students’ willingness to affiliate with the homeless and their belief that
homelessness can be solved.
Methods
The research was conducted in the Spring of 2015. The research questions were: Do
students in majors that focus on societal issues, such as Social and Behavioral Sciences and
Collaborative Health and Human Services have more positive attitudes toward the homeless than
students in B.S. majors, such as Biology and Computer Science Information Technology? Do
female students have more positive attitudes toward the homeless than male students? Does
Attitudes Toward The Homeless 12
attributing homelessness to personal causation, or societal causation affect a student’s
willingness to affiliate with the homeless? Will students be more likely to affiliate with the
homeless if they believe there are viable solutions to this problem? The ATHI was administered
to a purposeful sample of approximately 87 CSUMB students. The survey was distributed
through a paper copy and e-mail. The survey was administered to students in SBS, CHHS, BIO,
and CSIT. No identifying data, other than major, gender and the participant’s age was collected.
Five hypothesis were tested with the ATHI. The first hypothesis was that students in
majors that focus on societal issues such as SBS and CHHS would score higher in the ATHI than
students in B.S. majors such as BIO and CSIT. The second hypothesis was that female students
would score higher in the ATHI than male students. The third hypothesis was that students that
attributed homelessness to personal causation would be less likely to affiliate with the homeless.
The fourth hypothesis was that students that attributed homelessness to societal causation would
be less likely to affiliate with the homeless. The fifth hypothesis was that students that believed
that there were viable solutions to homelessness would be more likely to affiliate with the
homeless.
As mentioned in the literature review the ATHI was validated at Georgia State University.
It has been used in three other studies that have assessed a change in students’ attitudes toward
the homeless after the implementation of programs that provide education on the homeless.
These studies have proven that the ATHI is an effective tool to measure students’ attitudes toward
the homeless.
The ATHI is a 6 point Likert scale survey consisting of 11 items. Items 1, 7 and 8 assess
whether students attribute homelessness to personal causation. Items 2, 3 and 9 assess whether
students attribute homelessness to a societal defect. Items 4 and 10 measure a student’s
Attitudes Toward The Homeless 13
willingness to affiliate with the homeless. Items 5, 6 and 11 assess students’ attitudes toward
solutions for homelessness (See Appendix A). The ATHI total score is used to measure students’
attitude toward the homeless. The scores range from 11 to 66 points, a higher score indicate less
stigma. The ATHI subscales can be correlated with one another, to assess whether positive or
negative relationships exist amongst them. Erving Goffman’s stigma theory was used to interpret
the findings.
Analysis and Findings
The ATHI was administered to a purposeful sample of N=87 CSUMB students. Paper
surveys were distributed to students in the 300 section of SBS, BIO, and CHHS with the
professors’ approval. CSIT students were contacted by e-mail and asked for their voluntary
participation in the survey. The data from the paper survey was transferred to an Excel
worksheet, and combined with the e-mail respondents’ data. The data was then analyzed.
The first hypothesis was that students in SBS and CHHS would
score higher in the ATHI than students in BIO and CSIT. A higher score is indicative of less
stigma toward the homeless. It was hypothesized that students in SBS and CHHS would score
higher because in my personal experience with these majors they expose students to various
societal issues, provide theoretical frameworks to understand them, and encourage the
exploration of possible solutions. According to the CSUMB.edu website the SBS major gives
students and understanding of the different tools available to social researchers, often social
researchers conduct research that can help shape policy and public opinion. The CHHS major
prepares students to become social workers, counselors and public health workers, these careers
Attitudes Toward The Homeless 14
require professionals to work closely with vulnerable populations. The BIO major is more akin
to lab work, preparing students for work in ecology, evolution, molecular biology, and teaching
biology. CSIT prepares students for programing, working with networks and security, software
engineering and game development. Since awareness of societal issues and possible solutions is
a core component of SBS and CHHS and these two items are addressed in the ATHI subscales it
was expected to have an effect on students’ attitudes toward the homeless. To compare the total
score of the ATHI between majors the sum of every participant’s survey was calculated. When
figuring out the total score all items in the societal causation subscale, items 2, 3 and 9, and item
number 4 of the affiliation subscale were reversed so that higher scores indicated less stigma (see
Appendix A). After calculating the sum of all surveys the mean score for every major was
calculated. There were 26 participants from the CHHS major and their average mean was 46.2,
the highest average amongst all majors out of a possible 60 point score. 22 participants from the
CSIT major averaged a score of 45.6, the second highest average. There were 17 BIO
participants and their average score was 44.5. Finally, the SBS major averaged the lowest score
43.4, with 22 participants (see Appendix B). These results led me to reject the first hypothesis.
Although CHHS averaged the highest scores students in CSIT and BIO scored higher than
participants from SBS. This indicates that major alone is not a strong predictor of student
attitudes toward the homeless. Although education helps to shape attitudes there are other factors
that also contribute to this, empathy, political affiliation, and to a greater extent personal
experience with the homeless or homelessness, as well as news and media influence can all
contribute to attitudes (Lee, et al., 2010). Focusing on major alone was a shortcoming, the survey
would greatly benefit from a question asking students about their personal experience with the
homeless, this would help to better understand the results. The difference in total scores was not
Attitudes Toward The Homeless 15
significant, but there was a small difference in the attitudes of students of different majors toward
the homeless.
The subscales (personal causation, societal causation, willingness to affiliate and viable
solutions for homelessness) were also analyzed according to major. The sum of all the items in
every subscale was calculated, then the mean was calculated. The personal causation subscale
includes items number 1, 7, and 8. These questions assess whether homeless individuals are
believed to be homeless due to parental neglect, emotional experiences from their childhood, or
substance abuse (see Appendix A). According to Goffman stigma takes place when people are
seen as possessing discrediting attributes, such as being a drug addict or a an alcoholic, or having
a weak will (Goffman, 1963). Strongly agreeing with statements 1, 7, and 8 yields a lower score
and places more emphasis on personal causation (more stigma). Disagreeing yields a higher
score, and less emphasis on personal causation (less stigma). CSIT students had the highest mean
score for the personal causation subscale, this scale is between 3 to 18 points, the average score
was 11.5 (see Appendix C). Which indicates that CSIT students are less likely to attribute
homelessness to personal causation. The societal causation subscale, items 2, 3, and 9 attributes
homelessness to societal causes such as government cutbacks in housing, low minimum wage,
and government cutbacks in welfare as contributing to homelessness (see Appendix A). This
subscale focuses on a larger societal context, and places less responsibility for homelessness on
homeless individuals and their personal characteristics. A higher score indicates less stigma
toward the homeless. The range for this subscale is 3 to 18 points, CHHS students had the
highest average with a mean score of 12.8. The affiliation scale assess a person’s willingness to
affiliate with the homeless, it is composed of items 4 and 10. The range for this subscale is 2 to
12 points, CHHS students had the highest average with a mean score of 9.7. A higher score
Attitudes Toward The Homeless 16
indicates less stigma toward the homeless, Goffman (1963) explains that stigmatic attitudes
prevent people from interacting with stigmatized individuals, since they can be perceived as
dangerous and overall undesirable. It is great that students in CHHS had the highest average
because their career pathways might lead them to work with marginalized populations. The
solutions subscale, items 5, 6, and 11, measures a person’s attitude toward viable solutions for
homelessness. These items assess whether a person believes that rehabilitation programs for the
homeless are affordable, whether more can be done for the homeless than just ensuring they are
well fed and comfortable and whether a homeless person can be expected to adopt a normal
lifestyle (see Appendix A). Higher scores indicate less stigma, this is especially true of item 11,
drawing from Goffman’s theory if a homeless individual can be expected to adopt a normal
lifestyle it means they are seen as belonging to society and possessing the same attributes as
“normal” individuals. The solutions subscale ranges from 3 to 18 total points, students in CHHS
had the highest mean score, 13.9 (see Appendix C). Students of all other majors had a similar
attitude regarding solutions, this was the subscale with the highest scores. Examining the
subscales provided additional insight into the attitudes of students in a particular major.
The second hypothesis was that female students would score higher than male students.
This hypothesis was drawn from literature on attitudes toward the homeless. In their respective
studies Kingree & Daves (1997) and Phelan et al., (1997) both found female attitudes toward the
homeless were more positive than male attitudes. The overall attitudes of both female and male
participants were analyzed. Out of the 87 participants 53 were female and 33 were male. The
average female score was 45.6 and the average male score was 44.3. The second hypothesis is
accepted, the difference between genders is not significant but the female average score was
greater than the average male score. When the subscales of the ATHI were analyzed based on the
Attitudes Toward The Homeless 17
respondent’s gender females were more likely to attribute homelessness to societal causes, they
were more likely to affiliate with the homeless and more likely to think that there are solutions to
homelessness. All of these factors can be viewed through Goffman’s stigma theory, societal
causes take the focus away from personal causation, and when a person is more likely to affiliate
with the homeless they are less likely to hold negative stigmatic views toward that person. Also,
believing in solutions means that a person can be expected to integrate back into society, and
leave normal lives void of stigma.
After examining differences in students’ mean score based on gender and major, the
subscales were correlated to test hypothesis on the relationships between subscales. For this
analysis all of the participant’s surveys were considered regardless of major or gender. The third
hypothesis was that students that attribute homelessness to personal causation would be less
likely to affiliate with homeless. This hypothesis was drawn from the literature on homelessness
and Goffman’s stigma theory. If a person is seen as responsible for their homelessness, they are
more likely to be attributed other stigma bearing attributes such as being a drug addict, and
failing to live a normal life. This would discourage people from affiliating with the homeless and
would increase stereotypes and stigma towards the homeless. To find the relationship between
the personal causation subscale and affiliation subscale the total of each item in the subscale was
summed, then the totals were ranked. The ranks of each subscale were correlated using
Spearman Rho, which yielded the result rs= -0.067 (see Appendix F). This is a very low number,
with low statistical significance, however it shows a negative relationship between personal
causation and affiliation. Which means that indeed the more a student attributes homelessness to
personal causation the less likely they are to affiliate with the homeless.
The fourth hypothesis was that students that attribute homelessness to societal causation
Attitudes Toward The Homeless 18
will be more likely to affiliate with the homeless. Opposing personal causation and attributing
homelessness to societal causes indicates that students view homelessness as a problem of
society at large. This view lessens the stigma placed on homeless individuals. To find the
relationship between societal causation and willingness to affiliate with the homeless the
individual items in each subscale were summed, the totals were ranked and the ranks were
correlated using Spearman Rho, which resulted in rs = 0.026 (see Appendix F). This is also a
number of very low statistical significance, but indicates a positive relationship between societal
causation and affiliation, thus the fourth hypothesis is accepted.
The fifth hypothesis was that students that are willing to affiliate with the homeless will
also believe that there are viable solutions for homelessness. According to Goffman (1963) when
individuals have similar experiences to stigmatized individuals or become familiar and
knowledgeable of this stigma they are more likely to be sympathetic and accepting of these
individuals. If a person is willing to affiliate with the homeless, or has previous affiliations they
are more likely to understand the plights of homeless individuals. In understand they are also
more likely to become conscious of possible solutions. The total scores of the affiliation and
solutions subscale were summed, their totals were ranked, and the ranks were correlated with
Spearman Rho, which resulted in rs =0.144 (see Appendix F). This number is also very low, but
it indicates a positive correlation and it is also much higher than the correlation between societal
causes and affiliation. Which indicates that students that are willing to affiliate with the homeless
are also likely to believe in solutions to homelessness. This hypothesis was accepted.
In analyzing the data I found that students had fairly similar attitudes across different
majors and genders, however there were slight differences amongst these factors. The
correlations between subscales were weak, but the relationships between subscales were
Attitudes Toward The Homeless 19
consistent with Kingree et al., (1997) findings in their validation of the ATHI. Goffman’s stigma
theory provided a better understanding of the expected results. A big limitation to the data was
considering a student’s major but failing to acknowledge their experience with the homeless, or
homelessness, as this would provide a better understanding of the results. In a future study this
would be a consideration.
Discussion
The homeless are a particularly vulnerable population. Stigmatic attitudes from society
have deep consequences for homeless individuals. These attitudes can be harmful for their
wellbeing, but they also help shape public opinion and ultimately legislation. It is important to
understand homelessness in a societal context, as well as understanding that each individual has
a unique story. This lessens the presence of stereotypes or stigma toward the homelessness, it
makes individuals more likely to affiliate with the homeless and to believe that there are viable
solutions to homelessness.
The ATHI has been proven to be a useful tool in measuring students’ attitudes toward the
homeless. Although SBS did not score as high as I originally hypothesized, it was more
predictable that CHHS students would average the highest score, as these students are more
likely to pursue careers were they directly interact with the homeless and other marginalized
populations. Tools such as the ATHI can be an effective way to understand the attitudes of
students in fields that have first-hand exposure to homelessness. In my review of the literature I
found that the ATHI has gained popularity in the field of medicine, I think it should also be
incorporated in other fields such as social work. Given the resources I would like to replicate one
of the studies that assess for change in students’ attitudes after direct participation with the
homeless.
Attitudes Toward The Homeless 20
Bibliography
Attitudes Toward The Homeless 21
Biswas-Diener, R., & Diener, E. (2006). The Subjective Well-Being of the Homeless, and
Lessons for Happiness. Social Indicators Research, 76(2), 185-205.
Buchanan, D., Rohr, L., Kehoe, L., Glick, S., & Jain, S. (2004). Changing attitudes toward
homeless people: A curriculum evaluation. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 19(5).
Crawley, J., Kane, D., Atkinson-Plato, L., Hamilton, M., Dobson, K., & Watson, J. (2013). Needs
of the hidden homeless – no longer hidden: A pilot study. Public Health, 127(7), 674-680.
Crimes against the homeless: Is the violence growing? : Hearing before the Subcommittee on
Crime and Drugs of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 111 Cong. 1
(2010). Retrieved from
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111shrg64876/pdf/CHRG-111shrg64876.pdf
Curtis, M., Corman, H., Noonan, K., & Reichman, N. (2013). Life Shocks and Homelessness.
Demography, 50(6), 2227-2253.
Farrel, C. R., Lee, B. A., & Link, B. G. (2004). Revisiting the contact hypothesis: The case of
public exposure to homelessness. American Sociological Review, 69(1), 40-63.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Hotaling, D. K., Kiser, F., & Stolley, K. S. (2008). An on-campus homeless shelter: A case study
in applied sociology and service learning. Journal of Applied Social Science, (2)2,
29-38.
Kingree, J., & Daves, W. (1997). Preliminary validation of the attitudes towards homelessness
inventory. Journal of Community Psychology, 25(3), 265-288.
Lee, B. A., Tyler, K. A., & Wright, J. D. (2010). The new homelessness revisited. Annual
Review of Sociology, 36, 501-521.
Attitudes Toward The Homeless 22
Murray, A., & Johnsen, S. (2011). Community hospitality initiatives: ‘Make a cup of tea first, ask
questions later’. Psychodynamic Practice, 17(3), 325-329.
Phelan, J., Link, B., Moore, R., & Stueve, A. (1997). The stigma of homelessness: The impact of
the label "homeless" on attitudes toward poor persons. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 60(4), 323-337.
Rokach, A. (2005). Private lives in public places: Loneliness of the homeless. Social
Indicators Research, 72(1), 99-114.
Schneider, B., & Remillard, C. (2013). Caring about homelessness: How identity work maintains
the stigma of homelessness. Text and Talk,33(1), 95-112.
Stuart, F. (2014). From ‘rable management to’ to ‘recovery management’: Policing
homelessness in marginal urban space. Urban Studies, (51)9, 1909-1925.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2014). H.UD. reports homelessness in
U.S. Continues to decline. (Report No. HUD 14-135). Retrieved from http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/press/press_releases_media_advisories/2014/HUDNo_14-135
Williams, S., & Stickley, T. (2011). Stories from the streets: People's experiences of
homelessness. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 18(5), 432-439.
Wiseheart, C., Whatley, M., & Briihl, D. (2013). The effectiveness of the faces of homelessness
educational program on student attitudes toward the homeless. North American Journal
of Psychology, 15(3), 483-494.
Appendix A
Attitudes Toward The Homeless 23
Attitudes Toward Homelessness Inventory
PC: personal causation (homelessness due to personal deficiencies)
SC: societal causation (homelessness is due to societal causes)
AFFIL: affiliation (willingness to affiliate with homeless people)
SOLN: solutions (there are viable solutions to homelessness)
1. Homeless people had parents who took little interest in them as children. (PC)
1 = strongly agree 2 = agree 3 = neutral 4 = disagree 5 = strongly disagree
2. Recent government cutbacks in housing assistance for the poor may have made the homeless
problem in this country worse. (SC)
1 = strongly agree 2 = agree 3 = neutral 4 = disagree 5 = strongly disagree
3. The low minimum wage in this country virtually guarantees a large homeless population (SC)
1 = strongly agree 2 = agree 3 = neutral 4 = disagree 5 = strongly disagree
4. I would feel comfortable eating a meal with a homeless person (AFF)
1 = strongly agree 2 = agree 3 = neutral 4 = disagree 5 = strongly disagree
5. Rehabilitation programs for homeless people are too expensive to operate (SOL)
1 = strongly agree 2 = agree 3 = neutral 4 = disagree 5 = strongly disagree
6. There is little that can be done for people in homeless shelters except to see that they are
comfortable and well fed. (SOL)
1 = strongly agree 2 = agree 3 = neutral 4 = disagree 5 = strongly disagree
7. Most circumstances of homelessness in adults can be traced to their emotional experiences in
childhood. (PC)
1 = strongly agree 2 = agree 3 = neutral 4 = disagree 5 = strongly disagree
8. Most homeless persons are substance abusers. (PC)
Attitudes Toward The Homeless 24
1 = strongly agree 2 = agree 3 = neutral 4 = disagree 5 = strongly disagree
9. Recent government cutbacks in welfare have contributed substantially to the homeless
problem in this country (SC)
1 = strongly agree 2 = agree 3 = neutral 4 = disagree 5 = strongly disagree
10. I feel uneasy when I meet homeless people. (AFF)
1 = strongly agree 2 = agree 3 = neutral 4 = disagree 5 = strongly disagree
11. A homeless person cannot really be expected to adopt a normal lifestyle. (SOL)
1 = strongly agree 2 = agree 3 = neutral 4 = disagree 5 = strongly disagree
Attitudes Toward The Homeless 25
Appendix B
Major
SBS
BIO
CHHS
CSIT
Total Number of
Participants
N=22
N=17
N=26
N=22
Total ATHI Score
M=43.4
M=44.5
M=46.2
M=45.6
CHHS Mean Score
CSIT Mean Score
Appendix C
ATHI Subscale
SBS Mean Score
BIO Mean Score
Personal
Causation
M=11.2
M=11.3
M=10.5
M=11.5
Societal
Causation
M=10.6
M=12
M=12.8
M=11.6
Affiliation
M=8.2
M=8
M=9.7
M=8.7
Solutions
M=13.4
M=13
M=13.2
M=13.9
Attitudes Toward The Homeless 26
Appendix D
Gender
Females
Males
N=53
N=34
M=45.6
M=44.3
Number of Participants
Total ATHI Mean
Appendix E
ATHI Subscale
Females
Males
Personal Causation
M=10.8
M=11.2
Societal Causation
M=12
M=11.3
Affiliation
M=8.9
M=8.5
Solutions
M=13.6
M=13.1
Attitudes Toward The Homeless 27
Appendix F
Correlated Subscales
Spearman Rho
Personal Causation and
Affiliation
rs= -0.067
Societal Causation and
Affiliation
rs = 0.026
Solutions and
Affiliation
rs =0.144