Brainstorming is a new conversation series where psychologists and social scientists discuss their research, topics of the day, and the role of SPSSI in understanding and responding to social issues. In this inaugural edition, SPSSI Director of Policy and Communications, Sam Abbott, sat down with new SPSSI President, Dr. Heather Bullock. In this conversation, they discuss:
Sam Abbott: Heather, it's so great to see you. Thank you for joining me today to talk about your presidency and research.
Heather Bullock: It's great to talk with you!
Expectations for SPSSI in 2024/2025
Abbott: Congratulations again on your presidency, which officially began on September 1st. What is going through your mind as you assume this role, and what do you hope to accomplish with your term as SPSSI’s president?
Bullock: First, I want to say how honored I am to serve in this role and how much it means to me. SPSSI has been my intellectual home since I became a member as a graduate student and attended my first conference as a new assistant professor. As an undergraduate student, I remember reading the Journal of Social Issues! Finding and becoming part of a community that addresses such a wide range of social issues, unapologetically takes justice-oriented approaches to them, and works directly on policy and advocacy was an incredibly powerful experience for me.
It is amazing to serve in this capacity, and I'm mindful that I’m stepping into the giant shoes of former SPSSI presidents and amazing SPSSI members. I want to continue all of the good work that they have initiated. That, of course, is a priority.
I'm also committed to ensuring that we're attracting new members and that we're continuing to engage our current members who work in so many different capacities – as researchers, teachers, practitioners, and advocates. We need to make sure that SPSSI’s programs, journals, initiatives and our activities serve all of our members and their interests.
SPSSI has so much to offer in terms of informing policy. A big priority for me is making certain that SPSSI’s voice is out there, that we have a seat at the table, and that we are informing policy. I hope people will reach out with their ideas for doing so!
Abbott: Obviously, we don't know what the future holds for us, but if you could gaze into your crystal ball, are there any major issues or policy topics that you anticipate being a big focus for SPSSI and its members this year?
Bullock: I would turn that question around and ask, “Where shouldn't we or where can't we have an impact?” I don't think there's a single area that SPSSI members can't have an impact in and shouldn't be working in.
Obviously, and this is a necessarily incomplete list, we have a U.S. presidential election looming, so understanding the impact of polarization as well as voting patterns is crucially important. Climate change, the violence in Palestine, working for racial equality, reproductive justice, economic justice — there are so many areas in which we should be trying to make an impact. I suspect SPSSI members have always felt this way, that there is so much hanging in the balance.
My hope is that SPSSI members are involved at all levels. Sometimes people aren’t sure how to get involved or at what level to engage. Locally, regionally, at the state level, nationally, wherever you are, whatever you can do, you can have an impact. SPSSI members’ voices, perspectives, and engagement are crucial.
Becoming a Scholar of Class and Inequality
Abbott: If you don't mind me saying so, you are one of the preeminent scholars in psychology on the topics of economic inequality and poverty. For those that maybe aren't familiar with your work, can you describe scholarship and what drew you to this particular line of research?
Bullock: That is kind of you to say! I'm a feminist social psychologist who works at the intersection of social psychology and social policy.
I focus on two interrelated areas. Much of my current research focuses on women's lived experiences with poverty, particularly in relation to intersecting classism, racism, and sexism. I also study social psychological dimensions of social class, more broadly, and the legitimization of inequality. My research program is guided by an overarching interest in the intersections of structural, political, and social psychological processes that contribute to support for safety net and welfare policies and for political mobilization on behalf of economic justice. As a community-engaged scholar, I often work in partnership with nonprofit organizations and other community stakeholders.
My interests are both personal and professional. My own class trajectory is a complex one. I grew up in a family that was middle class during my childhood and low-income throughout my teenage years. These experiences sensitized me to a range of economic justice issues, but it wasn't until graduate school when I took a course on the social psychology of poverty and social class with Professor Bernice Lott, one of my mentors, that I began to understand how psychology can address economic inequality. Bernice and her course changed my life, and I am forever grateful.
The Persistence of Harmful Myths About Poverty
Abbott: You just used a really interesting phrase, “the legitimization of inequality.” That was a theme I noticed in a lot of your writing as I was preparing for this conversation. In writing about the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election, if anyone can remember that far back, you talked about how [Republican Presidential Candidate] Mitt Romney’s infamous “47% of Americans” comment underscores a prominent takers versus makers myth in our society.
Do you think this myth still holds as true in 2024? Or are we seeing social and political actors becoming a little more aware of the structural factors that shape economic outcomes?
Bullock: As is often the case, I think both things are true. Those same myths are alive and well today because they're so deeply embedded in US culture and in our belief systems. Individualism and meritocracy are still in full force. Sometimes these beliefs are articulated in more nuanced ways, but they are still there. The emphasis placed on small businesses is one example. Small businesses are wonderful—I support small businesses—but there is also this” pull yourself up by your bootstraps” narrative often embedded in how small businesses are portrayed.
At the same time, I think there is greater recognition of systemic forces. There is more discussion today of racialized capitalism. There's much more recognition of our deep economic divides. Many events have brought these issues to the forefront, the COVID-19 pandemic being one of them.
Abbott: You talk about poverty myths like this one and others in your book, Poorly Misunderstood: What America Gets Wrong About Poverty. If you could wave your magic wand and erase one of these myths from policymakers' minds, what would it be? Is there a sort of foundational or proto-myth that shapes the rest of our policy discourse around poverty?
Bullock: I have thought a lot about this question! My co-authors (Mark Rank and Lawrence Eppard) and I came together to write this book because we wanted to debunk some of the most common U.S. myths about poverty such as:
- very few Americans experience poverty or economic hardship in their lifetime,
- hard work is sufficient to avoid poverty;
- poverty is an inevitable aspect of society;
- the welfare system is generous, expensive, and enormous;
- welfare fraud is rampant;
- government programs aren't effective;
- and the playing field is even and that the US is a nation of great mobility
All of these myths reinforce each other. They all work together. They’re part of a large network of beliefs and are grounded in individualism and in meritocracy. It's hard to untangle them because they're so interconnected.
If I could identify a foundational myth, one that I think is at the heart of all of them, I think it is belief in meritocracy - that anyone, regardless of their race, class, gender, or other identities, wherever they start, they can move to the “top” of the economic system or at least move significantly upward through hard work. This is a foundational myth and the heart of the American dream.
But if I could erase one myth from policymakers' minds, it would be that government programs can't reduce poverty. There is so much evidence that government programs can reduce poverty.
We wrote this book before the COVID-19 pandemic. We have even more evidence now, after the pandemic, that investing in safety net programs and other types of assistance programs can reduce poverty. We know that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) reduces food insecurity. We know that Social Security significantly reduces poverty among older Americans. We have so much evidence. I would love to see that myth erased.
Policymaking Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic
Abbott: As you say in the book, poverty is a policy choice. I'm thinking of the 2021 expansion of the Child Tax Credit, which cut child poverty in half for about six months. Congress ultimately did not extend that expansion, largely because of certain myths that “undeserving” people in poverty were getting this money and that they were going to spend it on drugs . So, we saw child poverty sort of snap back.
Really that was part of, now I'm sort of monologuing, a broader—albeit temporary—shift in how policymakers were thinking about poverty and economic downturns; responding with bigger, less targeted fiscal policy during the middle of the pandemic.
Is there anything we can learn from this, or is it a situation where, well, that was COVID, that was different, nice experiment, but now we're back in the real world?
Bullock: I think it was a pivotal moment, particularly for some White Americans and wealthier Americans because some of the realities of race, gender, and class in the United States were exposed. There was a lot of attention to, and recognition of, who had to go to work in person and potentially risk their lives and who was able to shelter in place and work from home. Unfortunately, this was short-lived and did not translate into permanent structural change.
Abbott: I wonder if policymakers responded differently because this was a crisis that scared them more on a personal level.
Bullock: I think at least part of the policy response was driven by the sheer scope of what was happening. Policymakers had to respond differently and pressure to do so occurred at all levels.
We saw declines in poverty during the pandemic. The economic crisis related to the COVID-19 pandemic would have been much worse without a strong policy response. Everything has borne that out.
We've also learned how quickly those policies can disappear. There was a sense after the pandemic that some of those programs, such as Child Tax Credit, would continue moving forward. Unfortunately, it did not take very long after the pandemic, or even at some points during the pandemic, to hear the same individualistic narratives about work—concerns about people not wanting to work anymore instead of critically interrogating low wage work.
Advocating for Economic Equality
Abbott: I'd love to know where you think scholars, activists, and advocates can go from here and whether they can use these poverty myths that you write about to their advantage.
One thing I've been thinking about is how there's been a clear effort to reframe social safety net spending less as “handouts” or “welfare” but rather as investments in the economy. That SNAP or “food stamps,” for example, aren’t just good because they help people eat, but because they stimulate economic growth.
What you think about this tactical approach in terms of how it challenges, or perhaps fails to challenge, some of the neoliberal paradigms that have shaped our economy and policies?
Bullock: This is such a difficult, tricky issue, and it's one that I struggled with when I was an American Psychological Association (APA) congressional fellow. I worked in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee in the Democratic office for Senator Edward M. Kennedy.
In that role, I spent I often tried to get Republican co-sponsors to sign on to our legislation. One of the major proposals I worked on was a bill to increase the vehicle asset limit so that low-income families could be eligible for benefits and a more valuable vehicle.
One argument for increasing the vehicle asset limit is that it helps low-income families get to work and keep their jobs. This may be the case but it also reinforces the same neoliberal assumptions about work and work lifting families out of poverty and the value of work in and of itself—and that low-income families aren't working outside the home when in fact they are.
The challenge in terms of framing is that you need to get your foot in the door to gain traction. Sometimes this is hard to do without also potentially reinforcing some of those same neoliberal paradigms. It's a challenge. If we fall back on those old assumptions, we don't really move forward.
This is an area where psychologists have so much to offer. I will give a shout out to an amazing resource, the Frameworks Institute, that draws on social science research to develop effective frames on a whole range of issues.
The Role of Psychology in Economic Policymaking
Bullock: A misperception, and probably a common one, is that economic policy is an area that sociologists or economists work in, but not psychologists.
Abbott: How do you think psychology can have a larger influence in economic policymaking circles?
Bullock: I can't count how many poverty-related initiatives I've worked on over the years where I've been the only psychologist. It's not uncommon and it's unfortunate. It is a missed opportunity for psychologists but also for policymakers.
I think it's a two-fold issue. There are still a lot of misunderstandings about the field of psychology and the types of work that we do, especially social psychology. Educating policymakers about the valuable findings that come from the field of psychology is crucial.
The other piece of it is that psychology and psychologists can be insulated. If we want to have a policy impact, we need to be reading and thinking and collaborating across areas. For issues related to poverty or economic justice, you can't just read psychology. You have to be drawing on other disciplines. Partnerships across professional societies—across fields—are crucial to gaining policymakers' attention.
When students ask me how they can get involved in policy, one of the first things I suggest is to think about the policies that they're interested in, not just the issues that they're interested in broadly.
Abbott: That's the advice I often give to some of the members that to want to get involved in policy. Find out about the specific policy vehicles that are out there in the world. What are the bills on Capitol Hill that are being proposed or being debated? What are the regulatory options that exist?
It’s a very different type of research to go out and find those things. I don't know if it's something that grad schools do a really great job of giving people the tools to do that. Hopefully SPSSI can be that connecting point for our members.
Bullock: I agree and I think SPSSI is that connector!
Abbott: In some of your earlier writing, you suggest that class realities about the field of psychology, which tends to be more highly educated and middle class, may limit its focus on classism relative to other types of discrimination like gender or race discrimination. Has psychology made progress in addressing classism since you first wrote about this?
Bullock: Yes, I think there has been significant progress. Over the years, I've worked with SPSSI and the American Psychological Association to raise awareness of class issues and poverty. I think we’ve made progress in terms of institutionalized recognition of socioeconomic status. There's also been progress in naming class privilege and increased awareness of social class as an aspect of identity.
Yet, there's still a lot of work to be done. We continue to primarily problematize poverty, which is a significant concern, but we also need to problematize wealth and economic inequality. We've been slower to do this, probably in part because many societies value wealth and we are not immune to these beliefs. There remain many ways that middle class status is treated as normative. We need to go further in terms of critically examining wealth and class privilege as well as economic inequality, more broadly.
Abbott: Sadly, we’re out of time and need to end here. Heather, thank you so much for joining and talking with me today. I really look forward to working together this year!
Bullock: Me too! Thank you!
|