The hidden barrier to poverty alleviation: aporophobia and the rise of neoliberalism morality among youth

The hidden barrier to poverty alleviation: aporophobia and the rise of neoliberalism morality among youth | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article The hidden barrier to poverty alleviation: aporophobia and the rise of neoliberalism morality among youth Cristina Montañola-Sales, Juan Albacete-Maza, Francesc Martori-Adrian, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6429946/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study investigates aporophobia—discrimination against the poor—within the context of neoliberal political economy, focusing on intergenerational differences in attitudes among young people and adults in Barcelona (Spain). A survey distributed to college students and their adult close contacts (N = 832) reveals moderate aporophobic beliefs across both age groups, with young people displaying higher levels of aporophobia than their adult counterparts. We frame this finding within neoliberalism's meritocratic narrative, which attributes poverty to individual failure rather than structural causes —fostering moral blame and legitimizing exclusion. Drawing on the social rivalry hypothesis, we interpret aporophobia as a cultural and psychological mechanism for sustaining beliefs in fairness amid inequality. Our results suggest that internalized neoliberal values among youth may pose a cultural threat to poverty alleviation efforts by undermining empathy and political support for redistributive policies. Recognizing aporophobia as a hidden boundary to effective poverty reduction highlights the need for policy and educational interventions that challenge meritocratic myths and promote structural awareness across generations. Social science/Development studies Social science/Social policy Social science/Sociology Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 1. Introduction The persistence of poverty despite decades of global economic growth has prompted increasing scrutiny of the ideological frameworks underpinning policy and public opinion. Although neoliberalism promised prosperity through market competition and minimal state intervention, it has instead contributed to growing inequalities both within and across countries (see Friedman ( 1962 ) and Hayek ( 1944 ) for the ideological foundations of neoliberalism’s promises; see Harvey ( 2005 ) and Piketty ( 2014 ) for critiques of its real-world consequences). The assumption that wealth would "trickle down" has failed to materialize in many contexts, prompting a reassessment of how economic ideologies shape not just markets, but public attitudes toward poverty. In this context, numerous researchers have drawn attention to the social, political, and cultural threats that undermine poverty alleviation efforts. Among these, a growing concern is the way neoliberal morality fuels public resistance to redistributive policies and moralizes poverty. A core element of neoliberal ideology is meritocracy : the belief that success is earned through individual effort, and failure is a personal responsibility. Neoliberalism operates both as a political-economic model—characterized by deregulation, privatization, and market primacy—and as a cultural ideology, shaping how individuals interpret success, failure, and social worth (Brown, 2015 ; Harvey, 2005 ). This study focuses on the latter: how neoliberal cultural narratives internalized by individuals influence their perceptions of the poor, potentially creating boundaries to poverty alleviation rooted in belief systems rather than material constraints. Within this context, aporophobia—a term coined by Spanish philosopher Adela Cortina to describe rejection and aversion toward poor individuals—emerges as a significant but under-recognized consequence of neoliberal culture (Cortina, 2017 ). Unlike traditional forms of prejudice based on immutable traits like race or gender, aporophobia targets those perceived as economically unproductive or undeserving. This discrimination is rooted in moral judgments and reinforced by the illusion of equal opportunity (Andrade, 2008 ). The result is a social landscape where poverty is blamed on character, not structure. This paper explores how neoliberal meritocratic values contribute to aporophobic attitudes, and how such beliefs differ across generations. Understanding these dynamics is essential in a world where poverty alleviation is increasingly undermined not only by economic or political constraints, but also by cultural narratives that stigmatize the poor and weaken support for redistributive efforts. Ending poverty is essential for building a prosperous society, as reflected in the first Sustainable Development Goal of the 2030 Agenda: “End poverty in all its forms everywhere”. The United Nations ( 2023 ) reports that over 600 million people live in extreme poverty. This issue remains a major barrier to a prosperous society (Alejo et al., 2018 ), as reflected in the first Sustainable Development Goal of the 2030 Agenda: "End poverty in all its forms everywhere." In Spain, 7.7% of the population faced severe material deficiencies, 8.7% struggled financially, and 26% were at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2022 (National Institute of Statistics, 2023). Poverty has been the subject of extensive research. Most publications have focused on the historical debate surrounding how poverty should be measured with three main perspectives: an objective approach using quantitative indicators like income (Posel & Rogan, 2014 ), a relative approach using indicators relative to economic and social context (Dartanto & Otsubo, 2013 ; Townsend, 1979 ), and a subjective approach prioritizing the perceptions of those experiencing poverty (Ravallion, 2012 ; Van Praag & Ferrer-i-Carbonell, 2011 ). Research on the ethical and moral causes of poverty is less extensive than that on economic causes, but numerous studies have examined the rejection of the poor through related phenomena such as stereotypes, prejudice, and stigma. Common stereotypes portray the poor as lazy, irresponsible, or even criminal (Heberle & Carter, 2020 ; Wang & Yang, 2020 ); prejudice is often expressed as affective or cognitive bias shaping negative attitudes (Allport, 1954 ; Lemieux & Pratto, 2003 ; Reutter et al., 2009 ); and stigma highlights how poverty leads to social devaluation and exclusion (Goffman, 1963 ; Hoyt et al., 2023 ). A historically persistent framework is the moral distinction between the “deserving” and “undeserving” poor (Appelbaum, 2001; Guetzkow, 2010 ; Halper, 1973 ; Handler, 1972 ; Katz, 1989 ), which legitimizes compassion only when poverty is seen as involuntary, while blaming and invisibilising those believed to be responsible for their situation. While these approaches shed light on important dimensions of how poverty is moralized, they remain fragmented and lack a unified framework to conceptualize discrimination specifically targeted at poor individuals. The concept of aporophobia, in contrast, aims to unify these perspectives under a broader philosophical and normative lens. Coined in the 1990s by Spanish philosopher Adela Cortina, aporophobia refers specifically to the rejection experienced by people living in poverty. She grounded the concept in the Kantian principle of treating individuals as ends in themselves (Kant, 1785 ), and in Amartya Sen's capability approach (Sen, 1999 ), which emphasizes the freedom to achieve well-being. Cortina developed this concept more fully in her book 'Aporophobia, the rejection of the poor' (Cortina, 2017 , 2022 ), where she delved into the ethical implications of this discrimination and called for greater recognition of its impact on social cohesion. This research aims to empirically explore aporophobia, focusing on generational differences between young individuals and adults. By doing so, it seeks to improve our understanding of this discriminatory phenomenon and to address the practical, ethical, and moral challenges it poses. Based on a sample of 832 participants —comprising university students and adults in Barcelona, a city marked by both significant economic inequality (Idescat, 2022 ) and high levels of reported hate crimes in Spain (Ministry of Interior, 2020) — the study provides a comprehensive measure of aporophobic attitudes and identifies patterns that can inform public awareness and intervention strategies. While the study is geographically limited to Barcelona, Spain, it offers insights relevant to other neoliberal democracies, particularly in the Global North. Spain presents a unique context: a Southern European welfare state marked by high youth unemployment, increasing socioeconomic inequality, and political debates around redistribution. These conditions make it a valuable case for examining how neoliberal narratives intersect with poverty stigma, and future research should explore whether similar patterns emerge in different political-economic and cultural contexts. The article is organized as follows: Section 2 presents a review of the available literature on aporophobia and intergenerational differences in discriminatory phenomena; Section 3 describes the methodology used. In Section 4 , the main results are presented. Finally, Section 5 discusses the results, followed by the study’s conclusions and limitations in Section 6 . 2. Literature Review The literature on aporophobia has grown in recent years, although it remains a relatively underexplored area of study. While substantial research has addressed the economic, ethical, and social dimensions of poverty, the specific phenomenon of aporophobia—its causes, manifestations, and implications—has not been as extensively examined. This section will provide a comprehensive review of the existing literature on aporophobia, including its definition, underlying psychological and societal mechanisms, and the state of empirical research. Additionally, this review will explore intergenerational differences in discriminatory attitudes, particularly focusing on how age may influence the prevalence and intensity of aporophobic beliefs. By synthesizing these diverse strands of research, we aim to contextualize the present study within the broader scholarly discourse and highlight the gaps that this research seeks to address. 2.1. What is Aporophobia? The term aporophobia describes “the rejection, aversion, fear, and contempt for the poor, for the helpless who, at least in appearance, cannot return anything good in return" (Cortina, 1995, p.12). Recognizing aporophobia is crucial for identifying, understanding, and addressing this unfair and violent social problem (Andrade, 2008 ). Like other discriminatory phenomena, aporophobia is marked by a profound aversion directed at a particular group: in this case, poor people. Thus, individuals are discriminated against not because they have supposedly committed some negative act but because they fundamentally belong to a group that is considered despicable (Niño-Arguelles et al., 2020 ). This rejection is based on fallacies, biases, generalizations, and distortions of reality without any solid foundations (Martínez-Navarro, 2002 ). In addition, all those who discriminate see themselves as superior and justify their animosity towards the poor with a perceived injustice (Cortina, 2017 ). Finally, aporophobia overlaps with other types of discrimination, following the logic of intersectionality (Crewnshaw, 1991), making the experience of aporophobia different depending on an individual’s gender, race, origin, and other conditions besides economic status. Therefore, aporophobia is a complex type of discrimination rooted in biased and judgmental views towards citizens living in poverty. It can manifest and spread hatred through different channels and levels. 2.2. Why do we reject the poor? Cortina ( 2017 ) refers to the "aporophobic brain" as the innate tendency to reject and avoid what is different, a survival mechanism from our primitive past. Greater hatred towards foreign groups increased group cohesion and survival chances (Darwin, 2009 ). Neuroscience confirms biological bases for xenophobia (Damasio, 2011 ; Evers, 2015 ; Greene, 2013 ), which may also apply to aporophobia (Cortina, 2011 , 2017 ). However, this does not justify a rejection of the poor. Humans are biologically prepared for both selfishness and cooperation (Cortina, 2017 ). Thus, the lack of empathy towards the poor must be explained by factors beyond our brain's natural tendencies. The existence of poverty challenges our societal model (Martínez-Navarro, 2002 ; Picado et al., 2022 , 2023 ), especially in modern contractual societies (Andrade, 2008 ). These societies believe they are based on the ideals of reciprocity, expecting every member to contribute something in return for what they receive; and on the concept of meritocracy, where emphasis is placed on the potential of the individual to improve his or her economic situation and, therefore, contribute to society as a whole. The main implication of acknowledging the relevance of aporophobia is the acceptance of poverty as, at least partially, a result of social and structural causes with the consequent social responsibility that it entails. Unfortunately, we often blame individuals for their poverty (Pozo & Abierto, 2019), using stereotypes and prejudices to avoid guilt and cognitive dissonance, and to justify inaction (Festinger, 1962 ). This avoidance fuels aporophobia, allowing us to ignore our responsibility for the hardships faced by the disadvantaged in current societal models. As with other discriminatory phenomena, Aporophobia is promoted by an us vs. others mentality (Tajfel & Turner, 1979 ). The non-poor differentiate themselves by attributing negative traits to the poor, seeing themselves as superior and the poor as inferior (Andrade, 2008 ). This stigmatization creates a "vicious circle of aporophobia" (Martínez-Navarro, 2002 ), where the poor are unfairly accused of criminal behaviour, hindering their integration and prolonging their struggles. In extreme cases, this cycle can lead to despair, causing some to resort to illegal activities, reinforcing negative stereotypes and perpetuating discrimination. 2.3. Neoliberalism, Meritocracy, and Aporophobia Neoliberal political economies promote individualism and reduce poverty to a matter of personal responsibility. In this logic, meritocracy is presented as a moral order: individuals succeed or fail based on their own abilities and effort. While this narrative offers hope to some, it can fuel blame toward those who are poor, particularly when their poverty is seen as a sign of laziness, lack of discipline, or moral failure (Mott, 2022 ; Cortina, 2017 ). This framing creates fertile ground for aporophobia, which operates through moralized stigma. The poor are not just excluded—they are seen as undeserving. This aligns with Bauman’s idea of “moral blindness” in modern societies, where structural suffering is depersonalized and moral empathy is suspended (Bauman & Donskis, 2015). The social rivalry hypothesis (Corneo & Grüner, 2002) provides further insight. When poverty is viewed as a consequence of failing in a competitive system, the poor may be seen as threats to the legitimacy of that system. Rejecting them becomes a psychological defence mechanism, preserving one’s own belief in fairness and order. Aporophobia, then, is not just prejudice—it is a protective reaction to the cognitive dissonance between inequality and the ideology of meritocracy. 2.4. Understanding and measuring aporophobia Since aporophobia appears to a form of hidden "moral blindness" (Bauman & Donkis, 2015) being perpetrated by "terribly normal and sane people” (p. 14), must be recognized as a legitimate form of discrimination to ensure the dignity of those in poverty. To address this issue, we need to identify, measure, and understand aporophobia comprehensively. Discriminatory practices are influenced by multiple variables, with age potentially playing a significant role. However, the effects of age on discrimination are not entirely clear and require further research. 2.4.1. Sate-of-art on aporophobia The state-of-art on aporophobia, a relatively recent concept, remains limited, with most of the works focused on its theoretical and philosophical aspects. Scholars often approach aporophobia as a moral issue, trying to characterize and comprehend this form of discrimination. Important references on this approach, besides what has been already discussed, are: Ayala, 2018 ; García Domínguez, 2020 ; Gracia, 2021 ; Ortega-Esquembre, 2019 ; Resende & Machado, 2022 ; Ruiz-Arias, 2021 . However, while there is a growing body of empirical research, the field remains underdeveloped, with significant gaps that call for further investigation, particularly in diverse contexts and broader geographic regions. Empirical studies predominantly focused on the Spanish or Latin American contexts. Picado et al. ( 2019 ) examined the perceptions and training needs of social field professionals through a questionnaire, confirming the need for enhanced training in detecting aporophobic attitudes and situations. In a subsequent study, Picado et al. ( 2023 ) carried out a survey with 1745 Spanish participants, revealing that 70% of the population is unaware of the meaning of the term “aporophobia”. Contreras-Montero and Hidalgo-Mesa ( 2021 ) investigated aporophobic attitudes among residents of Granada, Spain, finding a between right-wing political ideology, lower income levels, and higher degree of aporophobic attitudes. Pina et al. ( 2022 ) explored aporophobic attitudes in the school environment through discussion groups with 96 primary and secondary students in Spain, confirming the presence of these attitudes and identifying low socioeconomic status as a significant factor for both aggressors and victims. Additionally, Hellgren & Gabrielli ( 2021 ) analysed the intersectional relationship between racism and aporophobia among the Roma population in Spain, uncovering the "double stigmatization" faced by this community. García Domínguez & Vander Beken ( 2023 ) examined aporophobia suffered by the homeless group in Ghent, Belgium, finding that up to 50% of respondents had encountered aporophobic incidents, aligning with finding from Ávila & Garrido ( 2019 ) and Hatento ( 2015 ). Moreover, Valerio Mendoza et al. ( 2023 ) provided evidence in the EU-15 to supporting ‘the Cortina hypothesis’, suggesting that rejection of immigrants is often based on aporophobic grounds. In the legal sphere, García Domínguez ( 2020 , 2021a , 2023 ) reviewed the inclusion of aporophobia in the Spanish penal system, with a particular focus about homeless people and their characterization. Gómez et al. ( 2022 ) analysed data from the Spanish governments’ hate crime survey. In Latin America, Niño-Arguelles et al. ( 2020 ) surveyed 377 Venezuelan immigrants in Ecuador, finding that 49% had experienced aporophobia during their stay in Ecuador. Pozo and Abierto ( 2020 ) reviewed 68 documents and reports from national and international organizations to characterize and analyse aporophobia, defining the relationship between poverty and discrimination in Peru. Similarly, García Domínguez ( 2021b ) explored aporophobia linked to the criminalization of poverty in Sao Paulo, Brazil, revealing the selectivity of the Brazilian penal system. Overall, these studies show that aporophobia is a complex issue that appears in many different social, cultural, and legal contexts. The research indicates that factors like political beliefs, economic status, and overlapping forms of discrimination play a significant role in shaping aporophobic attitudes. Although there is a growing amount of evidence, the current literature highlights the need for more research to fully understand this issue, especially across different age groups, regions, and social settings. This deeper understanding is essential for creating effective strategies to address aporophobia and reduce its negative effects on vulnerable groups. 2.4.2. Intergenerational Differences in Discrimination Discriminatory phenomena are complex and determined by numerous variables. In this context, the focus on intergenerational differences among potential discriminators is fundamental to understanding aporophobia. Age, undoubtedly, plays a crucial role in shaping social stigma and discrimination (Anand, 2016 ; Kohut et al., 2013 ; Lingiardi et al., 2016 ). An individual's age significantly influences their perception of reality, making it a key demographic variable in most social science research. Additionally, cultural influences vary considerably across generations, affecting individuals' worldviews. As Germer ( 2009 ) states, “we’re like fish in the water of our culture, and when the water is polluted with racism, sexism, and ageism, we draw those prejudices inside” (p. 203–204). Therefore, age is a critical variable when analysing any form of discrimination. However, studies specifically investigating intergenerational differences in discriminatory phenomena are scarce. Most research focuses on population groups with a narrow age range. Available evidence indicates that the age of potential aggressors is indeed a significant factor in discriminatory phenomena, with adults exhibiting higher rates of prejudice than younger individuals (Firebaugh & Davis, 1988 ; Herek, 2000 , 2002 ; Radvansky et al., 2010 ; Wilson, 1996 ). This may be due to lower inhibitory control and its importance in managing prejudice (von Hippel et al., 2000 ; Radvansky et al., 2010 ). Specifically, these authors suggest that adults often show a strong motivation not to be prejudiced, yet they display higher rates of stereotyping and prejudice than younger individuals (Radvansky et al., 2010 ). For these reasons it is important to review some studies addressing intergenerational differences in various types of discrimination, namely sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, and racism. The evidence on sexism across age groups is mixed. Some studies indicate higher levels of sexism among adolescents and young adults compared to older individuals (Masser & Abrams, 1999 ; Glick & Fiske, 1996 ; Glick et al., 2000 ; Zakrisson et al., 2012 ). However, other studies suggest that sexism increases with age (Garaigordobil, 2013 , 2015 ; Lameiras et al., 2003, 2004 ; Moya et al., 2002 ). Some research finds the highest levels of sexism at the population extremes, with relatively high sexism in early adulthood, lower in middle adulthood, and high again in late adulthood (Fernández et al., 2004 ; Garaigordobil & Aliri, 2013 ; Hammond et al., 2017 ). Age is recognized as an important variable in studying rejection towards homosexual individuals (Anand, 2016 ; Lingiardi et al., 2016 ). Generally, homophobia tends to be more prevalent in older population groups (Anand, 2016 ; Baiocco et al., 2020 ; Kohut et al., 2013 ; Lingiardi et al., 2016 ; Manalastas et al., 2017 ; Zhang & Brym, 2019 ). However, some studies do not find significant age-related differences in homophobia levels (Fisher et al., 2017 ; Rollè et al., 2022 ; West & Cowell, 2015 ). In the case of racism , studies present varied findings. Some research suggests that tolerance towards racial differences increases with age (Pope-Davis & Ottavi, 1994 ), while other studies find no significant age-related differences (Wolfer, 2017 ). Evidence on xenophobia is also mixed. Beller ( 2020 ) found that xenophobia increases with age among the German population. Similarly, older age correlated with higher xenophobia in Jylhä et al.'s ( 2022 ) study of right-wing voters in Sweden. However, Valerio Mendoza et al. ( 2023 ) measured aporophobia directly and concluded that xenophobia does not show an age-related increase based on data from 14 European countries between 1998 and 2018. Regarding the influence of age on aporophobia, the evidence is limited but revealing. Significant findings by Picado et al. ( 2023 ) analysed social perceptions and the emotional impact of aporophobic incidents among 1735 individuals aged 18 and above. The study's results highlighted notable age-related differences. Younger individuals (53.1%) were more likely to perceive the term "indigent" as derogatory compared to middle-aged and older groups. Awareness of the term "aporophobia" declined with age, with only 20.6% of those over 65 recognizing the term. Additionally, the belief that homeless people are attacked by others in similar conditions increased with age, from 59.7% among the youngest group to 75.1% among the oldest. Conversely, the perception that homeless individuals are attacked by non-homeless people remained relatively consistent across age groups, albeit with a slight decrease in older respondents (from 88.9–82.5%). Older individuals also more frequently associated homelessness with addiction problems (63%) and mental health issues (34%). Other relevant discrimination studies do not offer conclusions related to the age of the population studied (Contreras-Montero & Hidalgo-Mesa, 2021 ; Picado et al., 2019 ), focus on limited age ranges like adolescents (Pina et al., 2022 ), or concentrate on the discriminated rather than the discriminators, such as research on homeless individuals (García Domínguez, 2021b ; García Domínguez & Vander, 2023). This highlights the urgent need for more scrutinizing the links between age and this key element of discrimination represented by aporophobia. 3. Methodology The main objective of this research was to empirically measure explicit aporophobia in urban areas of Spain, specifically Barcelona, and to examine potential intergenerational differences. This is the first empirical study focusing on aporophobia in Barcelona. We designed a survey for undergraduate students to distribute in the city and its surroundings, utilizing a methodology commonly employed in previous studies on inequality, poverty, and distributional judgments over the last 30 years (see for instance García-Castro et al., 2020 ; 2023 ; Gift & Lastra-Anadón, 2023 ; Leiva-Brondo, 2022; Newman, 2022 ; Refaeli & Achdut, 2022 ). This exploratory approach allowed for a flexible, in-depth, and context-dependent investigation of the aporophobia, capturing the complexity of experiences and identifying unforeseen factors (see Audet & d’Amboise, 2001; Baxter & Jack, 2008 ; Denzin & Lincoln, 2011 ). A snowball sampling method was employed, starting with first-year undergraduate students from a private university, to obtain a sample consisting of young people and their circle of adults. The survey details are included in the Appendix and consisted of 31 items on a Likert scale derived from the existing literature (Alesina & Glaeser, 2004 ; Alesina & La Ferrara, 2005 ; Besley & Coate, 1992 ; Fisman et al., 2017 ; Glaeser, 2005 ; Keyle & Tan, 2008) and our elaboration. These items were categorized into five subjects: aporophobia , social hierarchy , inequality , meritocracy , and control . The categorization process was carried out as a team effort, consulting six researchers in the field, with some items being controversial (Rich More Stressed, Manners Reflect Status, Status Reflects Worth, Poor Need Gov Help see Appendix). Ultimately, 22 items addressed aporophobia , four items social hierarchy , three meritocracy , and two inequality . The survey was organized into four blocks, as shown in Table 1 . The first block included personal perception questions, such as “The poor are poor because they are lazy”. The second block presented scenarios where respondents rated their agreement or disagreement with some colleague or friend statements, such as “The poor are not as worthy as the rich”. These blocks contained 31 items covering aporophobia, social hierarchy, meritocracy and inequality. The third block comprised control variables related to xenophobia or inequality, such as “Do you think your country should limit migration of highly skilled people?” and “What is the worst in the Life of the poor?”. The final block collected demographic information, including age, gender, place of birth, religiosity, income, perception of social class, marital status, and economic status. Table 1 Structure of the questionnaire in four different blocks Block Type of questions 1 Personal perception questions 2 “If a friend/colleague tells you … what would be your degree of agreement/disagreement?” 3 Control variables 4 Demographics All items were rated on a Likert scale of 1 to 6 to avoid central tendency bias (Baka et al., 2012 ; Johns, 2005 ), which is more prevalent with odd scale as respondents might choose the intermediate option when the item is unclear (Velez & Ashworth, 2007 ) if they are uncooperative (Chyung et al., 2017 ). 4. Analysis 4.1. The sample The sample was obtained by first-year university students using a snowball sampling method through an online survey between March and April 2023. After the cleansing process, we end up with 832 valid responses (data and code can be found here). As intended, the descriptive analysis of the sample presented two subsamples: young people and their circle of adults. The overall sample was balanced in terms of age and gender, with similar income levels (between middle 2000–6000€ and upper above 8000€). While the young subsample had a mean age of 18.66 ± 0.66 years and was predominantly male (61%), the adult subsample had a mean age of 50.88 ± 0.32 years and was predominantly female (55%). There was a statistically significant difference in religiosity, with adults having a median score of 4 (on a scale of 1–10) and young people having a median score of 3. Despite the gender imbalance, no meaningful statistically significant differences were observed in the composition between the young and adult groups. Thus, we have two comparable samples with similar demographic characteristics, where the key difference is their age. 4.2. Analysing the ordinal dimension of the survey When analysing ordinal items, it is crucial to examine the extent of the agreement or polarization among responses. To assess the agreement, we used Tastle and Wierman’s measure of consensus (2007). For polarization, we employed a re-scaling of Van der Eijk’s ( 2001 ) measure of agreement, as implemented by Ruedin ( 2021 ). Both measures range from 0 to 1. Additionally, we used Ruedin’s implementation of Galtung’s AJUS system (1967) to classify distributions according to their shape: A (unimodal, peak in the middle), J (unimodal, peak at either end), U (bimodal, peak at both ends), S (bimodal or multi-modal, multiple peaks), and F (flat, no peak). Ordinal data are often treated as metrics, a practice that has sparked considerable debate (Harpe, 2015 ; Jebb et al., 2021 Norman, 2010 ; Sullivan & Artino, 2013 ). Liddell and Kruschke ( 2018 ) provided evidence that analysing ordinal data as a metric can lead to systematic errors. They recommend using a Bayesian approach with an ordered-probit model to estimate the population’s mean and standard deviation, which was applied separately for the entire sample and each group. Results are displayed in Table 2 . Some items ('Poor Need Gov Help', 'Poor Have Good Manners', 'Poor Opinions Equal', and 'Poor Are Like Us') were initially scale-inversed but have been reordered to facilitate the interpretation of higher values being linked to more aporophobic behaviours. Table 2 Consensus, Polarization, Shape, Mean, and SD of Survey Items. Asterisk indicates aporophobic results. Consensus Polarization Shape Mean Std Dev Fear of Social Rejection* 0,72 0,21 A 4,57 0,97 Lower Class Less Capable 0,69 0,21 L 1,88 1,52 Poor Are Lazy 0,70 0,17 L 1,45 1,64 Poor Can Earn Living 0,73 0,21 A 2,22 1,18 Poor Prefer Free Time 0,72 0,18 L 1,67 1,45 Poor Smell Bad 0,51 0,40 S 2,88 1,87 Poor Need Gov Help* 0,67 0,27 A 2,98 1,28 Poor Less Worthy 0,71 0,13 L 0,97 1,86 Avoid Poor Places 0,57 0,32 A 2,53 1,68 Avoid Looking at Poor 0,61 0,28 S 2,27 1,64 Poor Have Good Manners 0,62 0,34 A 3,95 1,33 Embarrassed to Eat with Poor 0,67 0,19 L 1,55 1,78 Poor Opinions Equal* 0,64 0,21 L 1,66 1,90 Poor Neighborhoods Are Safe 0,63 0,31 A 2,95 1,37 Poor Cause Problems 0,62 0,29 A 2,52 1,47 Express Anger at Poor 0,69 0,18 L 1,60 1,65 Poor Are Parasites 0,69 0,16 L 1,32 1,78 Insult Poor to Make Them Work 0,77 0,09 L 0,42 1,93 Beggars Are Worst Kind 0,66 0,18 L 1,42 1,92 No Time for Poor 0,71 0,17 L 1,59 1,53 Gov Should Serve Average 0,64 0,25 L 2,11 1,60 Punched Poor Deserved It 0,80 0,06 U -0,95 2,63 Poor Are Like Us 0,68 0,19 L 1,65 1,70 The survey responses generally show a high degree of consensus, with most scores well above 0,5 and close to 0,7. The exception is 'Poor Smell Bad', which presents moderate polarization, indicating divergent behaviours (see Fig. 1 ). Regarding the shapes of the distributions, most of them are unimodally left skewed or centred. Items 'Poor Smell Bad' and 'Avoid Looking at Poor' are slightly bimodal and item 'Punched Poor Deserved It' is also bimodal, but in the extremes. The key findings from the survey highlight several concerning perceptions regarding aporophobic attitudes in society. Respondents generally agreed with the 'Fear of Social Rejection' statement, indicating a widespread acknowledgment of aporophobic behaviour. Furthermore, there were notable aporophobic responses to specific statements. For instance, there was a significant disagreement with the assertion of the item 'Rich More Stressed', suggesting a perception that the poor are not valued equally in society. This could be related to the concept of passive tolerance (Adelman et al., 2021 ), where it might be accepted that the poor can have their own opinions, and these opinions should be respected, but they are not considered as valuable as those of the non-poor. Similarly, respondents disagreed with the item statement 'Poor Need Gov Help', reflecting a reluctance to support government intervention to aid the poor. Nevertheless, it is difficult to say that these results might have some aporophobic strength as anyone with very liberal thoughts might not want to trust the responsibility of caring about poverty to the government but to private initiatives. In Fig. 1 , the actual responses (in pink) and the ordered-probit estimation values (in blue) reveal several key observations. Firstly, discrepancies in responses to 'Fear of Social Rejection', 'Poor Smell Bad', and 'Poor Need Gov Help' suggest that multiple populations within the sample respond differently to aporophobic statements. This indicates diverse perspectives and possibly varying degrees of aporophobia among different groups. Additionally, 'Punched Poor Deserved It', with an estimated mean of -0.94, highlights strong reactions against an aggressive statement. From a methodological perspective, obtaining a central value that lies beyond the scale limits is noteworthy. This would be impossible with the traditional ways of working with Likert data. On the other hand, the high variability in this question suggests that while there is general disagreement with the statement, a small subgroup exhibits high levels of aporophobia, indicating significant polarization within the sample on this issue. Other items that present central positions beyond the scale limits are 'Poor Less Worthy' and 'Insult Poor to Make Them Work'. It is also worth mentioning that in items 'Fear of Social Rejection', 'Poor Smell Bad', and 'Poor Need Gov Help' we can observe that the age variable does not explain the identification of different populations among the respondents (there are no statistically significant differences between young people and adults), so a future line of analysis could be trying to identify what variables are intervening in these cases. Alt text: A series of graphs showing the distribution of responses across various items related to aporophobic attitudes, such as 'Fear of Social Rejection,' 'Poor Are Lazy,' 'Beggars Are the Worst Kind,' and more. Each item includes its ordered-probit estimate values, illustrating differences in agreement or rejection across respondents. The responses highlight attitudes towards the poor, with some exhibiting aporophobic tendencies. 4.3. Intergenerational analysis Once we have presented the results for the overall responses, it is necessary to compare the two groups. To do so, the analytical approach has been similar to the section above. In this case, we estimate the mean and standard deviation of the underlying distribution for each group and compare the two results. This comparison has also been done under a Bayesian inference framework where the data is always treated as ordinal and not as metric (Kruschke, 2015 ). Following the Bayesian inference tradition, high-density intervals (HDI) of the posterior distributions are presented to illustrate the significant differences as well as the effect sizes to properly discuss the magnitude of the differences between groups (Sullivan & Fein, 2012). Figure 2 shows the output generated in the analysis of each question. Table 3 presents the results from the analysis of the answers from adults and from students. Unsurprisingly from the results from Table 2 , both groups, young people and adults, showed aporophobic responses in items 'Fear of Social Rejection', 'Poor Need Gov Help', and 'Poor Opinions Equal'. There are significant differences in all items but 'Poor Prefer Free Time', 'Poor Have Good Manners', 'Punched Poor Deserved It' and 'Poor Are Like Us'. Items 'Fear of Social Rejection', 'Poor Need Gov Help', and 'Poor Have Good Manners' present statistically significant differences between the two groups, however, with relatively low effect sizes and not meaningful in terms of aporophobic beliefs. There are several items where notable differences emerged, that is in items 'Poor Are Lazy', 'Poor Smell Bad', 'Poor Cause Problems', 'Poor Are Parasites', 'Beggars Are Worst Kind', and 'Gov Should Serve Average'. In all these items, the effect size of the difference is greater than 0.5. Although neither group reached the threshold for clearly aporophobic behaviour, students consistently demonstrated higher aporophobic tendencies compared to adults. There is an exception to this statement in item 'Poor Neighborhoods Are Safe' where adults have significantly higher scores the young people. Table 3 Mean and SD of survey items for students and adults, with differences Adults (n = 381) Students (n = 451) Comparison Mean Std dev Mean Std dev Diff S-A HDI Eff. Size Fear of Social Rejection 4.0 1.2 4.3 1.0 0.28 [0.11, 0.45] 0.25 Lower Class Less Capable 1.6 1.2 2.2 1.6 0.56 [0.36, 0.81] 0.41 Poor Are Lazy 1.0 1.5 1.9 1.6 0.92 [0.61, 1.23] 0.57 Poor Can Earn Living 2.0 1.3 2.6 1.3 0.57 [0.37, 0.77] 0.44 Poor Prefer Free Time 1.6 1.4 1.8 1.7 0.23 [-0.03, 0.47] 0.14 Poor Smell Bad 2.1 1.6 3.2 1.7 1.11 [0.89, 1.38] 0.69 Poor Need Gov Help 2.9 1.3 3.3 1.4 0.37 [0.17, 0.56] 0.27 Poor Less Worthy 0.5 1.7 1.5 2.0 0.98 [0.58, 1.42] 0.51 Avoid Poor Places 2.3 1.5 2.6 1.7 0.37 [0.13, 0.61] 0.22 Avoid Looking at Poor 2.0 1.4 2.5 1.7 0.54 [0.28, 0.74] 0.35 Poor Have Good Manners 4.0 1.3 3.9 1.4 -0.11 [-0.29, 0.09] -0.09 Embarrassed to Eat with Poor 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.32 [0.07, 0.63] 0.20 Poor Opinions Equal 1.5 1.9 1.9 2.1 0.38 [0.11, 0.68] 0.19 Poor Neighborhoods Are Safe 3.4 1.3 2.7 1.4 -0.66 [-0.64, -0.34] -0.49 Poor Cause Problems 2.1 1.5 2.8 1.4 0.69 [0.52, 0.95] 0.51 Express Anger at Poor 1.4 1.2 1.8 1.6 0.40 [0.19, 0.68] 0.31 Poor Are Parasites 0.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.92 [0.59, 1.29] 0.53 Insult Poor to Make Them Work 0.1 1.8 0.8 2.0 0.67 [0.20, 1.25] 0.34 Beggars Are Worst Kind 0.8 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.06 [0.73, 1.45] 0.60 No Time for Poor 1.4 1.3 1.9 1.7 0.53 [0.28, 0.79] 0.35 Gov Should Serve Average 1.6 1.6 2.5 1.5 0.95 [0.71, 1.21] 0.59 Punched Poor Deserved It -1.1 2.1 -0.6 2.3 -0.50 [-0.61, 1.66] 0.20 Poor Are Like Us 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.0 0.26 [-0.05, 0.54] 0.14 As mentioned in the literature review, age is a key variable in understanding social stigma and discrimination. Therefore, it is also crucial to comprehend the origin and formation of beliefs towards people living in poverty. Our results regarding agreement or rejection of aporophobic statements contrast with most studies on the influence of age on other types of discrimination. While our study shows that young people exhibit higher aporophobic tendencies compared to adults, this contrasts with findings in other discriminatory phenomena, where adults are generally found to display greater discriminatory beliefs and attitudes (Firebaugh & Davis, 1988 ; Herek, 2000 , 2002 ; Radvansky et al., 2010 ; Wilson, 1996 ). Specifically, although the evidence is not unanimous, it has been observed that adults exhibit higher levels of sexism (Garaigordobil, 2013 , 2015 ; Lameiras et al., 2003, 2004 ; Moya et al., 2002 ), homophobia (Anand, 2016 ; Baiocco et al., 2020 ; Kohut et al., 2013 ; Lingiardi et al., 2016 ; Manalastas et al., 2017 ; Zhang & Brym, 2019 ), and xenophobia (Beller, 2020 ; Jylhä et al., 2022 ). Alt-text: Graph comparing responses between two groups, young people and adults, for the 'Fear of Social Rejection' item. The figure illustrates differences in mean responses and standard deviations between the two groups, showcasing the higher aporophobic tendencies among younger individuals compared to adults. Regarding aporophobia, one of the few studies that offers insights into the influence of age on the profile of potential aggressors is by Picado et al. ( 2023 ). Our results also contrast with this study, as it states that young people showed more awareness regarding the perception of certain terms as stigmatizing when referring to homeless individuals; a greater understanding of the term aporophobia and its reference; greater concern about the potential dangers faced by the homeless; and a lower causal association between homelessness and addiction problems. 4.4. Correlation analysis We conducted a correlation study of the primary items associated with aporophobia to identify significant patterns and associations within aporophobic attitudes. The correlation matrix in Fig. 3 illustrates the relationships between various survey items, with positive correlations indicated in blue and negative correlations in red. The intensity of the colour represents the strength of the correlation. The analysis reveals that aporophobia is not a unidimensional construct but rather an intersectional and multifaceted phenomenon. The varying strengths and directions of correlations indicate that aporophobic attitudes are composed of distinct and interrelated dimensions. A notable cluster of strong positive correlations among items expresses highly negative views of the poor. For instance, items like 'Beggars Are Worst Kind', 'No Time for Poor', 'Gov Should Serve Average', 'Express Anger at Poo'r, and 'Poor Are Parasites' suggest a coherent set of beliefs that associate poverty with uncleanliness, laziness, and being a societal burden. Another important dimension that emerges is related to the dehumanization and avoidance of the poor. Items such as 'Ignore Poor's Words', 'Poor Less Worthy', and 'Avoid Looking at Poor' likely form a sub-dimension that captures the tendency to view the poor as less human and the desire to avoid interaction with them. Interestingly, the analysis also reveals some conflicting beliefs. The negative correlation between 'Poor Less Worthy' and 'Poor Opinions Equal' suggests that some respondents simultaneously hold dehumanizing views while also acknowledging the equal value of poor people's opinions. Similarly, 'Poor Are Like Us' shows negative correlations with many of the more negative statements, indicating that some respondents maintain a humanizing view of the poor despite holding other negative attitudes. A subset of items captures more aggressive and hostile attitudes towards the poor. Items like 'Express Anger at Poor', 'Poor Are Parasites', ' Insult Poor to Make Them Work', and 'Punched Poor Deserved It' likely form a distinct sub-dimension representing more extreme and potentially violent aporophobic attitudes. The multidimensional nature of aporophobia suggested by this analysis has important implications for scale development. The measure could potentially be reduced to several key sub-dimensions (e.g., dehumanization, avoidance, aggression, beliefs about deservingness). Understanding these sub-dimensions could inform the development of a more nuanced and comprehensive scale for measuring aporophobia. Such a scale could facilitate better quantification of aporophobic attitudes and more targeted intervention strategies, ultimately contributing to more effective efforts in reducing discrimination against the poor. Alt-text: Correlation matrix of survey items related to aporophobia. The figure shows positive correlations in blue and negative correlations in red, with the intensity of the colour representing the strength of the correlation. A cluster of strong positive correlations highlights highly negative views of the poor, including items like 'Beggars Are Worst Kind' and 'Express Anger at Poor.' Additionally, some negative correlations suggest conflicting beliefs, such as between 'Poor Less Worthy' and 'Poor Opinions Equal,' revealing the complexity of aporophobic attitudes. 5. Discussion The findings from this study provide important insights into the intergenerational differences in beliefs regarding the causes and consequences of poverty, and the moral responsibility of those who experience it. Specifically, they reveal an underexplored form of discrimination—aporophobia—that appears to be deeply shaped by ideological narratives around merit, deservingness, and personal responsibility. In the context of the current global concern with poverty alleviation, our findings suggest that aporophobia should be understood as one of the cultural boundaries that limit the success of such efforts. We found a moderate degree of agreement with some aporophobic statements across the sample, especially those that blame individuals for their own poverty. These beliefs typically deny structural causes of inequality and instead attribute poverty to individual failings, such as laziness, lack of effort, addictions, or poor decision-making (Woods et al., 2005 ; Mott, 2022 ; Siposne, 2022). According to Cortina ( 2017 ), this belief system forms the foundation of aporophobia, justifying social indifference and even hostility toward the poor. When poverty is framed as the result of personal choices, empathy diminishes, and the legitimacy of support systems—whether state-provided or collective—is called into question. This reinforces the ideological underpinnings of neoliberalism, in which the structural roots of poverty are obscured by narratives of individual responsibility. What stands out most in our data is the unexpected intergenerational reversal: younger respondents exhibit significantly more aporophobic responses than adults across most items, in many cases with a considerable effect size. This contradicts findings in other domains of prejudice, such as racism, homophobia, xenophobia, or sexism, where younger cohorts typically hold more inclusive views. This unique pattern underscores aporophobia as a peculiar form of discrimination, one that cannot be fully understood through the frameworks commonly applied to other forms of stigma. We interpret this trend in light of neoliberal meritocracy. Young people today are immersed in cultural narratives that emphasize personal effort, agency, and the notion that success is earned in a fair competitive system. These ideas are central to neoliberalism, which downplays structural constraints and encourages individuals to view social outcomes as self-determined. In this context, the poor are perceived not as victims of systemic inequality but as those who failed to "try hard enough." The social rivalry hypothesis (Corneo and Grüner, 2002) further suggests that individuals may reject or morally distance themselves from the poor to preserve their belief in a just system—particularly when their own social position feels vulnerable. However, an apparent paradox emerges: why would a generation marked by precarity, high youth unemployment, and limited upward mobility embrace a narrative that blames the poor? One possible explanation is that the meritocratic narrative serves as a psychological coping mechanism, providing a sense of control or aspiration in uncertain conditions. Believing that success is attainable through effort may help individuals navigate a labour market that increasingly offers fewer guarantees. Yet, this same belief system can lead to the moral condemnation of those who fail to meet its standards, fuelling aporophobic attitudes. In contrast, adults may develop more critical views through life experience. Over time, exposure to job market, institutional failures, and economic crises can reveal the limitations of meritocratic ideology. Many adults have encountered instances in which effort did not yield rewards, or where unforeseen circumstances—such as illness, caregiving responsibilities, or job precarity—led to financial insecurity. These lived experiences may foster a deeper recognition of structural inequality and reduce aporophobic beliefs. Only one item deviated from this pattern: adults reported greater fear of visiting poor neighbourhoods. This could be influenced by greater exposure to crime-related media coverage (e.g., Gómez et al., 2023 ), particularly in cities like Barcelona where issues of safety in certain areas are often highlighted. Additionally, perceived vulnerability tends to increase with age, making older individuals more cautious in unfamiliar or stigmatized settings. However, this isolated instance does not outweigh the broader trend of stronger aporophobia among youth—and, if anything, underscores the complexity of how economic fear and moral blame intersect. It is important to acknowledge that our study does not definitively explain the observed generational differences; the findings raise important questions that warrant further investigation. For example, why do young people, who are often idealized as progressive and inclusive, hold more exclusionary views of the poor? One hypothesis is that they view economic status as malleable—a changeable condition that, unlike race or gender, can supposedly be improved with enough effort. This belief, while seemingly optimistic, reinforces a meritocratic worldview that delegitimizes the role of structural factors and ultimately blames the poor for their own condition. These insights suggest that neoliberal cultural narratives are not only persistent but potent, particularly among the youth. If left unchallenged, they may entrench aporophobia within the next generation of voters, professionals, and policymakers—undermining both public empathy and support for redistributive policies. As such, aporophobia must be recognized not only as a moral issue but also as a cultural and ideological barrier to poverty alleviation and social justice. 6. Conclusions This study contributes novel empirical evidence to the emerging understanding of aporophobia as a form of stigma deeply shaped by neoliberal morality. Contrary to trends in other types of discrimination, our findings suggest that aporophobic beliefs are more pronounced among younger individuals, who are often perceived as more progressive in their social attitudes. This inversion of expected patterns signals a pressing cultural issue: younger generations may have internalized meritocratic ideologies that frame poverty as the result of individual failure rather than systemic inequality. Young people in our sample consistently expressed higher levels of agreement with aporophobic statements, particularly those that endorse blaming the poor for their circumstances. These attitudes align closely with neoliberal ideals of personal responsibility, which are often reinforced through education, media, and political discourse. Adults, in contrast, may develop more complex understandings of economic precarity through their lived experience—recognizing that poverty is rarely a matter of choice and that effort alone cannot overcome entrenched structural barriers. These findings expose a critical tension between personal responsibility narratives and structural interpretations of inequality. When society attributes poverty solely to individual choices, empathy diminishes, solidarity erodes, and support for redistributive policies weakens. In this way, aporophobia becomes a hidden but powerful cultural obstacle to effective poverty alleviation. It legitimizes exclusion while preserving a comforting, if misleading, belief in fairness and merit. This study is not without limitations. Our data come from a non-probabilistic sample of respondents in Barcelona, which limits generalizability. Additionally, we did not use a validation scale to measure aporophobia, and responses may have been influenced by social desirability bias, particularly given the sensitive nature of the topic. Future research should develop standardized instruments to measure both explicit and implicit aporophobic attitudes, such as through Implicit Association Tests. Replicating the study across different regions, cultures, and age cohorts would also allow for a more comprehensive understanding of how beliefs vary globally, since poverty stigma varies depending on the type of society in which it is studied (Sutton et al., 2014 ). Moreover, longitudinal studies are needed to track whether these attitudes shift over time and how they respond to targeted interventions. Despite these limitations, the implications of this study are substantial. If aporophobia is indeed more prevalent among younger generations—the very individuals who will shape future institutions and policies—it constitutes a long-term cultural threat to social cohesion and justice. Addressing poverty will therefore require more than economic redistribution or social welfare programs; it demands a cultural reckoning with the ideological roots of stigma. Educational systems, media narratives, and public discourse must all contribute to challenging the moral assumptions embedded in neoliberalism and promoting a more accurate, empathetic understanding of poverty. These findings raise concerns not only at the cultural level but also in terms of public policy. Aporophobic attitudes—especially when internalized by younger generations—may erode political support for key poverty alleviation measures such as universal basic income, housing subsidies, or targeted social protection programs. If poverty is framed as a personal failure rather than a structural condition, collective investment in welfare becomes harder to justify. In this sense, aporophobia may act as a cultural obstacle to effective redistribution and undermine efforts to implement evidence-based social policies. In the end, the young may see themselves as blameless, but they also appear more willing to assign blame to the poor. This paradox lies at the heart of a rising neoliberal morality—a system of belief that masks inequality behind the language of merit and deserts. Recognizing and confronting this ideological structure is essential if we are to dismantle the stigma of poverty and move toward a society grounded in structural awareness, solidarity, and true fairness. As this study suggests, the rise of neoliberal morality among youth represents not just a generational trend, but a hidden cultural threat to efforts aimed at ending poverty. Declarations Ethical statements Ethical approval for this study was not required, as no personal or sensitive data were collected, and all responses were fully anonymous. According to the ethics regulations of the host institution, studies involving anonymized opinion surveys without clinical, biomedical, or vulnerable population involvement may be conducted without formal ethical review. This exemption was formally confirmed by the institutional ethics committee on May 12, 2025, under reference code CER-2025_004. The research was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the ethical principles set forth by the university’s Chair of Ethics and Human Thought. Informed consent Informed consent was obtained between March and April 2023 through an information sheet provided to all participants before completing the online survey. The sheet outlined the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of participation, the confidentiality of responses, and the exclusive academic use of the data. Only responses from participants who explicitly indicated their agreement were included in the analysis. No identifying information was collected, and all data were fully anonymized prior to analysis. Funding statement This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. References Adelman, L., Verkuyten, M., and Yogeeswaran, K. (2021). Distinguishing Active and Passive Outgroup Tolerance: Understanding Its Prevalence and the Role of Moral Concern. Political Psychology, 43 (4), 731-750. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12790 Anand, P. V. (2016). Attitude towards homosexuality: A survey-based study. Journal of Psychosocial Research, 11 (1), 157–166. Andrade, M. (2008). ¿Qué es la “aporofobia”? Un análisis conceptual sobre prejuicios, estereotipos y discriminación hacia los pobres. Agenda Social, 2 (3), 117-139. Alejo, D., Macías, I., & Lawson, M. (2018). Reward work, not wealth . Oxfam. https://doi.org/ 10.21201/2017.1350 Alesina, A., & Glaeser, E. (2004). Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe: A World of Difference . Oxford Scholarship Online. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199267669.001.0001 Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2005). Preferences for redistribution in the land of opportunities. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 897-931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.05.009 Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley. Applebaum, L. (2001). The influence of perceived deservingness on policy decisions regarding aid to the poor. Political Psychology, 22 (3), 419-442. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00248 Audet, J., & d'Amboise, G. (2001). The multi-site study: An innovative research methodology. The Qualitative Report, 6 (2), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2001.2001 Ávila, V., & Garrido, E. (2019). La aporofobia como delito de odio y discriminación. In J. Castro, A. B. Gómez, & D. Buil (Eds.), La Criminología que viene: Resultados del I Encuentro de Jóvenes Investi-gadores en Criminología (pp. 295–306). https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servletlibro? codigo=745952 Ayala, P. (2018). The Smithian sympathy as a way to reduce the aporophobia derived from corruption. Veritas, 41 , 69-86. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-92732018000300069 Baka, A., Figgou, L., & Triga, V. (2012). 'Neither agree, nor disagree': a critical analysis of the middle answer category in Voting Advice Applications. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 5 (3-4), 244-263. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEG.2012.051306 Baiocco, R., Rosati, F., Pistella, J., Salvati, M., Carone, N., Ioverno, S., & Laghi, F. (2020). Attitudes and beliefs of Italian educators and teachers regarding children raised by same-sex parents. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 17 (2), 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-019-00386-0 Bauman, Z. & Donskis, L. (2016). Liquid evil . John Wiley & Sons. Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13 (4), 544-559. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1573 Beller, J. (2020). Xenophobia trends in Germany: Increasing negative attitude towards foreigners in younger birth cohorts. The Social Science Journal, 60 (2), 172-178. https://doi.org/10.1080/03623319.2020.1735855 Besley, T., & Coate, S. (1992). Understanding welfare stigma: Taxpayer resentment and statistical discrimination. Journal of Public Economics, 48 , 165-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727(92)90025-B BOE (2021). Ley Orgánica 8/2021, de 4 de junio, de protección integral a la infancia y la adolescencia frente a la violencia. Boletín Oficial del Estado, núm. 137, de 8 de junio de 2021. https://www.boe.es/eli/es/lo/2021/06/04/8/con Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism's stealth revolution. Princeton University Press. Chan, S., Wong, H., Au-Yeung, T., Huo, X., & Gao, Q. (2022). Impacts of poverty stigma on negative affect among welfare recipients: path analysis on Mainland China and Hong Kong. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 15 (1), 145-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2020.1806428 Chyung, S. Y., Roberts, K., Swanson, I., & Hankinson, A. (2017). Evidence-based survey design: The use of a midpoint on the Likert scale. Performance Improvement, 56 (10), 15-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21727 Contreras-Montero, B., & Hidalgo-Mesa, M. (2021). Percepción de la pobreza, ideología política y nivel de ingresos como factores de análisis de las actitudes aporófobas en Granada. Aposta: Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 89 , 103-122. http://hdl.handle.net/10481/68104 Corneo, Giacomo, and Hans-Peter Gruner. 2002. Individual Preferences for Political Redistribution. Journal of Public Economics 83 (1): 83–107. Cortina, A. (1 de diciembre de 1995). Aporofobia. ABC Cultural . Cortina, A. (2011). Neuroética y neuropolítica. Sugerencias para la educación moral . Tecnos. Cortina, A. (2017). Aporofobia: el rechazo al pobre. Un desafío para la democracia . Paidós. Cortina, A. (2022). Aporophobia: Why We Reject the Poor Instead of Helping Them . Princeton University Press. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the nargins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanfordaw Review, 43 (6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039 Damasio, A. (2011). En busca de Spinoza. Neurobiología de la emoción y los sentimientos. Destino. Dartanto, T., & Otsubo, S. T. (2013). Measurements and determinants of multifaceted poverty: Absolute, relative, and subjective poverty in Indonesia. In S. T. Otsubo (Ed.), Globalization and Development Volume III. In search of a new development paradigm (pp. 69-113). Taylor & Francis. Darwin, C. (2009). El origen del hombre. Crítica. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research . Sage. Evers, K. (2015). Can we be epigenetically proactive? In T. Metzinger y J. M. Windt (eds.), Mind Matters (pp. 1-21). Open MIND. Fernández, M. L., Castro, Y. R., & Lorenzo, M. G. (2004). Evolution of hostile sexism and benevolent sexism in a Spanish sample. Social Indicators Research, 66 (3), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SOCI.0000003553.30419.f1 Festinger, L. (1962). Cognitive dissonance. Scientific American, 207 (4), 93-106. https://doi.org/1 10.1038/scientificamerican1062-93 Firebaugh, G., & Davis, K. E. (1988). Trends in antiblack prejudice, 1972–1984: Region and cohort effects. The American Journal of Sociology, 94 (2), 251–272. Fisher, A. D., Castellini, G., Ristori, J., Casale, H., Giovanardi, G., Carone, N., Fanni, E., Mosconi, M., Ciocca, G., Jannini, E. A., Ricca, V., Lingiardi, V., & Maggi, M. (2017). Who has the worst attitudes toward sexual minorities? Comparison of transphobia and homophobia levels in gender dysphoric individuals, the general population and health care providers. Journal of Endocrinological Investigation, 40 , 263–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40618-016-0552-3 Fisman, R., Jakiela, P., & Kariv, S. (2017). Distributional preferences and political behavior. Journal of Public Economics, 155 , 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2017.08.010 Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago Press. Galtung, J. (1969). Theory and methods of social research. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 20 (2), 173-174. Garaigordobil, M. (2013). Sexism and alexithymia: Correlations and differences as a function of gender, age, and educational level. Anales de Psicología, 29 (2), 368-377. http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/analesps.29.2.132261 Garaigordobil, M. (2015). Sexismo y expresión de la ira: diferencias de género, cambios con la edad y correlaciones entre ambos constructos. Revista argentina de clínica psicológica, 24 (1), 35-42. Garaigordobil, M., & Aliri, J. (2013). Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Standardization and normative data in a sample of the Basque Country. Behavioral Psychology, 21(1), 173–186. García-Castro, J. D., Rodríguez-Bailón, R., & Willis, G.B. (2020). Perceiving economic inequality in everyday life decreases tolerance to inequality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 90 , 104019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104019 García-Castro, J. D., González, R., Frigolett, C., Jiménez-Moya, G., Rodríguez-Bailón, R., & Willis, G. (2023). Changing attitudes toward redistribution: The role of perceived economic inequality in everyday life and intolerance of inequality. The Journal of Social Psychology, 163 (4), 566-581. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2021.2006126 García Domínguez, I. (2020). La aporofobia en el sistema penal español: especial referencia al colectivo de personas sin hogar . Ratio Legis. García Domínguez, I. (2021a). Exclusión social y criminalidad: un análisis de las instituciones aporófobas a través de los delitos patrimoniales. Revista Penal, 48 , 33-57. García Domínguez, I. (2021b). Un análisis criminológico de la victimización de las personas sin hogar en la ciudad de São Paulo. REB. Revista de Estudios Brasileños, 7 (15), 89-104. https://doi.org/10.14201/reb202071589104 García Domínguez, I. (2023). Revisión sistemática de estudios empíricos sobre la autoría y victimización aporófoba de las personas en situación de sinhogarismo en españa (años 2015-2020). Revista General de Derecho Penal, 40 , 1-61. https://www.iustel.com//v2/revistas/detalle_revista.asp?id_noticia=426638 García Domínguez, I., & Vander Beken, T. (2023). Aporophobic and homeless victimisation: the case of Ghent. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-023-09557-7 Germer, C. (2009). The mindful path to self-compassion: Freeing yourself from destructive thoughts and emotions. Guilford Press. Gift, T., & Lastra-Anadón, C. X. (2023). “Deservingness” and Public Support for Universal Public Goods: A Survey Experiment. Public Opinion Quaterly, 87 (1), 44-68. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad007 Glaeser, E. L. (2005). The political economy of hatred. The Quaterly Journal of Economics, 120 (1), 45-86. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.70.3.491 Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J., Abrams, D., Masser, B., Adetoun, B., Osagie, J. E., Akande, A., Alao, A., Annetje, B., Willemsen, T. M., Chipeta, K., Dardenne, B., Dijksterhuis, A., Wigboldus, D., Eckes, T., Six-Materna, I., Expósito, F. ... López, W. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (5), 763–775. https://doi.org/1 0.1037//0022-3514.79.5.763 Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Pelican. Gómez, J., García Domínguez, I., Puente Guerrero, P., Fernández Villazala, T., Yamir San Abelardo, M., & López. J. (2022). Los delitos de odio por aporofobia: una primera aproximación a los resultados de la encuesta sobre delitos de odio 2020-2021. In A. Daunis (Coord.), Odio y discriminación en tiempos convulsos (pp. 31-41). Comares. Gómez, M., Cortiñas-Rovira, S., & Pérez, J. L. (2023). Overrepresentation and underrepresentation of crime in the media. A case study from Barcelona. Política Criminal, 18 (36), 838-872. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-33992023000200838 Gracia, J. (2021). Eradicating xenophobia and aporophobia: Compassion as a key capacity of moral neuroeducation. Pensamiento: Revista de Investigación e Información Filosófica, 77 (295), 559-571. https://doi.org/10.14422/pen.v77.i295.y2021.010 Greene, J. (2013). Moral tribes. Emotion, reason and the gap between us and them. Penguin Press. Guetzkow, J. (2010). Beyond deservingness: Congressional discourse on poverty, 1964-1996. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 629 (1), 173-197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716209357404 Halper, T. (1973). The poor as pawns: The new "deserving poor" & the old. Polity, 6 (1), 71-86. https://doi.org/10.2307/3234182 Hammond, M. D., Milojev, P., Huang, Y., & SIbley, C. G. (2017). Benevolent sexism and hostile sexism across the ages. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9 (7), 863-874. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617727588 Handler, J. F. (1972). Reforming the poor . Basic Books. Harpe, S. E. (2015). How to analyze Likert and other rating scale data. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 7 (6), 836-850. Hatento. (2015). Los delitos de odio contra las personas sin hogar. Informe de investigación. RAIS Fundación. https://hogarsi.org/hatentoweb/pdf/informe-resultados-digital_DEF.pdf Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism . Oxford university press. Hayek, F. A. (1944). The road to serfdom . University of Chicago Press Heberle, A., & Carter, A. (2020). Young children’s stereotype endorsement about people in poverty: Age and economic status effects. Children and Youth Services Review, 108 (104605), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104605 Hellgren, Z., & Gabrielli, L. (2021). Racialization and aporophobia: Intersecting discriminations in the experiences of non-western migrants and Spanish Roma. Social Sciences, 10 (5), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10050163 Herek, G. M. (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9 (1), 19–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00051 Herek, G. M. (2002). Gender gaps in public opinion about lesbians and gay men. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66 (1), 40–66. https://doi.org/10.1086/338409 Hoyt, C., Billingsley, J., Burnette, J., Becker, W., & Babij, A. (2023). The implications of mindsets of poverty for stigma against those in poverty. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 53 (5), 385-407. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12947 Idescat. Instituto de Estadística de Cataluña. (2022). Indicadores de desigualdad de la distribución de la renta [Website] . https://www.idescat.cat/indicadors/?id=anuals&n=10410&lang=es Inglis, G., Jenkins, P., McHardy, F., Sosu, E., & Wilson, C. (2023). Poverty stigma, mental health, and well-being: A rapid review and synthesis of quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 33 (4), 783-806. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2677 Instituto Nacional de Estadística [National Institute of Statistics]. (2023). Encuesta de Condiciones de Vida . https://www.ine.es/prensa/ecv_2022.pdf Jebb, A. T., Ng, V., & Tay, L. (2021). A review of key Likert scale development advances: 1995–2019. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 , 637547. Johns, R. (2005). One size doesn’t fit all: Selecting response scales for attitude items. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties, 15(2), 237-264. https://doi.org/10.1080/13689880500178849 Jylhä, K. M., Rydgren, J., & Strimling, P. (2022). Xenophobia among radical and mainstream right-wing party voters: prevalence, correlates and influence on party support. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 45 (16), 261-286. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2022.2061866 Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals . Cambridge University Press. Katz, M. B. (1989). The undeserving poor . Oxford University Press. Kohut, A., Wike, R., Bell, J., Menasce Horowitz, J., Simmons, K., Associate, R., Stokes, B., Poushter, J., Ponce, A., Gross, E. M., & Barker, C. (2013). The global divide on homosexuality . Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/05/Pew-Global-Attitudes-Homosexuality-Report-REVISED-MAY-27-2014.pdf Kruschke, J. K. (2015). Doing Bayesian Data Analysis: A Tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan . Academic Press. Lameiras, M., & Rodríguez, Y. (2003). Evaluación del sexismo ambivalente en estudiantes gallegos/as. Acción Psicológica, 2 (2), 131-136. https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.2.2.526 Lameiras, M., Rodríguez, Y., & González, M. (2004). Evolution of hostil sexism and benevolent sexism in a Spanish sample. Social Indicators Research, 66 , 197-211. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SOCI.0000003553.30419.f1 Leiva-Brondo, M., Lajara-Camilleri, N., Vidal-Meló, A., Atarés, A., & Lull, C. (2022). Spanish University Students’ Awareness and Perception of Sustainable Development Goals and Sustainability Literacy. Sustainability, 14 (8), 4552. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084552 Lemieux, A. F., & Pratto, F. (2003). Poverty and prejudice. In S. C. Carr, & T. S. Sloan (Eds.), Poverty and psychology. International and cultural psychology series (pp. 147-161. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0029-2_8 Liddell, T. M., & Kruschke, J. K. (2018). Analyzing ordinal data with metric models: What could possibly go wrong? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79 , 328-348. Lindqvist, A., Björklund, F., & Bäckström, M. (2017). The perception of the poor: capturing stereotype content with different measures. Nordic Psychology, 69 (4), 231-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/19012276.2016.1270774 Lingiardi, V., Nardelli, N., Loverno, S., Falanga, S., Di Chiacchio, C., Tanzilli, A., & Baiocco, R. (2016). Homonegativity in Italy: Cultural issues, personality characteristics, and demographic correlates with negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 13 (2), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178015- 0197-6 Manalastas, E. J, Tapani, T., Torre, B. A., Ratanashevorn, R., Choong, B., Kumaresan, V., & Veeramuthu, V. (2017). Homonegativity in Southeast Asia: Attitudes toward lesbians and gay men in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review, 17 (1), 25–33. Martínez-Navarro, E. (2002). Aporofobia. In J. Conill (coord.), Glosario para una sociedad intercultural (pp. 17-23). Bancaja. Masser, B., & Abrams, D. (1999). Contemporary sexism. The relationship among hostility, benevolence and, neosexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23 (3), 503- 517. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00378.x Ministry of Interior (2021). Informe de la encuesta sobre delitos de odio . http:// www.interior.gob.es/documents/642012/13622471/Informe_ encuesta_v%C3%ADctimas_delitos+de+odio_versi% C3%B3n_definitiva.pdf/3d1b8ccd-d6d3-48ba-8a09-813cd99d0704 Ministry of Interior (2023). Informe sobre la evolución de los delitos de odio en España . https://www.interior.gob.es/opencms/es/servicios-al-ciudadano/delitos-de-odio/ Mott, K. (2022). “Hurry up and wait”: Stigma, poverty, and contractual citizenship. Qualitative Sociology, 45 (2), 271-290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-022-09507-5 Moya, M., Expósito, F., Rodríguez-Bailón, R., Glick, P., & Páez, D. (2002). Sexismo ambivalente en España y Latinoamérica. SOCIOTAM . Revista Internacional de Ciencia Sociales y Humanidades, 12 (1), 139-167. Newman, B. J. (2022). Economic Inequality, the Working Poor, and Belief in the American Dream. Public Opinion Quaterly, 86 (4), 944-954. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfac043 Niño-Arguelles, Y., Álvarez-Santana, C., & Giovanni, F. (2020). Migración venezolana, aporofobia en Ecuador y resiliencia de los inmigrantes venezolanos en Manta, periodo 2020. Revista San Gregorio, 43 , 92-108. https://doi.org/10.36097/rsan.v1i43.1424 Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15 , 625-632. Ortega-Esquembre, C. (2019). La aporofobia como desafío antropológico. De la lógica de la cooperación a la lógica del reconocimiento. Daimon: Revista Internacional de Filosofía, 77 , 215-224. https://doi.org/10.6018/daimon/319071 Picado, E. M., Guzmán, R., & Yurrebaso, A. (2022). Hacia un modelo teórico de la aporofobia: hacia un modelo teórico de la aporofobia. Acciones e Investigaciones Sociales, 43 , 7-40. https://doi.org/10.26754/ojs_ais/accioninvestigsoc.2022436348 Picado, E. M., Guzmán, R., & Yurrebaso, A. (2023). Respuesta social ante la aporofobia: retos en la intervención social. IDP: Revista de Internet, Derecho y Política, 37 , 1-19. https://doi.org/10.7238/idp.v0i37.400081 Picado, E. M., Nieto, A., Guzmán, R. O., & Yurrebaso, A. (2019). Detección de la discriminación hacia los pobres, «aporofobia». Miscelánea Comillas. Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales, 77 (151), 417–430. https://doi.org/10.14422/mis.v77.i151.y2019.007 Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Harvard University Press Pina, D., Marín-Talón, M., López-López, R., Martínez-Andreu, L., Puente-López, E., & Ruiz-Hernández, J. (2022). Attitudes towards school violence based on aporophobia. A qualitative study. Frontiers in Education, 7 , 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1009405 Pope-Davis, D. B., & Ottavi, T. M. (1994). The relationship between racism and racial identity among White Americans: A replication and extension. Journal of Counseling & Development, 72 (3), 293–297. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1994.tb00937.x Posel, D., & Rogan, M. (2014). Measured as poor versus feeling poor: Comparing money-metric and subjective poverty rates in South Africa. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 17 (1), 55-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2014.985198 Pozo, R., & Abierto, O. (2020). La Aporofobia en el contexto de la sociedad peruana: una revisión. Nóesis: Revista de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, 30 (58), 134-149. https://doi.org/10.20983/noesis.2020.2.6 Radvansky, G. A., Copeland, D. E., & von Hippel, W. (2010). Stereotype activation, inhibition, and aging. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46 (1), 51-60. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.09.010 Ravallion, M. (2012). Poor, or just feeling poor? On using subjective data in measuring poverty. Policy Research Working Paper, 5968 . https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-5968 Refaeli, T., & Achdut, N. (2022). Perceived poverty, perceived income adequacy and loneliness in Israeli young adults: Are social capital and neighbourhood capital resilience factors? Health & Social Care in the Community, 30 (2), 668-684.https://doi.org/ 10.1111/hsc.13177 Resende, A., & Machado, C. (2022). A fraternidade como antídoto contra a aporofobia. Sequência, 42(88), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.5007/2177-7055.2021.e74086 Reutter, L., Stewart, M., Veenstra, G., Love, R., Raphael, D., & Makwarimba, E. (2009). “Who do they think we are, anyway?”: Perceptions of and responses to poverty stigma. Qualitative Health Research, 19 (3), 297-311. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732308330246 Rollè, L., Sechi, C., Santoniccolo, F., & Brustia, P. (2022). The relationship between sexism, affective states, and attitudes toward homosexuality in a sample of heterosexual Italian people. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 19 , 194–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-021-00534-5 Ruedin, D. (2021). An Introduction to the R Package Agrmt. Package at https://CRAN . R-project. org/package= agrmt. Ruiz-Arias, M. (2021). La víctima del delito ambiental: estudio desde la aporofobia. Justicia, 26 (40), 98-109. https://doi.org/10.17081/just.26.40.4891 Sen, A. (1985). Commodities and capabilities . NorthHolland. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Alfred A. Knopf. Shields, D. (1995). Race and poverty in the psychology of prejudice. In D. Shields (Ed.), The color of hunger: Race and hunger in national and international perspective (pp. 35-37). Rowman & Littlefield. Siposne, E. (2011). Subjective poverty and its relation to objective poverty concepts in Hungary. Social Indicators Research, 102 (3), 537-556. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11205-010-9743-z Sullivan, G. M., & Feinn, R. (2012). Using effect size—or why the P value is not enough. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4 (3), 279-282. https://doi.org/ 10.4300. JGME-D-12-00156.1 Sullivan, G. M., & Artino Jr, A. R. (2013). Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 5 (4), 541-542. Sutton, E., Pemberton, S., Fahmy, E., & Tamiya, Y. (2014). Stigma, shame and the experience of poverty in Japan and the United Kingdom. Social Policy and Society, 13 (1), 143-154. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746413000419 Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Brooks-Cole. Tastle, W. J., & Wierman, M. J. (2007). Consensus and dissention: A measure of ordinal dispersion. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 45 (3), 531-545. Townsend, P. (1979). Poverty in the United Kingdom: A survey of household resources and standards of living. Penguin. United Nations (2023). The sustainable development goals report 2022 . https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2022/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2022.pdf Valerio Mendoza, O., Comim, F., & Borsi, M. ( 2023). Disentangling aporophobia from xenophobia in the EU-15. Regional Studies, 58(5), 909-921. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2023.2266474 Van der Eijk, C. (2001). Measuring agreement in ordered rating scales. Quality and Quantity, 35 , 325-341. Van Praag, B. & Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. (2011). Happiness economics: A new road to measuring and comparing happiness. Foundations and Trends in Microeconomics, 6 (1), 1–97. https://doi.org/10.1561/0700000026 Velez, P., & Ashworth, S. D. (2007). The impact of item readability on the endorsement of the midpoint response in surveys. Survey Research Methods, 1 (2), 69-74. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2007.v1i2.76 Von Hippel, W., Silver, L. A., & Lynch, M. E. (2000). Stereotyping Against Your Will: The Role of Inhibitory Ability in Stereotyping and Prejudice among the Elderly. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26 (5), 523-532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200267001 Wang, S., & Yang, D. (2020). The effects of poverty stereotype threat on inhibition ability in individuals from different income-level families. Brain and Behavior, 10 (12), e01770. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.1770 Weisstein, E. W. (2004). Bonferroni correction . https://mathworld.wolfram.com/ West, K., & Cowell, N. M. (2015). Predictors of prejudice against lesbians and gay men in Jamaica. Journal of Sex Research, 52 (3), 296–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.853725 Wilson, T. C. (1996). Cohort and prejudice. Whites’ attitudes toward Blacks, Hispanics, Jews and Asians. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60 (2), 253–274. Wolfer, L. (2017). Age differences in online communication: How college students and adults compare in their perceptions of offensive Facebook posts. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 7 (4), 24-42. https://doi.org/10.29333/ojcmt/2608 Woods, T., Kurtz-Costes, B., & Rowley, S. (2005). The development of stereotypes about the rich and poor: Age, race, and family income differences in beliefs. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34 (5), 437-445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-7261-0 Zakrisson, I., Anderzén, M., Lenell, F., & Sandelin, H. (2012). Ambivalent sexism: A tool for understanding and improving gender relations in organizations. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 53 (1), 64-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011.00900.x Zhang, T. H., & Brym, R. (2019). Tolerance of homosexuality in 88 countries: Education, political freedom, and liberalism. Sociological Forum, 34 (2), 501–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12507 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Appendix3.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 03 Sep, 2025 Reviews received at journal 04 Jul, 2025 Reviews received at journal 22 Jun, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 12 Jun, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 11 Jun, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 10 Jun, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 10 Jun, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 07 Jun, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 13 May, 2025 First submitted to journal 11 Apr, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6429946","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":469575593,"identity":"2ee63a2d-e762-42e7-9672-6a1f5b36537a","order_by":0,"name":"Cristina Montañola-Sales","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"IQS School of Management - URL","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Cristina","middleName":"","lastName":"Montañola-Sales","suffix":""},{"id":469575595,"identity":"97a5f6a9-1520-45ed-a833-469af22452f0","order_by":1,"name":"Juan Albacete-Maza","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"IQS School of Management - URL","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Juan","middleName":"","lastName":"Albacete-Maza","suffix":""},{"id":469575596,"identity":"b55cdb59-787a-4b7e-a773-44b1cfb0fe2d","order_by":2,"name":"Francesc Martori-Adrian","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"IQS School of Management - URL","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Francesc","middleName":"","lastName":"Martori-Adrian","suffix":""},{"id":469575598,"identity":"20c8905e-f62e-47dc-924b-6db30719f3b9","order_by":3,"name":"Flavio Comim","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"IQS School of Management - URL","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Flavio","middleName":"","lastName":"Comim","suffix":""},{"id":469575600,"identity":"28931b01-d4d6-413f-9ba8-02d8e2f17689","order_by":4,"name":"Silvia Bou-Ysàs","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"IQS School of Management - URL","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Silvia","middleName":"","lastName":"Bou-Ysàs","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-04-11 16:23:10","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6429946/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6429946/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":84420484,"identity":"52e812ba-55a8-4fbe-b8c1-45e619c0f532","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-11 17:58:38","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":332980,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eshowing the different distribution of responses for the items 'Fear of Social Rejection', 'Lower Class Less Capable', 'Poor Are Lazy', 'Poor Can Earn Living', 'Poor Prefer Free Time', 'Poor Smell Bad', 'Poor Need Gov Help', 'Poor Less Worthy', 'Avoid Poor Places', 'Avoid Looking at Poor', 'Poor Have Good Manners', 'Embarrassed to Eat with Poor', 'Poor Opinions Equal', 'Poor Neighborhoods Are Safe', 'Poor Cause Problems', 'Express Anger at Poor', 'Poor Are Parasites', 'Insult Poor to Make Them Work', 'Beggars Are Worst Kind', 'No Time for Poor', 'Gov Should Serve Average', 'Punched Poor Deserved It' and 'Poor Are Like Us', showing the ordered-probit estimates for each one.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlt text: A series of graphs showing the distribution of responses across various items related to aporophobic attitudes, such as 'Fear of Social Rejection,' 'Poor Are Lazy,' 'Beggars Are the Worst Kind,' and more. Each item includes its ordered-probit estimate values, illustrating differences in agreement or rejection across respondents. The responses highlight attitudes towards the poor, with some exhibiting aporophobic tendencies.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6429946/v1/71bef1bd6800c874de564b69.png"},{"id":84420049,"identity":"76c28908-d356-4c45-8bfa-f1bd12e8a530","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-11 17:50:38","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":17723,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eComparison of the results between groups in the item 'Fear of Social Rejection' and the difference between groups of young and adult respondents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlt-text: Graph comparing responses between two groups, young people and adults, for the 'Fear of Social Rejection' item. The figure illustrates differences in mean responses and standard deviations between the two groups, showcasing the higher aporophobic tendencies among younger individuals compared to adults.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6429946/v1/b1ee69cf088e468eb8141724.png"},{"id":84420052,"identity":"2f88311c-fa1f-48a2-b0f7-249aad3ad61e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-11 17:50:38","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":140095,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCorrelation Matrix of survey\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003eitems related to aporophobia, showing the detail of the correlation values. The order of the variables has been established with a hierarchical cluster.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlt-text: Correlation matrix of survey items related to aporophobia. The figure shows positive correlations in blue and negative correlations in red, with the intensity of the colour representing the strength of the correlation. A cluster of strong positive correlations highlights highly negative views of the poor, including items like 'Beggars Are Worst Kind' and 'Express Anger at Poor.' Additionally, some negative correlations suggest conflicting beliefs, such as between 'Poor Less Worthy' and 'Poor Opinions Equal,' revealing the complexity of aporophobic attitudes.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6429946/v1/dfebe65b39f63bd780680cc2.png"},{"id":84420767,"identity":"efa23739-0036-4a13-837d-a0982dd7f38d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-11 18:06:39","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1433997,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6429946/v1/4871086a-5353-4c03-8a78-f8a924732227.pdf"},{"id":84420486,"identity":"847a7b3e-b554-433a-9c52-40bdf1446f3c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-11 17:58:38","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":37188,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Appendix3.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6429946/v1/22c844325c1899a0f4efc7fe.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The hidden barrier to poverty alleviation: aporophobia and the rise of neoliberalism morality among youth","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe persistence of poverty despite decades of global economic growth has prompted increasing scrutiny of the ideological frameworks underpinning policy and public opinion. Although neoliberalism promised prosperity through market competition and minimal state intervention, it has instead contributed to growing inequalities both within and across countries (see Friedman (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1962\u003c/span\u003e) and Hayek (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1944\u003c/span\u003e) for the ideological foundations of neoliberalism\u0026rsquo;s promises; see Harvey (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) and Piketty (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR105\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) for critiques of its real-world consequences). The assumption that wealth would \"trickle down\" has failed to materialize in many contexts, prompting a reassessment of how economic ideologies shape not just markets, but public attitudes toward poverty. In this context, numerous researchers have drawn attention to the social, political, and cultural threats that undermine poverty alleviation efforts. Among these, a growing concern is the way neoliberal morality fuels public resistance to redistributive policies and moralizes poverty.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA core element of neoliberal ideology is \u003cem\u003emeritocracy\u003c/em\u003e: the belief that success is earned through individual effort, and failure is a personal responsibility. Neoliberalism operates both as a political-economic model\u0026mdash;characterized by deregulation, privatization, and market primacy\u0026mdash;and as a cultural ideology, shaping how individuals interpret success, failure, and social worth (Brown, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Harvey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). This study focuses on the latter: how neoliberal cultural narratives internalized by individuals influence their perceptions of the poor, potentially creating boundaries to poverty alleviation rooted in belief systems rather than material constraints.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithin this context, aporophobia\u0026mdash;a term coined by Spanish philosopher Adela Cortina to describe rejection and aversion toward poor individuals\u0026mdash;emerges as a significant but under-recognized consequence of neoliberal culture (Cortina, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Unlike traditional forms of prejudice based on immutable traits like race or gender, aporophobia targets those perceived as economically unproductive or undeserving. This discrimination is rooted in moral judgments and reinforced by the illusion of equal opportunity (Andrade, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). The result is a social landscape where poverty is blamed on character, not structure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis paper explores how neoliberal meritocratic values contribute to aporophobic attitudes, and how such beliefs differ across generations. Understanding these dynamics is essential in a world where poverty alleviation is increasingly undermined not only by economic or political constraints, but also by cultural narratives that stigmatize the poor and weaken support for redistributive efforts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnding poverty is essential for building a prosperous society, as reflected in the first Sustainable Development Goal of the 2030 Agenda: \u0026ldquo;End poverty in all its forms everywhere\u0026rdquo;. The United Nations (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR128\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) reports that over 600\u0026nbsp;million people live in extreme poverty. This issue remains a major barrier to a prosperous society (Alejo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), as reflected in the first Sustainable Development Goal of the 2030 Agenda: \"End poverty in all its forms everywhere.\" In Spain, 7.7% of the population faced severe material deficiencies, 8.7% struggled financially, and 26% were at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2022 (National Institute of Statistics, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoverty has been the subject of extensive research. Most publications have focused on the historical debate surrounding how poverty should be measured with three main perspectives: an objective approach using quantitative indicators like income (Posel \u0026amp; Rogan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR108\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), a relative approach using indicators relative to economic and social context (Dartanto \u0026amp; Otsubo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Townsend, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR127\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e), and a subjective approach prioritizing the perceptions of those experiencing poverty (Ravallion, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR111\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Van Praag \u0026amp; Ferrer-i-Carbonell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR131\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch on the ethical and moral causes of poverty is less extensive than that on economic causes, but numerous studies have examined the rejection of the poor through related phenomena such as stereotypes, prejudice, and stigma. Common stereotypes portray the poor as lazy, irresponsible, or even criminal (Heberle \u0026amp; Carter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Wang \u0026amp; Yang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR134\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e); prejudice is often expressed as affective or cognitive bias shaping negative attitudes (Allport, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1954\u003c/span\u003e; Lemieux \u0026amp; Pratto, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Reutter et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR114\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e); and stigma highlights how poverty leads to social devaluation and exclusion (Goffman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1963\u003c/span\u003e; Hoyt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). A historically persistent framework is the moral distinction between the \u0026ldquo;deserving\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;undeserving\u0026rdquo; poor (Appelbaum, 2001; Guetzkow, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Halper, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1973\u003c/span\u003e; Handler, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1972\u003c/span\u003e; Katz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e), which legitimizes compassion only when poverty is seen as involuntary, while blaming and invisibilising those believed to be responsible for their situation. While these approaches shed light on important dimensions of how poverty is moralized, they remain fragmented and lack a unified framework to conceptualize discrimination specifically targeted at poor individuals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe concept of aporophobia, in contrast, aims to unify these perspectives under a broader philosophical and normative lens. Coined in the 1990s by Spanish philosopher Adela Cortina, aporophobia refers specifically to the rejection experienced by people living in poverty. She grounded the concept in the Kantian principle of treating individuals as ends in themselves (Kant, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1785\u003c/span\u003e), and in Amartya Sen's capability approach (Sen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR119\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e), which emphasizes the freedom to achieve well-being. Cortina developed this concept more fully in her book 'Aporophobia, the rejection of the poor' (Cortina, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), where she delved into the ethical implications of this discrimination and called for greater recognition of its impact on social cohesion.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research aims to empirically explore aporophobia, focusing on generational differences between young individuals and adults. By doing so, it seeks to improve our understanding of this discriminatory phenomenon and to address the practical, ethical, and moral challenges it poses. Based on a sample of 832 participants \u0026mdash;comprising university students and adults in Barcelona, a city marked by both significant economic inequality (Idescat, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) and high levels of reported hate crimes in Spain (Ministry of Interior, 2020) \u0026mdash; the study provides a comprehensive measure of aporophobic attitudes and identifies patterns that can inform public awareness and intervention strategies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile the study is geographically limited to Barcelona, Spain, it offers insights relevant to other neoliberal democracies, particularly in the Global North. Spain presents a unique context: a Southern European welfare state marked by high youth unemployment, increasing socioeconomic inequality, and political debates around redistribution. These conditions make it a valuable case for examining how neoliberal narratives intersect with poverty stigma, and future research should explore whether similar patterns emerge in different political-economic and cultural contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe article is organized as follows: Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e presents a review of the available literature on aporophobia and intergenerational differences in discriminatory phenomena; Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec9\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e describes the methodology used. In Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec10\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, the main results are presented. Finally, Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec15\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e discusses the results, followed by the study\u0026rsquo;s conclusions and limitations in Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec16\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Literature Review","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe literature on aporophobia has grown in recent years, although it remains a relatively underexplored area of study. While substantial research has addressed the economic, ethical, and social dimensions of poverty, the specific phenomenon of aporophobia\u0026mdash;its causes, manifestations, and implications\u0026mdash;has not been as extensively examined. This section will provide a comprehensive review of the existing literature on aporophobia, including its definition, underlying psychological and societal mechanisms, and the state of empirical research. Additionally, this review will explore intergenerational differences in discriminatory attitudes, particularly focusing on how age may influence the prevalence and intensity of aporophobic beliefs. By synthesizing these diverse strands of research, we aim to contextualize the present study within the broader scholarly discourse and highlight the gaps that this research seeks to address.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1. What is Aporophobia?\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe term aporophobia describes \u0026ldquo;the rejection, aversion, fear, and contempt for the poor, for the helpless who, at least in appearance, cannot return anything good in return\" (Cortina, 1995, p.12). Recognizing aporophobia is crucial for identifying, understanding, and addressing this unfair and violent social problem (Andrade, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLike other discriminatory phenomena, aporophobia is marked by a profound aversion directed at a particular group: in this case, poor people. Thus, individuals are discriminated against not because they have supposedly committed some negative act but because they fundamentally belong to a group that is considered despicable (Ni\u0026ntilde;o-Arguelles et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR99\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This rejection is based on fallacies, biases, generalizations, and distortions of reality without any solid foundations (Mart\u0026iacute;nez-Navarro, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR92\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, all those who discriminate see themselves as superior and justify their animosity towards the poor with a perceived injustice (Cortina, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Finally, aporophobia overlaps with other types of discrimination, following the logic of intersectionality (Crewnshaw, 1991), making the experience of aporophobia different depending on an individual\u0026rsquo;s gender, race, origin, and other conditions besides economic status. Therefore, aporophobia is a complex type of discrimination rooted in biased and judgmental views towards citizens living in poverty. It can manifest and spread hatred through different channels and levels.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2. Why do we reject the poor?\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCortina (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) refers to the \"aporophobic brain\" as the innate tendency to reject and avoid what is different, a survival mechanism from our primitive past. Greater hatred towards foreign groups increased group cohesion and survival chances (Darwin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Neuroscience confirms biological bases for xenophobia (Damasio, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Evers, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Greene, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), which may also apply to aporophobia (Cortina, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). However, this does not justify a rejection of the poor. Humans are biologically prepared for both selfishness and cooperation (Cortina, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, the lack of empathy towards the poor must be explained by factors beyond our brain's natural tendencies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe existence of poverty challenges our societal model (Mart\u0026iacute;nez-Navarro, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR92\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Picado et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR102\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR103\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), especially in modern contractual societies (Andrade, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). These societies believe they are based on the ideals of reciprocity, expecting every member to contribute something in return for what they receive; and on the concept of meritocracy, where emphasis is placed on the potential of the individual to improve his or her economic situation and, therefore, contribute to society as a whole.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe main implication of acknowledging the relevance of aporophobia is the acceptance of poverty as, at least partially, a result of social and structural causes with the consequent social responsibility that it entails. Unfortunately, we often blame individuals for their poverty (Pozo \u0026amp; Abierto, 2019), using stereotypes and prejudices to avoid guilt and cognitive dissonance, and to justify inaction (Festinger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1962\u003c/span\u003e). This avoidance fuels aporophobia, allowing us to ignore our responsibility for the hardships faced by the disadvantaged in current societal models. As with other discriminatory phenomena, Aporophobia is promoted by an us vs. others mentality (Tajfel \u0026amp; Turner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR125\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e). The non-poor differentiate themselves by attributing negative traits to the poor, seeing themselves as superior and the poor as inferior (Andrade, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). This stigmatization creates a \"vicious circle of aporophobia\" (Mart\u0026iacute;nez-Navarro, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR92\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e), where the poor are unfairly accused of criminal behaviour, hindering their integration and prolonging their struggles. In extreme cases, this cycle can lead to despair, causing some to resort to illegal activities, reinforcing negative stereotypes and perpetuating discrimination.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3. Neoliberalism, Meritocracy, and Aporophobia\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNeoliberal political economies promote individualism and reduce poverty to a matter of personal responsibility. In this logic, meritocracy is presented as a moral order: individuals succeed or fail based on their own abilities and effort. While this narrative offers hope to some, it can fuel blame toward those who are poor, particularly when their poverty is seen as a sign of laziness, lack of discipline, or moral failure (Mott, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR96\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Cortina, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis framing creates fertile ground for aporophobia, which operates through moralized stigma. The poor are not just excluded\u0026mdash;they are seen as undeserving. This aligns with Bauman\u0026rsquo;s idea of \u0026ldquo;moral blindness\u0026rdquo; in modern societies, where structural suffering is depersonalized and moral empathy is suspended (Bauman \u0026amp; Donskis, 2015).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe social rivalry hypothesis (Corneo \u0026amp; Gr\u0026uuml;ner, 2002) provides further insight. When poverty is viewed as a consequence of failing in a competitive system, the poor may be seen as threats to the legitimacy of that system. Rejecting them becomes a psychological defence mechanism, preserving one\u0026rsquo;s own belief in fairness and order. Aporophobia, then, is not just prejudice\u0026mdash;it is a protective reaction to the cognitive dissonance between inequality and the ideology of meritocracy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4. Understanding and measuring aporophobia\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSince aporophobia appears to a form of hidden \"moral blindness\" (Bauman \u0026amp; Donkis, 2015) being perpetrated by \"terribly normal and sane people\u0026rdquo; (p. 14), must be recognized as a legitimate form of discrimination to ensure the dignity of those in poverty. To address this issue, we need to identify, measure, and understand aporophobia comprehensively. Discriminatory practices are influenced by multiple variables, with age potentially playing a significant role. However, the effects of age on discrimination are not entirely clear and require further research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4.1. Sate-of-art on aporophobia\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe state-of-art on aporophobia, a relatively recent concept, remains limited, with most of the works focused on its theoretical and philosophical aspects. Scholars often approach aporophobia as a moral issue, trying to characterize and comprehend this form of discrimination. Important references on this approach, besides what has been already discussed, are: Ayala, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Garc\u0026iacute;a Dom\u0026iacute;nguez, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Gracia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Ortega-Esquembre, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR101\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Resende \u0026amp; Machado, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR113\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Ruiz-Arias, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR117\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e. However, while there is a growing body of empirical research, the field remains underdeveloped, with significant gaps that call for further investigation, particularly in diverse contexts and broader geographic regions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpirical studies predominantly focused on the Spanish or Latin American contexts. Picado et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR104\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) examined the perceptions and training needs of social field professionals through a questionnaire, confirming the need for enhanced training in detecting aporophobic attitudes and situations. In a subsequent study, Picado et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR103\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) carried out a survey with 1745 Spanish participants, revealing that 70% of the population is unaware of the meaning of the term \u0026ldquo;aporophobia\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eContreras-Montero and Hidalgo-Mesa (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) investigated aporophobic attitudes among residents of Granada, Spain, finding a between right-wing political ideology, lower income levels, and higher degree of aporophobic attitudes. Pina et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR106\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) explored aporophobic attitudes in the school environment through discussion groups with 96 primary and secondary students in Spain, confirming the presence of these attitudes and identifying low socioeconomic status as a significant factor for both aggressors and victims.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, Hellgren \u0026amp; Gabrielli (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) analysed the intersectional relationship between racism and aporophobia among the Roma population in Spain, uncovering the \"double stigmatization\" faced by this community. Garc\u0026iacute;a Dom\u0026iacute;nguez \u0026amp; Vander Beken (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) examined aporophobia suffered by the homeless group in Ghent, Belgium, finding that up to 50% of respondents had encountered aporophobic incidents, aligning with finding from \u0026Aacute;vila \u0026amp; Garrido (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) and Hatento (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, Valerio Mendoza et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR129\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) provided evidence in the EU-15 to supporting \u0026lsquo;the Cortina hypothesis\u0026rsquo;, suggesting that rejection of immigrants is often based on aporophobic grounds.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the legal sphere, Garc\u0026iacute;a Dom\u0026iacute;nguez (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021a\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) reviewed the inclusion of aporophobia in the Spanish penal system, with a particular focus about homeless people and their characterization. G\u0026oacute;mez et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) analysed data from the Spanish governments\u0026rsquo; hate crime survey. In Latin America, Ni\u0026ntilde;o-Arguelles et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR99\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) surveyed 377 Venezuelan immigrants in Ecuador, finding that 49% had experienced aporophobia during their stay in Ecuador. Pozo and Abierto (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR109\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) reviewed 68 documents and reports from national and international organizations to characterize and analyse aporophobia, defining the relationship between poverty and discrimination in Peru. Similarly, Garc\u0026iacute;a Dom\u0026iacute;nguez (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021b\u003c/span\u003e) explored aporophobia linked to the criminalization of poverty in Sao Paulo, Brazil, revealing the selectivity of the Brazilian penal system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, these studies show that aporophobia is a complex issue that appears in many different social, cultural, and legal contexts. The research indicates that factors like political beliefs, economic status, and overlapping forms of discrimination play a significant role in shaping aporophobic attitudes. Although there is a growing amount of evidence, the current literature highlights the need for more research to fully understand this issue, especially across different age groups, regions, and social settings. This deeper understanding is essential for creating effective strategies to address aporophobia and reduce its negative effects on vulnerable groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4.2. Intergenerational Differences in Discrimination\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscriminatory phenomena are complex and determined by numerous variables. In this context, the focus on intergenerational differences among potential discriminators is fundamental to understanding aporophobia. Age, undoubtedly, plays a crucial role in shaping social stigma and discrimination (Anand, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Kohut et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Lingiardi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). An individual's age significantly influences their perception of reality, making it a key demographic variable in most social science research. Additionally, cultural influences vary considerably across generations, affecting individuals' worldviews. As Germer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) states, \u0026ldquo;we\u0026rsquo;re like fish in the water of our culture, and when the water is polluted with racism, sexism, and ageism, we draw those prejudices inside\u0026rdquo; (p. 203\u0026ndash;204). Therefore, age is a critical variable when analysing any form of discrimination.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, studies specifically investigating intergenerational differences in discriminatory phenomena are scarce. Most research focuses on population groups with a narrow age range. Available evidence indicates that the age of potential aggressors is indeed a significant factor in discriminatory phenomena, with adults exhibiting higher rates of prejudice than younger individuals (Firebaugh \u0026amp; Davis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e; Herek, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Radvansky et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR110\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Wilson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR137\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). This may be due to lower inhibitory control and its importance in managing prejudice (von Hippel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR133\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Radvansky et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR110\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Specifically, these authors suggest that adults often show a strong motivation not to be prejudiced, yet they display higher rates of stereotyping and prejudice than younger individuals (Radvansky et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR110\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). For these reasons it is important to review some studies addressing intergenerational differences in various types of discrimination, namely sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, and racism.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe evidence on \u003cem\u003esexism\u003c/em\u003e across age groups is mixed. Some studies indicate higher levels of sexism among adolescents and young adults compared to older individuals (Masser \u0026amp; Abrams, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR93\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Glick \u0026amp; Fiske, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Glick et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Zakrisson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR140\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). However, other studies suggest that sexism increases with age (Garaigordobil, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Lameiras et al., 2003, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Moya et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR97\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). Some research finds the highest levels of sexism at the population extremes, with relatively high sexism in early adulthood, lower in middle adulthood, and high again in late adulthood (Fern\u0026aacute;ndez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Garaigordobil \u0026amp; Aliri, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Hammond et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge is recognized as an important variable in studying rejection towards homosexual individuals (Anand, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Lingiardi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Generally, \u003cem\u003ehomophobia\u003c/em\u003e tends to be more prevalent in older population groups (Anand, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Baiocco et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Kohut et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Lingiardi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Manalastas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR91\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Zhang \u0026amp; Brym, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR141\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). However, some studies do not find significant age-related differences in homophobia levels (Fisher et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Roll\u0026egrave; et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR115\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; West \u0026amp; Cowell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR136\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). In the case of \u003cem\u003eracism\u003c/em\u003e, studies present varied findings. Some research suggests that tolerance towards racial differences increases with age (Pope-Davis \u0026amp; Ottavi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR107\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e), while other studies find no significant age-related differences (Wolfer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR138\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvidence on \u003cem\u003exenophobia\u003c/em\u003e is also mixed. Beller (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) found that xenophobia increases with age among the German population. Similarly, older age correlated with higher xenophobia in Jylh\u0026auml; et al.'s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) study of right-wing voters in Sweden. However, Valerio Mendoza et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR129\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) measured aporophobia directly and concluded that xenophobia does not show an age-related increase based on data from 14 European countries between 1998 and 2018.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding the influence of \u003cem\u003eage\u003c/em\u003e on aporophobia, the evidence is limited but revealing. Significant findings by Picado et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR103\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) analysed social perceptions and the emotional impact of aporophobic incidents among 1735 individuals aged 18 and above. The study's results highlighted notable age-related differences. Younger individuals (53.1%) were more likely to perceive the term \"indigent\" as derogatory compared to middle-aged and older groups. Awareness of the term \"aporophobia\" declined with age, with only 20.6% of those over 65 recognizing the term.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, the belief that homeless people are attacked by others in similar conditions increased with age, from 59.7% among the youngest group to 75.1% among the oldest. Conversely, the perception that homeless individuals are attacked by non-homeless people remained relatively consistent across age groups, albeit with a slight decrease in older respondents (from 88.9\u0026ndash;82.5%). Older individuals also more frequently associated homelessness with addiction problems (63%) and mental health issues (34%).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOther relevant discrimination studies do not offer conclusions related to the age of the population studied (Contreras-Montero \u0026amp; Hidalgo-Mesa, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Picado et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR104\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), focus on limited age ranges like adolescents (Pina et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR106\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), or concentrate on the discriminated rather than the discriminators, such as research on homeless individuals (Garc\u0026iacute;a Dom\u0026iacute;nguez, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021b\u003c/span\u003e; Garc\u0026iacute;a Dom\u0026iacute;nguez \u0026amp; Vander, 2023). This highlights the urgent need for more scrutinizing the links between age and this key element of discrimination represented by aporophobia.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe main objective of this research was to empirically measure explicit aporophobia in urban areas of Spain, specifically Barcelona, and to examine potential intergenerational differences. This is the first empirical study focusing on aporophobia in Barcelona. We designed a survey for undergraduate students to distribute in the city and its surroundings, utilizing a methodology commonly employed in previous studies on inequality, poverty, and distributional judgments over the last 30 years (see for instance Garc\u0026iacute;a-Castro et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Gift \u0026amp; Lastra-Anad\u0026oacute;n, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Leiva-Brondo, 2022; Newman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR98\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Refaeli \u0026amp; Achdut, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR112\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). This exploratory approach allowed for a flexible, in-depth, and context-dependent investigation of the aporophobia, capturing the complexity of experiences and identifying unforeseen factors (see Audet \u0026amp; d\u0026rsquo;Amboise, 2001; Baxter \u0026amp; Jack, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Denzin \u0026amp; Lincoln, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA snowball sampling method was employed, starting with first-year undergraduate students from a private university, to obtain a sample consisting of young people and their circle of adults. The survey details are included in the Appendix and consisted of 31 items on a Likert scale derived from the existing literature (Alesina \u0026amp; Glaeser, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Alesina \u0026amp; La Ferrara, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Besley \u0026amp; Coate, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e; Fisman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Glaeser, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Keyle \u0026amp; Tan, 2008) and our elaboration. These items were categorized into five subjects: \u003cem\u003eaporophobia\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003esocial hierarchy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003einequality\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003emeritocracy\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003econtrol\u003c/em\u003e. The categorization process was carried out as a team effort, consulting six researchers in the field, with some items being controversial (Rich More Stressed, Manners Reflect Status, Status Reflects Worth, Poor Need Gov Help see Appendix). Ultimately, 22 items addressed \u003cem\u003eaporophobia\u003c/em\u003e, four items \u003cem\u003esocial hierarchy\u003c/em\u003e, three \u003cem\u003emeritocracy\u003c/em\u003e, and two \u003cem\u003einequality\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe survey was organized into four blocks, as shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. The first block included personal perception questions, such as \u0026ldquo;The poor are poor because they are lazy\u0026rdquo;. The second block presented scenarios where respondents rated their agreement or disagreement with some colleague or friend statements, such as \u0026ldquo;The poor are not as worthy as the rich\u0026rdquo;. These blocks contained 31 items covering aporophobia, social hierarchy, meritocracy and inequality. The third block comprised control variables related to xenophobia or inequality, such as \u0026ldquo;Do you think your country should limit migration of highly skilled people?\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;What is the worst in the Life of the poor?\u0026rdquo;. The final block collected demographic information, including age, gender, place of birth, religiosity, income, perception of social class, marital status, and economic status.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStructure of the questionnaire in four different blocks\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBlock\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eType of questions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePersonal perception questions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;If a friend/colleague tells you \u0026hellip; what would be your degree of agreement/disagreement?\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eControl variables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDemographics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll items were rated on a Likert scale of 1 to 6 to avoid central tendency bias (Baka et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Johns, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), which is more prevalent with odd scale as respondents might choose the intermediate option when the item is unclear (Velez \u0026amp; Ashworth, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR132\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) if they are uncooperative (Chyung et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Analysis","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1. The sample\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe sample was obtained by first-year university students using a snowball sampling method through an online survey between March and April 2023. After the cleansing process, we end up with 832 valid responses (data and code can be found here). As intended, the descriptive analysis of the sample presented two subsamples: young people and their circle of adults. The overall sample was balanced in terms of age and gender, with similar income levels (between middle 2000\u0026ndash;6000\u0026euro; and upper above 8000\u0026euro;). While the young subsample had a mean age of 18.66\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.66 years and was predominantly male (61%), the adult subsample had a mean age of 50.88\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.32 years and was predominantly female (55%). There was a statistically significant difference in religiosity, with adults having a median score of 4 (on a scale of 1\u0026ndash;10) and young people having a median score of 3. Despite the gender imbalance, no meaningful statistically significant differences were observed in the composition between the young and adult groups. Thus, we have two comparable samples with similar demographic characteristics, where the key difference is their age.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2. Analysing the ordinal dimension of the survey\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen analysing ordinal items, it is crucial to examine the extent of the agreement or polarization among responses. To assess the agreement, we used Tastle and Wierman\u0026rsquo;s measure of consensus (2007). For polarization, we employed a re-scaling of Van der Eijk\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR130\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e) measure of agreement, as implemented by Ruedin (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR116\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Both measures range from 0 to 1. Additionally, we used Ruedin\u0026rsquo;s implementation of Galtung\u0026rsquo;s AJUS system (1967) to classify distributions according to their shape: A (unimodal, peak in the middle), J (unimodal, peak at either end), U (bimodal, peak at both ends), S (bimodal or multi-modal, multiple peaks), and F (flat, no peak).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrdinal data are often treated as metrics, a practice that has sparked considerable debate (Harpe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Jebb et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e Norman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR100\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Sullivan \u0026amp; Artino, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR123\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Liddell and Kruschke (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) provided evidence that analysing ordinal data as a metric can lead to systematic errors. They recommend using a Bayesian approach with an ordered-probit model to estimate the population\u0026rsquo;s mean and standard deviation, which was applied separately for the entire sample and each group. Results are displayed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome items ('Poor Need Gov Help', 'Poor Have Good Manners', 'Poor Opinions Equal', and 'Poor Are Like Us') were initially scale-inversed but have been reordered to facilitate the interpretation of higher values being linked to more aporophobic behaviours.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConsensus, Polarization, Shape, Mean, and SD of Survey Items. Asterisk indicates aporophobic results.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsensus\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolarization\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eShape\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStd Dev\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFear of Social Rejection*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,72\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,57\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,97\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLower Class Less Capable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,69\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eL\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,88\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,52\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor Are Lazy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,70\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eL\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,45\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor Can Earn Living\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,73\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor Prefer Free Time\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,72\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eL\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,67\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,45\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor Smell Bad\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,51\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,88\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,87\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor Need Gov Help*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,67\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,98\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor Less Worthy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,71\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eL\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,97\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,86\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAvoid Poor Places\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,57\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,32\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,53\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAvoid Looking at Poor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,61\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor Have Good Manners\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,62\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,34\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3,95\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmbarrassed to Eat with Poor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,67\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eL\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,55\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,78\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor Opinions Equal*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eL\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,66\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,90\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor Neighborhoods Are Safe\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,63\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,95\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,37\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor Cause Problems\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,62\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,52\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExpress Anger at Poor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,69\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eL\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor Are Parasites\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,69\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eL\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,32\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,78\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInsult Poor to Make Them Work\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,77\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,09\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eL\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,93\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeggars Are Worst Kind\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,66\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eL\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,92\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo Time for Poor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,71\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eL\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,59\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,53\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGov Should Serve Average\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eL\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePunched Poor Deserved It\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eU\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0,95\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,63\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor Are Like Us\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eL\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,70\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe survey responses generally show a high degree of consensus, with most scores well above 0,5 and close to 0,7. The exception is 'Poor Smell Bad', which presents moderate polarization, indicating divergent behaviours (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Regarding the shapes of the distributions, most of them are unimodally left skewed or centred. Items 'Poor Smell Bad' and 'Avoid Looking at Poor' are slightly bimodal and item 'Punched Poor Deserved It' is also bimodal, but in the extremes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe key findings from the survey highlight several concerning perceptions regarding aporophobic attitudes in society. Respondents generally agreed with the 'Fear of Social Rejection' statement, indicating a widespread acknowledgment of aporophobic behaviour. Furthermore, there were notable aporophobic responses to specific statements. For instance, there was a significant disagreement with the assertion of the item 'Rich More Stressed', suggesting a perception that the poor are not valued equally in society. This could be related to the concept of passive tolerance (Adelman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), where it might be accepted that the poor can have their own opinions, and these opinions should be respected, but they are not considered as valuable as those of the non-poor.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, respondents disagreed with the item statement 'Poor Need Gov Help', reflecting a reluctance to support government intervention to aid the poor. Nevertheless, it is difficult to say that these results might have some aporophobic strength as anyone with very liberal thoughts might not want to trust the responsibility of caring about poverty to the government but to private initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, the actual responses (in pink) and the ordered-probit estimation values (in blue) reveal several key observations. Firstly, discrepancies in responses to 'Fear of Social Rejection', 'Poor Smell Bad', and 'Poor Need Gov Help' suggest that multiple populations within the sample respond differently to aporophobic statements. This indicates diverse perspectives and possibly varying degrees of aporophobia among different groups. Additionally, 'Punched Poor Deserved It', with an estimated mean of -0.94, highlights strong reactions against an aggressive statement. From a methodological perspective, obtaining a central value that lies beyond the scale limits is noteworthy. This would be impossible with the traditional ways of working with Likert data. On the other hand, the high variability in this question suggests that while there is general disagreement with the statement, a small subgroup exhibits high levels of aporophobia, indicating significant polarization within the sample on this issue. Other items that present central positions beyond the scale limits are 'Poor Less Worthy' and 'Insult Poor to Make Them Work'.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is also worth mentioning that in items 'Fear of Social Rejection', 'Poor Smell Bad', and 'Poor Need Gov Help' we can observe that the age variable does not explain the identification of different populations among the respondents (there are no statistically significant differences between young people and adults), so a future line of analysis could be trying to identify what variables are intervening in these cases.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlt text: A series of graphs showing the distribution of responses across various items related to aporophobic attitudes, such as 'Fear of Social Rejection,' 'Poor Are Lazy,' 'Beggars Are the Worst Kind,' and more. Each item includes its ordered-probit estimate values, illustrating differences in agreement or rejection across respondents. The responses highlight attitudes towards the poor, with some exhibiting aporophobic tendencies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3. Intergenerational analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOnce we have presented the results for the overall responses, it is necessary to compare the two groups. To do so, the analytical approach has been similar to the section above. In this case, we estimate the mean and standard deviation of the underlying distribution for each group and compare the two results. This comparison has also been done under a Bayesian inference framework where the data is always treated as ordinal and not as metric (Kruschke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Following the Bayesian inference tradition, high-density intervals (HDI) of the posterior distributions are presented to illustrate the significant differences as well as the effect sizes to properly discuss the magnitude of the differences between groups (Sullivan \u0026amp; Fein, 2012). Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e shows the output generated in the analysis of each question.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e presents the results from the analysis of the answers from adults and from students. Unsurprisingly from the results from Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, both groups, young people and adults, showed aporophobic responses in items 'Fear of Social Rejection', 'Poor Need Gov Help', and 'Poor Opinions Equal'. There are significant differences in all items but 'Poor Prefer Free Time', 'Poor Have Good Manners', 'Punched Poor Deserved It' and 'Poor Are Like Us'. Items 'Fear of Social Rejection', 'Poor Need Gov Help', and 'Poor Have Good Manners' present statistically significant differences between the two groups, however, with relatively low effect sizes and not meaningful in terms of aporophobic beliefs. There are several items where notable differences emerged, that is in items 'Poor Are Lazy', 'Poor Smell Bad', 'Poor Cause Problems', 'Poor Are Parasites', 'Beggars Are Worst Kind', and 'Gov Should Serve Average'. In all these items, the effect size of the difference is greater than 0.5. Although neither group reached the threshold for clearly aporophobic behaviour, students consistently demonstrated higher aporophobic tendencies compared to adults. There is an exception to this statement in item 'Poor Neighborhoods Are Safe' where adults have significantly higher scores the young people.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMean and SD of survey items for students and adults, with differences\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdults \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;381)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudents\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;451)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComparison\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStd dev\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStd dev\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiff S-A\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHDI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEff. Size\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFear of Social Rejection\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.11, 0.45]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLower Class Less Capable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.36, 0.81]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.41\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor Are Lazy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.92\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.61, 1.23]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.57\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor Can Earn Living\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.57\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.37, 0.77]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.44\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor Prefer Free Time\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[-0.03, 0.47]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor Smell Bad\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.89, 1.38]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.69\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor Need Gov Help\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.37\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.17, 0.56]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor Less Worthy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.98\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.58, 1.42]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.51\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAvoid Poor Places\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.37\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.13, 0.61]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAvoid Looking at Poor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.54\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.28, 0.74]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor Have Good Manners\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[-0.29, 0.09]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.09\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmbarrassed to Eat with Poor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.32\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.07, 0.63]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor Opinions Equal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.38\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.11, 0.68]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor Neighborhoods Are Safe\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.66\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[-0.64, -0.34]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.49\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor Cause Problems\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.69\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.52, 0.95]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.51\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExpress Anger at Poor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.19, 0.68]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor Are Parasites\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.92\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.59, 1.29]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.53\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInsult Poor to Make Them Work\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.67\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.20, 1.25]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.34\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeggars Are Worst Kind\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.73, 1.45]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo Time for Poor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.53\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.28, 0.79]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGov Should Serve Average\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.95\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.71, 1.21]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.59\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePunched Poor Deserved It\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[-0.61, 1.66]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor Are Like Us\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[-0.05, 0.54]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs mentioned in the literature review, age is a key variable in understanding social stigma and discrimination. Therefore, it is also crucial to comprehend the origin and formation of beliefs towards people living in poverty. Our results regarding agreement or rejection of aporophobic statements contrast with most studies on the influence of age on other types of discrimination. While our study shows that young people exhibit higher aporophobic tendencies compared to adults, this contrasts with findings in other discriminatory phenomena, where adults are generally found to display greater discriminatory beliefs and attitudes (Firebaugh \u0026amp; Davis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e; Herek, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Radvansky et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR110\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Wilson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR137\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). Specifically, although the evidence is not unanimous, it has been observed that adults exhibit higher levels of sexism (Garaigordobil, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Lameiras et al., 2003, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Moya et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR97\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e), homophobia (Anand, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Baiocco et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Kohut et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Lingiardi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Manalastas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR91\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Zhang \u0026amp; Brym, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR141\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), and xenophobia (Beller, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Jylh\u0026auml; et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlt-text: Graph comparing responses between two groups, young people and adults, for the 'Fear of Social Rejection' item. The figure illustrates differences in mean responses and standard deviations between the two groups, showcasing the higher aporophobic tendencies among younger individuals compared to adults.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding aporophobia, one of the few studies that offers insights into the influence of age on the profile of potential aggressors is by Picado et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR103\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Our results also contrast with this study, as it states that young people showed more awareness regarding the perception of certain terms as stigmatizing when referring to homeless individuals; a greater understanding of the term aporophobia and its reference; greater concern about the potential dangers faced by the homeless; and a lower causal association between homelessness and addiction problems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4. Correlation analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe conducted a correlation study of the primary items associated with aporophobia to identify significant patterns and associations within aporophobic attitudes. The correlation matrix in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e illustrates the relationships between various survey items, with positive correlations indicated in blue and negative correlations in red. The intensity of the colour represents the strength of the correlation. The analysis reveals that aporophobia is not a unidimensional construct but rather an intersectional and multifaceted phenomenon. The varying strengths and directions of correlations indicate that aporophobic attitudes are composed of distinct and interrelated dimensions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA notable cluster of strong positive correlations among items expresses highly negative views of the poor. For instance, items like 'Beggars Are Worst Kind', 'No Time for Poor', 'Gov Should Serve Average', 'Express Anger at Poo'r, and 'Poor Are Parasites' suggest a coherent set of beliefs that associate poverty with uncleanliness, laziness, and being a societal burden.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother important dimension that emerges is related to the dehumanization and avoidance of the poor. Items such as 'Ignore Poor's Words', 'Poor Less Worthy', and 'Avoid Looking at Poor' likely form a sub-dimension that captures the tendency to view the poor as less human and the desire to avoid interaction with them.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterestingly, the analysis also reveals some conflicting beliefs. The negative correlation between 'Poor Less Worthy' and 'Poor Opinions Equal' suggests that some respondents simultaneously hold dehumanizing views while also acknowledging the equal value of poor people's opinions. Similarly, 'Poor Are Like Us' shows negative correlations with many of the more negative statements, indicating that some respondents maintain a humanizing view of the poor despite holding other negative attitudes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA subset of items captures more aggressive and hostile attitudes towards the poor. Items like 'Express Anger at Poor', 'Poor Are Parasites', ' Insult Poor to Make Them Work', and 'Punched Poor Deserved It' likely form a distinct sub-dimension representing more extreme and potentially violent aporophobic attitudes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe multidimensional nature of aporophobia suggested by this analysis has important implications for scale development. The measure could potentially be reduced to several key sub-dimensions (e.g., dehumanization, avoidance, aggression, beliefs about deservingness). Understanding these sub-dimensions could inform the development of a more nuanced and comprehensive scale for measuring aporophobia. Such a scale could facilitate better quantification of aporophobic attitudes and more targeted intervention strategies, ultimately contributing to more effective efforts in reducing discrimination against the poor.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlt-text: Correlation matrix of survey items related to aporophobia. The figure shows positive correlations in blue and negative correlations in red, with the intensity of the colour representing the strength of the correlation. A cluster of strong positive correlations highlights highly negative views of the poor, including items like 'Beggars Are Worst Kind' and 'Express Anger at Poor.' Additionally, some negative correlations suggest conflicting beliefs, such as between 'Poor Less Worthy' and 'Poor Opinions Equal,' revealing the complexity of aporophobic attitudes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe findings from this study provide important insights into the intergenerational differences in beliefs regarding the causes and consequences of poverty, and the moral responsibility of those who experience it. Specifically, they reveal an underexplored form of discrimination\u0026mdash;aporophobia\u0026mdash;that appears to be deeply shaped by ideological narratives around merit, deservingness, and personal responsibility. In the context of the current global concern with poverty alleviation, our findings suggest that aporophobia should be understood as one of the cultural boundaries that limit the success of such efforts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe found a moderate degree of agreement with some aporophobic statements across the sample, especially those that blame individuals for their own poverty. These beliefs typically deny structural causes of inequality and instead attribute poverty to individual failings, such as laziness, lack of effort, addictions, or poor decision-making (Woods et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR139\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Mott, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR96\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Siposne, 2022). According to Cortina (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), this belief system forms the foundation of aporophobia, justifying social indifference and even hostility toward the poor. When poverty is framed as the result of personal choices, empathy diminishes, and the legitimacy of support systems\u0026mdash;whether state-provided or collective\u0026mdash;is called into question. This reinforces the ideological underpinnings of neoliberalism, in which the structural roots of poverty are obscured by narratives of individual responsibility.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat stands out most in our data is the unexpected intergenerational reversal: younger respondents exhibit significantly more aporophobic responses than adults across most items, in many cases with a considerable effect size. This contradicts findings in other domains of prejudice, such as racism, homophobia, xenophobia, or sexism, where younger cohorts typically hold more inclusive views. This unique pattern underscores aporophobia as a peculiar form of discrimination, one that cannot be fully understood through the frameworks commonly applied to other forms of stigma.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe interpret this trend in light of neoliberal meritocracy. Young people today are immersed in cultural narratives that emphasize personal effort, agency, and the notion that success is earned in a fair competitive system. These ideas are central to neoliberalism, which downplays structural constraints and encourages individuals to view social outcomes as self-determined. In this context, the poor are perceived not as victims of systemic inequality but as those who failed to \"try hard enough.\" The social rivalry hypothesis (Corneo and Gr\u0026uuml;ner, 2002) further suggests that individuals may reject or morally distance themselves from the poor to preserve their belief in a just system\u0026mdash;particularly when their own social position feels vulnerable.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, an apparent paradox emerges: why would a generation marked by precarity, high youth unemployment, and limited upward mobility embrace a narrative that blames the poor? One possible explanation is that the meritocratic narrative serves as a psychological coping mechanism, providing a sense of control or aspiration in uncertain conditions. Believing that success is attainable through effort may help individuals navigate a labour market that increasingly offers fewer guarantees. Yet, this same belief system can lead to the moral condemnation of those who fail to meet its standards, fuelling aporophobic attitudes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast, adults may develop more critical views through life experience. Over time, exposure to job market, institutional failures, and economic crises can reveal the limitations of meritocratic ideology. Many adults have encountered instances in which effort did not yield rewards, or where unforeseen circumstances\u0026mdash;such as illness, caregiving responsibilities, or job precarity\u0026mdash;led to financial insecurity. These lived experiences may foster a deeper recognition of structural inequality and reduce aporophobic beliefs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOnly one item deviated from this pattern: adults reported greater fear of visiting poor neighbourhoods. This could be influenced by greater exposure to crime-related media coverage (e.g., G\u0026oacute;mez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), particularly in cities like Barcelona where issues of safety in certain areas are often highlighted. Additionally, perceived vulnerability tends to increase with age, making older individuals more cautious in unfamiliar or stigmatized settings. However, this isolated instance does not outweigh the broader trend of stronger aporophobia among youth\u0026mdash;and, if anything, underscores the complexity of how economic fear and moral blame intersect.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is important to acknowledge that our study does not definitively explain the observed generational differences; the findings raise important questions that warrant further investigation. For example, why do young people, who are often idealized as progressive and inclusive, hold more exclusionary views of the poor? One hypothesis is that they view economic status as malleable\u0026mdash;a changeable condition that, unlike race or gender, can supposedly be improved with enough effort. This belief, while seemingly optimistic, reinforces a meritocratic worldview that delegitimizes the role of structural factors and ultimately blames the poor for their own condition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese insights suggest that neoliberal cultural narratives are not only persistent but potent, particularly among the youth. If left unchallenged, they may entrench aporophobia within the next generation of voters, professionals, and policymakers\u0026mdash;undermining both public empathy and support for redistributive policies. As such, aporophobia must be recognized not only as a moral issue but also as a cultural and ideological barrier to poverty alleviation and social justice.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6. Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study contributes novel empirical evidence to the emerging understanding of aporophobia as a form of stigma deeply shaped by neoliberal morality. Contrary to trends in other types of discrimination, our findings suggest that aporophobic beliefs are more pronounced among younger individuals, who are often perceived as more progressive in their social attitudes. This inversion of expected patterns signals a pressing cultural issue: younger generations may have internalized meritocratic ideologies that frame poverty as the result of individual failure rather than systemic inequality.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eYoung people in our sample consistently expressed higher levels of agreement with aporophobic statements, particularly those that endorse blaming the poor for their circumstances. These attitudes align closely with neoliberal ideals of personal responsibility, which are often reinforced through education, media, and political discourse. Adults, in contrast, may develop more complex understandings of economic precarity through their lived experience\u0026mdash;recognizing that poverty is rarely a matter of choice and that effort alone cannot overcome entrenched structural barriers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings expose a critical tension between personal responsibility narratives and structural interpretations of inequality. When society attributes poverty solely to individual choices, empathy diminishes, solidarity erodes, and support for redistributive policies weakens. In this way, aporophobia becomes a hidden but powerful cultural obstacle to effective poverty alleviation. It legitimizes exclusion while preserving a comforting, if misleading, belief in fairness and merit.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study is not without limitations. Our data come from a non-probabilistic sample of respondents in Barcelona, which limits generalizability. Additionally, we did not use a validation scale to measure aporophobia, and responses may have been influenced by social desirability bias, particularly given the sensitive nature of the topic. Future research should develop standardized instruments to measure both explicit and implicit aporophobic attitudes, such as through Implicit Association Tests. Replicating the study across different regions, cultures, and age cohorts would also allow for a more comprehensive understanding of how beliefs vary globally, since poverty stigma varies depending on the type of society in which it is studied (Sutton et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR124\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, longitudinal studies are needed to track whether these attitudes shift over time and how they respond to targeted interventions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite these limitations, the implications of this study are substantial. If aporophobia is indeed more prevalent among younger generations\u0026mdash;the very individuals who will shape future institutions and policies\u0026mdash;it constitutes a long-term cultural threat to social cohesion and justice. Addressing poverty will therefore require more than economic redistribution or social welfare programs; it demands a cultural reckoning with the ideological roots of stigma. Educational systems, media narratives, and public discourse must all contribute to challenging the moral assumptions embedded in neoliberalism and promoting a more accurate, empathetic understanding of poverty.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings raise concerns not only at the cultural level but also in terms of public policy. Aporophobic attitudes\u0026mdash;especially when internalized by younger generations\u0026mdash;may erode political support for key poverty alleviation measures such as universal basic income, housing subsidies, or targeted social protection programs. If poverty is framed as a personal failure rather than a structural condition, collective investment in welfare becomes harder to justify. In this sense, aporophobia may act as a cultural obstacle to effective redistribution and undermine efforts to implement evidence-based social policies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the end, the young may see themselves as blameless, but they also appear more willing to assign blame to the poor. This paradox lies at the heart of a rising neoliberal morality\u0026mdash;a system of belief that masks inequality behind the language of merit and deserts. Recognizing and confronting this ideological structure is essential if we are to dismantle the stigma of poverty and move toward a society grounded in structural awareness, solidarity, and true fairness. As this study suggests, the rise of neoliberal morality among youth represents not just a generational trend, but a hidden cultural threat to efforts aimed at ending poverty.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eEthical statements\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical approval for this study was not required, as no personal or sensitive data were collected, and all responses were fully anonymous. According to the ethics regulations of the host institution, studies involving anonymized opinion surveys without clinical, biomedical, or vulnerable population involvement may be conducted without formal ethical review. This exemption was formally confirmed by the institutional ethics committee on May 12, 2025, under reference code CER-2025_004. The research was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the ethical principles set forth by the university\u0026rsquo;s Chair of Ethics and Human Thought.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Informed consent\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent was obtained between March and April 2023 through an information sheet provided to all participants before completing the online survey. The sheet outlined the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of participation, the confidentiality of responses, and the exclusive academic use of the data. Only responses from participants who explicitly indicated their agreement were included in the analysis. No identifying information was collected, and all data were fully anonymized prior to analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Funding statement\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Competing interests\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAdelman, L., Verkuyten, M., and Yogeeswaran, K. (2021). Distinguishing Active and Passive Outgroup Tolerance: Understanding Its Prevalence and the Role of Moral Concern. \u003cem\u003ePolitical Psychology, 43\u003c/em\u003e(4), 731-750.\u003cu\u003e \u003c/u\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12790\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnand, P. V. (2016). Attitude towards homosexuality: A survey-based study. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Psychosocial Research, 11\u003c/em\u003e(1), 157\u0026ndash;166.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAndrade, M. (2008). \u0026iquest;Qu\u0026eacute; es la \u0026ldquo;aporofobia\u0026rdquo;? Un an\u0026aacute;lisis conceptual sobre prejuicios, estereotipos y discriminaci\u0026oacute;n hacia los pobres. \u003cem\u003eAgenda Social, 2\u003c/em\u003e(3), 117-139.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlejo, D., Mac\u0026iacute;as, I., \u0026amp; Lawson, M. (2018). \u003cem\u003eReward work, not wealth\u003c/em\u003e. Oxfam. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/\u003c/u\u003e10.21201/2017.1350\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlesina, A., \u0026amp; Glaeser, E. (2004). \u003cem\u003eFighting Poverty in the US and Europe: A World of Difference\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford Scholarship Online. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199267669.001.0001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlesina, A., \u0026amp; La Ferrara, E. (2005). Preferences for redistribution in the land of opportunities. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Public Economics, 89,\u003c/em\u003e 897-931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.05.009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAllport, G. (1954). \u003cem\u003eThe nature of prejudice. \u003c/em\u003eAddison-Wesley.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eApplebaum, L. (2001). The influence of perceived deservingness on policy decisions regarding aid to the poor. \u003cem\u003ePolitical Psychology, 22\u003c/em\u003e(3), 419-442. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00248\u003cu\u003e \u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAudet, J., \u0026amp; d\u0026apos;Amboise, G. (2001). The multi-site study: An innovative research methodology. \u003cem\u003eThe Qualitative Report, 6\u003c/em\u003e(2), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2001.2001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026Aacute;vila, V., \u0026amp; Garrido, E. (2019). La aporofobia como delito de odio y discriminaci\u0026oacute;n. In J. Castro, A. B. G\u0026oacute;mez, \u0026amp; D. Buil (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eLa Criminolog\u0026iacute;a que viene: Resultados del I Encuentro de J\u0026oacute;venes Investi-gadores en Criminolog\u0026iacute;a\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 295\u0026ndash;306). \u003cu\u003ehttps://dialnet.unirioja.es/servletlibro? codigo=745952\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAyala, P. (2018). The Smithian sympathy as a way to reduce the aporophobia derived from corruption. \u003cem\u003eVeritas, 41\u003c/em\u003e, 69-86. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-92732018000300069\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaka, A., Figgou, L., \u0026amp; Triga, V. (2012). \u0026apos;Neither agree, nor disagree\u0026apos;: a critical analysis of the middle answer category in Voting Advice Applications.\u003cem\u003e International Journal of Electronic Governance, 5\u003c/em\u003e(3-4), 244-263. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEG.2012.051306\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaiocco, R., Rosati, F., Pistella, J., Salvati, M., Carone, N., Ioverno, S., \u0026amp; Laghi, F. (2020). Attitudes and beliefs of Italian educators and teachers regarding children raised by same-sex parents. \u003cem\u003eSexuality Research and Social Policy, 17\u003c/em\u003e(2), 229\u0026ndash;238. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-019-00386-0\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBauman, Z. \u0026amp; Donskis, L. (2016). \u003cem\u003eLiquid evil\u003c/em\u003e. John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaxter, P., \u0026amp; Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. \u003cem\u003eThe Qualitative Report, 13\u003c/em\u003e(4), 544-559. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1573\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeller, J. (2020). Xenophobia trends in Germany: Increasing negative attitude towards foreigners in younger birth cohorts. \u003cem\u003eThe Social Science Journal, 60\u003c/em\u003e(2), 172-178.\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003e\u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/03623319.2020.1735855\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBesley, T., \u0026amp; Coate, S. (1992). Understanding welfare stigma: Taxpayer resentment and statistical discrimination. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Public Economics, 48\u003c/em\u003e, 165-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727(92)90025-B\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBOE (2021). Ley Org\u0026aacute;nica 8/2021, de 4 de junio, de protecci\u0026oacute;n integral a la infancia y la adolescencia frente a la violencia. Bolet\u0026iacute;n Oficial del Estado, n\u0026uacute;m. 137, de 8 de junio de 2021. https://www.boe.es/eli/es/lo/2021/06/04/8/con\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cu\u003eBrown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism\u0026apos;s stealth revolution. Princeton University Press.\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChan, S., Wong, H., Au-Yeung, T., Huo, X., \u0026amp; Gao, Q. (2022). Impacts of poverty stigma on negative affect among welfare recipients: path analysis on Mainland China and Hong Kong. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Asian Public Policy, 15\u003c/em\u003e(1), 145-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2020.1806428\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChyung, S. Y., Roberts, K., Swanson, I., \u0026amp; Hankinson, A. (2017). Evidence-based survey design: The use of a midpoint on the Likert scale. \u003cem\u003ePerformance Improvement, 56\u003c/em\u003e(10), 15-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21727\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eContreras-Montero, B., \u0026amp; Hidalgo-Mesa, M. (2021). Percepci\u0026oacute;n de la pobreza, ideolog\u0026iacute;a pol\u0026iacute;tica y nivel de ingresos como factores de an\u0026aacute;lisis de las actitudes apor\u0026oacute;fobas en Granada. \u003cem\u003eAposta: Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 89\u003c/em\u003e, 103-122. http://hdl.handle.net/10481/68104\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCorneo, Giacomo, and Hans-Peter Gruner. 2002. Individual Preferences for Political Redistribution. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Public Economics\u003c/em\u003e 83 (1): 83\u0026ndash;107.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCortina, A. (1 de diciembre de 1995). Aporofobia. \u003cem\u003eABC Cultural\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCortina, A. (2011). \u003cem\u003eNeuro\u0026eacute;tica y neuropol\u0026iacute;tica. Sugerencias para la educaci\u0026oacute;n moral\u003c/em\u003e. Tecnos.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCortina, A. (2017). \u003cem\u003eAporofobia: el rechazo al pobre. Un desaf\u0026iacute;o para la democracia\u003c/em\u003e. Paid\u0026oacute;s.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCortina, A. (2022). \u003cem\u003eAporophobia: Why We Reject the Poor Instead of Helping Them\u003c/em\u003e. Princeton University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCrenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the nargins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. \u003cem\u003eStanfordaw Review, 43\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1241\u0026ndash;1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDamasio, A. (2011). \u003cem\u003eEn busca de Spinoza. Neurobiolog\u0026iacute;a de la emoci\u0026oacute;n y los sentimientos.\u003c/em\u003e Destino.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDartanto, T., \u0026amp; Otsubo, S. T. (2013). Measurements and determinants of multifaceted poverty: Absolute, relative, and subjective poverty in Indonesia. In S. T. Otsubo (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eGlobalization and Development Volume III. In search of a new development paradigm\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 69-113). Taylor \u0026amp; Francis.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDarwin, C. (2009). \u003cem\u003eEl origen del hombre. \u003c/em\u003eCr\u0026iacute;tica.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDenzin, N. K., \u0026amp; Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). \u003cem\u003eThe Sage handbook of qualitative research\u003c/em\u003e. Sage.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEvers, K. (2015). Can we be epigenetically proactive? In T. Metzinger y J. M. Windt (eds.), \u003cem\u003eMind Matters\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 1-21). Open MIND.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFern\u0026aacute;ndez, M. L., Castro, Y. R., \u0026amp; Lorenzo, M. G. (2004). Evolution of hostile sexism and benevolent sexism in a Spanish sample. \u003cem\u003eSocial Indicators Research, 66\u003c/em\u003e(3), 197\u0026ndash;211. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1023/B:SOCI.0000003553.30419.f1\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFestinger, L. (1962). Cognitive dissonance. \u003cem\u003eScientific American, 207\u003c/em\u003e(4), 93-106. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/1\u003c/u\u003e10.1038/scientificamerican1062-93\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFirebaugh, G., \u0026amp; Davis, K. E. (1988). Trends in antiblack prejudice, 1972\u0026ndash;1984: Region and cohort effects. \u003cem\u003eThe American Journal of Sociology, 94\u003c/em\u003e(2), 251\u0026ndash;272.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFisher, A. D., Castellini, G., Ristori, J., Casale, H., Giovanardi, G., Carone, N., Fanni, E., Mosconi, M., Ciocca, G., Jannini, E. A., Ricca, V., Lingiardi, V., \u0026amp; Maggi, M. (2017). Who has the worst attitudes toward sexual minorities? Comparison of transphobia and homophobia levels in gender dysphoric individuals, the general population and health care providers. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Endocrinological Investigation, 40\u003c/em\u003e, 263\u0026ndash;273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40618-016-0552-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFisman, R., Jakiela, P., \u0026amp; Kariv, S. (2017). Distributional preferences and political behavior. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Public Economics, 155\u003c/em\u003e, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2017.08.010\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFriedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGaltung, J. (1969). Theory and methods of social research.\u003cem\u003e British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 20\u003c/em\u003e(2), 173-174.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGaraigordobil, M. (2013). Sexism and alexithymia: Correlations and differences as a function of gender, age, and educational level. \u003cem\u003eAnales de Psicolog\u0026iacute;a, 29\u003c/em\u003e(2), 368-377.\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.6018/analesps.29.2.132261\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGaraigordobil, M. (2015). Sexismo y expresi\u0026oacute;n de la ira: diferencias de g\u0026eacute;nero, cambios con la edad y correlaciones entre ambos constructos. \u003cem\u003eRevista argentina de cl\u0026iacute;nica psicol\u0026oacute;gica, 24\u003c/em\u003e(1), 35-42.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGaraigordobil, M., \u0026amp; Aliri, J. (2013). Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Standardization and normative data in a sample of the Basque Country. Behavioral Psychology, 21(1), 173\u0026ndash;186.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGarc\u0026iacute;a-Castro, J. D., Rodr\u0026iacute;guez-Bail\u0026oacute;n, R., \u0026amp; Willis, G.B. (2020). Perceiving economic inequality in everyday life decreases tolerance to inequality.\u003cem\u003e Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 90\u003c/em\u003e, 104019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGarc\u0026iacute;a-Castro, J. D., Gonz\u0026aacute;lez, R., Frigolett, C., Jim\u0026eacute;nez-Moya, G., Rodr\u0026iacute;guez-Bail\u0026oacute;n, R., \u0026amp; Willis, G. (2023). Changing attitudes toward redistribution: The role of perceived economic inequality in everyday life and intolerance of inequality. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Social Psychology, 163\u003c/em\u003e(4), 566-581. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2021.2006126\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGarc\u0026iacute;a Dom\u0026iacute;nguez, I. (2020). \u003cem\u003eLa aporofobia en el sistema penal espa\u0026ntilde;ol: especial referencia al colectivo de personas sin hogar\u003c/em\u003e. Ratio Legis.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGarc\u0026iacute;a Dom\u0026iacute;nguez, I. (2021a). Exclusi\u0026oacute;n social y criminalidad: un an\u0026aacute;lisis de las instituciones apor\u0026oacute;fobas a trav\u0026eacute;s de los delitos patrimoniales. \u003cem\u003eRevista Penal, 48\u003c/em\u003e, 33-57.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGarc\u0026iacute;a Dom\u0026iacute;nguez, I. (2021b). Un an\u0026aacute;lisis criminol\u0026oacute;gico de la victimizaci\u0026oacute;n de las personas sin hogar en la ciudad de S\u0026atilde;o Paulo. \u003cem\u003eREB. Revista de Estudios Brasile\u0026ntilde;os, 7\u003c/em\u003e(15), 89-104. https://doi.org/10.14201/reb202071589104\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGarc\u0026iacute;a Dom\u0026iacute;nguez, I. (2023). Revisi\u0026oacute;n sistem\u0026aacute;tica de estudios emp\u0026iacute;ricos sobre la autor\u0026iacute;a y victimizaci\u0026oacute;n apor\u0026oacute;foba de las personas en situaci\u0026oacute;n de sinhogarismo en espa\u0026ntilde;a (a\u0026ntilde;os 2015-2020). \u003cem\u003eRevista General de Derecho Penal, 40\u003c/em\u003e, 1-61. https://www.iustel.com//v2/revistas/detalle_revista.asp?id_noticia=426638\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGarc\u0026iacute;a Dom\u0026iacute;nguez, I., \u0026amp; Vander Beken, T. (2023). Aporophobic and homeless victimisation: the case of Ghent. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal on Criminal Policy and Research\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-023-09557-7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGermer, C. (2009). The mindful path to self-compassion: Freeing yourself from destructive thoughts and emotions. Guilford Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGift, T., \u0026amp; Lastra-Anad\u0026oacute;n, C. X. (2023). \u0026ldquo;Deservingness\u0026rdquo; and Public Support for Universal Public Goods: A Survey Experiment. \u003cem\u003ePublic Opinion Quaterly, 87\u003c/em\u003e(1), 44-68. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad007\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGlaeser, E. L. (2005). The political economy of hatred. \u003cem\u003eThe Quaterly Journal of Economics, 120\u003c/em\u003e(1), 45-86.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGlick, P., \u0026amp; Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70\u003c/em\u003e(3), 491\u0026ndash;512. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.70.3.491\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGlick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J., Abrams, D., Masser, B., Adetoun, B., Osagie, J. E., Akande, A., Alao, A., Annetje, B., Willemsen, T. M., Chipeta, K., Dardenne, B., Dijksterhuis, A., Wigboldus, D., Eckes, T., Six-Materna, I., Exp\u0026oacute;sito, F. ... L\u0026oacute;pez, W. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79\u003c/em\u003e(5), 763\u0026ndash;775. https://doi.org/1\u003cu\u003e0.1037//0022-3514.79.5.763\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoffman, E. (1963). \u003cem\u003eStigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. \u003c/em\u003ePelican.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eG\u0026oacute;mez, J., Garc\u0026iacute;a Dom\u0026iacute;nguez, I., Puente Guerrero, P., Fern\u0026aacute;ndez Villazala, T., Yamir San Abelardo, M., \u0026amp; L\u0026oacute;pez. J. (2022). Los delitos de odio por aporofobia: una primera aproximaci\u0026oacute;n a los resultados de la encuesta sobre delitos de odio 2020-2021. In A. Daunis (Coord.), \u003cem\u003eOdio y discriminaci\u0026oacute;n en tiempos convulsos \u003c/em\u003e(pp. 31-41). Comares.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eG\u0026oacute;mez, M., Corti\u0026ntilde;as-Rovira, S., \u0026amp; P\u0026eacute;rez, J. L. (2023). Overrepresentation and underrepresentation of crime in the media. A case study from Barcelona. \u003cem\u003ePol\u0026iacute;tica Criminal, 18\u003c/em\u003e(36), 838-872. \u003cu\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-33992023000200838\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGracia, J. (2021). Eradicating xenophobia and aporophobia: Compassion as a key capacity of moral neuroeducation. \u003cem\u003ePensamiento: Revista de Investigaci\u0026oacute;n e Informaci\u0026oacute;n Filos\u0026oacute;fica, 77\u003c/em\u003e(295), 559-571. https://doi.org/10.14422/pen.v77.i295.y2021.010\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreene, J. (2013). \u003cem\u003eMoral tribes. Emotion, reason and the gap between us and them.\u003c/em\u003e Penguin Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuetzkow, J. (2010). Beyond deservingness: Congressional discourse on poverty, 1964-1996. \u003cem\u003eThe Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 629\u003c/em\u003e(1), 173-197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716209357404\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHalper, T. (1973). The poor as pawns: The new \u0026quot;deserving poor\u0026quot; \u0026amp; the old. \u003cem\u003ePolity, 6\u003c/em\u003e(1), 71-86. https://doi.org/10.2307/3234182\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHammond, M. D., Milojev, P., Huang, Y., \u0026amp; SIbley, C. G. (2017). Benevolent sexism and hostile sexism across the ages. \u003cem\u003eSocial Psychological and Personality Science, 9\u003c/em\u003e(7), 863-874. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617727588\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHandler, J. F. (1972). \u003cem\u003eReforming the poor\u003c/em\u003e. Basic Books.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarpe, S. E. (2015). How to analyze Likert and other rating scale data. \u003cem\u003eCurrents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 7\u003c/em\u003e(6), 836-850.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHatento. (2015). \u003cem\u003eLos delitos de odio contra las personas sin hogar. Informe de investigaci\u0026oacute;n.\u003c/em\u003e RAIS Fundaci\u0026oacute;n. https://hogarsi.org/hatentoweb/pdf/informe-resultados-digital_DEF.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarvey, D. (2005). \u003cem\u003eA brief history of neoliberalism\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford university press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHayek, F. A. (1944). \u003cem\u003eThe road to serfdom\u003c/em\u003e. University of Chicago Press\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHeberle, A., \u0026amp; Carter, A. (2020). Young children\u0026rsquo;s stereotype endorsement about people in poverty: Age and economic status effects. \u003cem\u003eChildren and Youth Services Review, 108\u003c/em\u003e(104605), 1-15.\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104605\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHellgren, Z., \u0026amp; Gabrielli, L. (2021). Racialization and aporophobia: Intersecting discriminations in the experiences of non-western migrants and Spanish Roma. \u003cem\u003eSocial Sciences, 10\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10050163\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHerek, G. M. (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Directions in Psychological Science, 9\u003c/em\u003e(1), 19\u0026ndash;22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00051\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHerek, G. M. (2002). Gender gaps in public opinion about lesbians and gay men. \u003cem\u003ePublic Opinion Quarterly, 66\u003c/em\u003e(1), 40\u0026ndash;66. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1086/338409 \u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHoyt, C., Billingsley, J., Burnette, J., Becker, W., \u0026amp; Babij, A. (2023). The implications of mindsets of poverty for stigma against those in poverty. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Social Psychology, 53\u003c/em\u003e(5), 385-407. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12947\u003cu\u003e \u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIdescat. Instituto de Estad\u0026iacute;stica de Catalu\u0026ntilde;a. (2022). \u003cem\u003eIndicadores de desigualdad de la distribuci\u0026oacute;n de la renta \u003c/em\u003e[Website]\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e https://www.idescat.cat/indicadors/?id=anuals\u0026amp;n=10410\u0026amp;lang=es\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eInglis, G., Jenkins, P., McHardy, F., Sosu, E., \u0026amp; Wilson, C. (2023). Poverty stigma, mental health, and well-being: A rapid review and synthesis of quantitative and qualitative research. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Community \u0026amp; Applied Social Psychology, 33\u003c/em\u003e(4), 783-806.\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2677\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eInstituto Nacional de Estad\u0026iacute;stica [National Institute of Statistics]. (2023). \u003cem\u003eEncuesta de Condiciones de Vida\u003c/em\u003e. https://www.ine.es/prensa/ecv_2022.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJebb, A. T., Ng, V., \u0026amp; Tay, L. (2021). A review of key Likert scale development advances: 1995\u0026ndash;2019. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology, 12\u003c/em\u003e, 637547.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJohns, R. (2005). One size doesn\u0026rsquo;t fit all: Selecting response scales for attitude items. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion \u0026amp; Parties, 15(2), 237-264. https://doi.org/10.1080/13689880500178849\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJylh\u0026auml;, K. M., Rydgren, J., \u0026amp; Strimling, P. (2022). Xenophobia among radical and mainstream right-wing party voters: prevalence, correlates and influence on party support. \u003cem\u003eEthnic and Racial Studies, 45\u003c/em\u003e(16), 261-286. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2022.2061866\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKant, I. (1785). \u003cem\u003eGroundwork of the metaphysics of morals\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKatz, M. B. (1989). \u003cem\u003eThe undeserving poor\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKohut, A., Wike, R., Bell, J., Menasce Horowitz, J., Simmons, K., Associate, R., Stokes, B., Poushter, J., Ponce, A., Gross, E. M., \u0026amp; Barker, C. (2013). \u003cem\u003eThe global divide on homosexuality\u003c/em\u003e. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/05/Pew-Global-Attitudes-Homosexuality-Report-REVISED-MAY-27-2014.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKruschke, J. K. (2015). \u003cem\u003eDoing Bayesian Data Analysis: A Tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan\u003c/em\u003e. Academic Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLameiras, M., \u0026amp; Rodr\u0026iacute;guez, Y. (2003). Evaluaci\u0026oacute;n del sexismo ambivalente en estudiantes gallegos/as. \u003cem\u003eAcci\u0026oacute;n Psicol\u0026oacute;gica, 2\u003c/em\u003e(2), 131-136. https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.2.2.526\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLameiras, M., Rodr\u0026iacute;guez, Y., \u0026amp; Gonz\u0026aacute;lez, M. (2004). Evolution of hostil sexism and benevolent sexism in a Spanish sample. \u003cem\u003eSocial Indicators Research, 66\u003c/em\u003e, 197-211. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SOCI.0000003553.30419.f1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeiva-Brondo, M., Lajara-Camilleri, N., Vidal-Mel\u0026oacute;, A., Atar\u0026eacute;s, A., \u0026amp; Lull, C. (2022). Spanish University Students\u0026rsquo; Awareness and Perception of Sustainable Development Goals and Sustainability Literacy. \u003cem\u003eSustainability, 14\u003c/em\u003e(8), 4552. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084552\u003cu\u003e \u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLemieux, A. F., \u0026amp; Pratto, F. (2003). Poverty and prejudice. In S. C. Carr, \u0026amp; T. S. Sloan (Eds.), \u003cem\u003ePoverty and psychology. International and cultural psychology series \u003c/em\u003e(pp. 147-161. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0029-2_8\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiddell, T. M., \u0026amp; Kruschke, J. K. (2018). Analyzing ordinal data with metric models: What could possibly go wrong? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79\u003c/em\u003e, 328-348.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLindqvist, A., Bj\u0026ouml;rklund, F., \u0026amp; B\u0026auml;ckstr\u0026ouml;m, M. (2017). The perception of the poor: capturing stereotype content with different measures. \u003cem\u003eNordic Psychology, 69\u003c/em\u003e(4), 231-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/19012276.2016.1270774\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLingiardi, V., Nardelli, N., Loverno, S., Falanga, S., Di Chiacchio, C., Tanzilli, A., \u0026amp; Baiocco, R. (2016). Homonegativity in Italy: Cultural issues, personality characteristics, and demographic correlates with negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. \u003cem\u003eSexuality Research and Social Policy, 13\u003c/em\u003e(2), 95\u0026ndash;108. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s13178015- 0197-6\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eManalastas, E. J, Tapani, T., Torre, B. A., Ratanashevorn, R., Choong, B., Kumaresan, V., \u0026amp; Veeramuthu, V. (2017). Homonegativity in Southeast Asia: Attitudes toward lesbians and gay men in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. \u003cem\u003eAsia-Pacific Social Science Review, 17\u003c/em\u003e(1), 25\u0026ndash;33.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMart\u0026iacute;nez-Navarro, E. (2002). Aporofobia. In J. Conill (coord.), \u003cem\u003eGlosario para una sociedad intercultural \u003c/em\u003e(pp. 17-23). Bancaja.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMasser, B., \u0026amp; Abrams, D. (1999). Contemporary sexism. The relationship among hostility, benevolence and, neosexism. \u003cem\u003ePsychology of Women Quarterly, 23\u003c/em\u003e(3), 503- 517. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00378.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMinistry of Interior (2021). \u003cem\u003eInforme de la encuesta sobre delitos de odio\u003c/em\u003e. http://\u003cu\u003e \u003c/u\u003ewww.interior.gob.es/documents/642012/13622471/Informe_\u003cu\u003eencuesta_v%C3%ADctimas_delitos+de+odio_versi%\nC3%B3n_definitiva.pdf/3d1b8ccd-d6d3-48ba-8a09-813cd99d0704\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMinistry of Interior (2023).\u003cem\u003e Informe sobre la evoluci\u0026oacute;n de los delitos de odio en Espa\u0026ntilde;a\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cu\u003ehttps://www.interior.gob.es/opencms/es/servicios-al-ciudadano/delitos-de-odio/\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMott, K. (2022). \u0026ldquo;Hurry up and wait\u0026rdquo;: Stigma, poverty, and contractual citizenship. \u003cem\u003eQualitative Sociology, 45\u003c/em\u003e(2), 271-290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-022-09507-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoya, M., Exp\u0026oacute;sito, F., Rodr\u0026iacute;guez-Bail\u0026oacute;n, R., Glick, P., \u0026amp; P\u0026aacute;ez, D. (2002). Sexismo ambivalente en Espa\u0026ntilde;a y Latinoam\u0026eacute;rica. \u003cem\u003eSOCIOTAM\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eRevista Internacional de Ciencia Sociales y Humanidades, 12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 139-167.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNewman, B. J. (2022). Economic Inequality, the Working Poor, and Belief in the American Dream. \u003cem\u003ePublic Opinion Quaterly, 86\u003c/em\u003e(4), 944-954. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfac043\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNi\u0026ntilde;o-Arguelles, Y., \u0026Aacute;lvarez-Santana, C., \u0026amp; Giovanni, F. (2020). Migraci\u0026oacute;n venezolana, aporofobia en Ecuador y resiliencia de los inmigrantes venezolanos en Manta, periodo 2020. \u003cem\u003eRevista San Gregorio, 43\u003c/em\u003e, 92-108. https://doi.org/10.36097/rsan.v1i43.1424\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNorman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the \u0026ldquo;laws\u0026rdquo; of statistics. \u003cem\u003eAdvances in Health Sciences Education, 15\u003c/em\u003e, 625-632.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOrtega-Esquembre, C. (2019). La aporofobia como desaf\u0026iacute;o antropol\u0026oacute;gico. De la l\u0026oacute;gica de la cooperaci\u0026oacute;n a la l\u0026oacute;gica del reconocimiento. \u003cem\u003eDaimon: Revista Internacional de Filosof\u0026iacute;a, 77\u003c/em\u003e, 215-224. https://doi.org/10.6018/daimon/319071\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePicado, E. M., Guzm\u0026aacute;n, R., \u0026amp; Yurrebaso, A. (2022). Hacia un modelo te\u0026oacute;rico de la aporofobia: hacia un modelo te\u0026oacute;rico de la aporofobia. \u003cem\u003eAcciones e Investigaciones Sociales, 43\u003c/em\u003e, 7-40. https://doi.org/10.26754/ojs_ais/accioninvestigsoc.2022436348\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePicado, E. M., Guzm\u0026aacute;n, R., \u0026amp; Yurrebaso, A. (2023). Respuesta social ante la aporofobia: retos en la intervenci\u0026oacute;n social. \u003cem\u003eIDP: Revista de Internet, Derecho y Pol\u0026iacute;tica, 37\u003c/em\u003e, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.7238/idp.v0i37.400081\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePicado, E. M., Nieto, A., Guzm\u0026aacute;n, R. O., \u0026amp; Yurrebaso, A. (2019). Detecci\u0026oacute;n de la discriminaci\u0026oacute;n hacia los pobres, \u0026laquo;aporofobia\u0026raquo;. \u003cem\u003eMiscel\u0026aacute;nea Comillas. Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales, 77\u003c/em\u003e(151), 417\u0026ndash;430. https://doi.org/10.14422/mis.v77.i151.y2019.007\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePiketty, T. (2014). \u003cem\u003eCapital in the twenty-first century\u003c/em\u003e (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Harvard University Press\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePina, D., Mar\u0026iacute;n-Tal\u0026oacute;n, M., L\u0026oacute;pez-L\u0026oacute;pez, R., Mart\u0026iacute;nez-Andreu, L., Puente-L\u0026oacute;pez, E., \u0026amp; Ruiz-Hern\u0026aacute;ndez, J. (2022). Attitudes towards school violence based on aporophobia. A qualitative study. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Education, 7\u003c/em\u003e, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1009405\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePope-Davis, D. B., \u0026amp; Ottavi, T. M. (1994). The relationship between racism and racial identity among White Americans: A replication and extension. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Counseling \u0026amp; Development, 72\u003c/em\u003e(3), 293\u0026ndash;297. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1994.tb00937.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePosel, D., \u0026amp; Rogan, M. (2014). Measured as poor versus feeling poor: Comparing money-metric and subjective poverty rates in South Africa. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Human Development and Capabilities, 17\u003c/em\u003e(1), 55-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2014.985198\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePozo, R., \u0026amp; Abierto, O. (2020). La Aporofobia en el contexto de la sociedad peruana: una revisi\u0026oacute;n. \u003cem\u003eN\u0026oacute;esis: Revista de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, 30\u003c/em\u003e(58), 134-149. https://doi.org/10.20983/noesis.2020.2.6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRadvansky, G. A., Copeland, D. E., \u0026amp; von Hippel, W. (2010). Stereotype activation, inhibition, and aging. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46\u003c/em\u003e(1), 51-60. https://doi.org/\u003cu\u003e10.1016/j.jesp.2009.09.010\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRavallion, M. (2012). Poor, or just feeling poor? On using subjective data in measuring poverty. \u003cem\u003ePolicy Research Working Paper, 5968\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-5968\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRefaeli, T., \u0026amp; Achdut, N. (2022). Perceived poverty, perceived income adequacy and loneliness in Israeli young adults: Are social capital and neighbourhood capital resilience factors? \u003cem\u003eHealth \u0026amp; Social Care in the Community, 30\u003c/em\u003e(2), 668-684.https://doi.org/\u003cu\u003e10.1111/hsc.13177\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eResende, A., \u0026amp; Machado, C. (2022). A fraternidade como ant\u0026iacute;doto contra a aporofobia. Sequ\u0026ecirc;ncia, 42(88), 1-23. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5007/2177-7055.2021.e74086\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReutter, L., Stewart, M., Veenstra, G., Love, R., Raphael, D., \u0026amp; Makwarimba, E. (2009). \u0026ldquo;Who do they think we are, anyway?\u0026rdquo;: Perceptions of and responses to poverty stigma. \u003cem\u003eQualitative Health Research, 19\u003c/em\u003e(3), 297-311. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732308330246\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoll\u0026egrave;, L., Sechi, C., Santoniccolo, F., \u0026amp; Brustia, P. (2022). The relationship between sexism, affective states, and attitudes toward homosexuality in a sample of heterosexual Italian people. \u003cem\u003eSexuality Research and Social Policy, 19\u003c/em\u003e, 194\u0026ndash;206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-021-00534-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRuedin, D. (2021). \u003cem\u003eAn Introduction to the R Package Agrmt.\u003c/em\u003e Package at https://CRAN\u003cu\u003e. R-project. org/package= agrmt.\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRuiz-Arias, M. (2021). La v\u0026iacute;ctima del delito ambiental: estudio desde la aporofobia. \u003cem\u003eJusticia, 26\u003c/em\u003e(40), 98-109. https://doi.org/10.17081/just.26.40.4891\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSen, A. (1985). \u003cem\u003eCommodities and capabilities\u003c/em\u003e. NorthHolland.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSen, A. (1999). \u003cem\u003eDevelopment as freedom.\u003c/em\u003e Alfred A. Knopf.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShields, D. (1995). Race and poverty in the psychology of prejudice. In D. Shields (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eThe color of hunger: Race and hunger in national and international perspective \u003c/em\u003e(pp. 35-37). Rowman \u0026amp; Littlefield.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSiposne, E. (2011). Subjective poverty and its relation to objective poverty concepts in Hungary. \u003cem\u003eSocial Indicators Research, 102\u003c/em\u003e(3), 537-556. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.\u003c/u\u003e\u003cu\u003eorg/10.1007/s11205-010-9743-z\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSullivan, G. M., \u0026amp; Feinn, R. (2012). Using effect size\u0026mdash;or why the P value is not enough. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Graduate Medical Education, 4\u003c/em\u003e(3), 279-282. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/\u003c/u\u003e\u003cu\u003e10.4300. JGME-D-12-00156.1\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSullivan, G. M., \u0026amp; Artino Jr, A. R. (2013). Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Graduate Medical Education, 5\u003c/em\u003e(4), 541-542.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSutton, E., Pemberton, S., Fahmy, E., \u0026amp; Tamiya, Y. (2014). Stigma, shame and the experience of poverty in Japan and the United Kingdom. \u003cem\u003eSocial Policy and Society, 13\u003c/em\u003e(1), 143-154. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746413000419\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTajfel, H., \u0026amp; Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin \u0026amp; S. Worchel (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eThe Social Psychology of intergroup relations\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 33-47). Brooks-Cole.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTastle, W. J., \u0026amp; Wierman, M. J. (2007). Consensus and dissention: A measure of ordinal dispersion.\u003cem\u003e International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 45\u003c/em\u003e(3), 531-545.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTownsend, P. (1979). \u003cem\u003ePoverty in the United Kingdom: A survey of household resources and standards of living.\u003c/em\u003e Penguin.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnited Nations (2023). \u003cem\u003eThe sustainable development goals report 2022\u003c/em\u003e. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2022/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2022.pdf\u003cu\u003e \u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eValerio Mendoza, O., Comim, F., \u0026amp; Borsi, M. (\u003cem\u003e2023). \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eDisentangling aporophobia from xenophobia in the EU-15. Regional Studies, 58(5), 909-921.\u003c/em\u003e https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2023.2266474\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan der Eijk, C. (2001). Measuring agreement in ordered rating scales. \u003cem\u003eQuality and Quantity, 35\u003c/em\u003e, 325-341.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Praag, B. \u0026amp; Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. (2011). Happiness economics: A new road to measuring and comparing happiness. \u003cem\u003eFoundations and Trends in Microeconomics, 6\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;97. https://doi.org/10.1561/0700000026\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVelez, P., \u0026amp; Ashworth, S. D. (2007). The impact of item readability on the endorsement of the midpoint response in surveys. \u003cem\u003eSurvey Research Methods, 1\u003c/em\u003e(2), 69-74. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2007.v1i2.76\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVon Hippel, W., Silver, L. A., \u0026amp; Lynch, M. E. (2000). Stereotyping Against Your Will: The Role of Inhibitory Ability in Stereotyping and Prejudice among the Elderly. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26\u003c/em\u003e(5), 523-532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200267001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, S., \u0026amp; Yang, D. (2020). The effects of poverty stereotype threat on inhibition ability in individuals from different income-level families. \u003cem\u003eBrain and Behavior, 10\u003c/em\u003e(12), e01770. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.1770\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeisstein, E. W. (2004).\u003cem\u003e Bonferroni correction\u003c/em\u003e.\u003cu\u003e https://mathworld.wolfram.com/\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWest, K., \u0026amp; Cowell, N. M. (2015). Predictors of prejudice against lesbians and gay men in Jamaica. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Sex Research, 52\u003c/em\u003e(3), 296\u0026ndash;305. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.853725\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilson, T. C. (1996). Cohort and prejudice. Whites\u0026rsquo; attitudes toward Blacks, Hispanics, Jews and Asians. \u003cem\u003ePublic Opinion Quarterly, 60\u003c/em\u003e(2), 253\u0026ndash;274.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWolfer, L. (2017). Age differences in online communication: How college students and adults compare in their perceptions of offensive Facebook posts. \u003cem\u003eOnline Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 7\u003c/em\u003e(4), 24-42. https://doi.org/10.29333/ojcmt/2608\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWoods, T., Kurtz-Costes, B., \u0026amp; Rowley, S. (2005). The development of stereotypes about the rich and poor: Age, race, and family income differences in beliefs. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Youth and Adolescence, 34\u003c/em\u003e(5), 437-445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-7261-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZakrisson, I., Anderz\u0026eacute;n, M., Lenell, F., \u0026amp; Sandelin, H. (2012). Ambivalent sexism: A tool for understanding and improving gender relations in organizations. \u003cem\u003eScandinavian Journal of Psychology, 53\u003c/em\u003e(1), 64-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011.00900.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang, T. H., \u0026amp; Brym, R. (2019). Tolerance of homosexuality in 88 countries: Education, political freedom, and liberalism. \u003cem\u003eSociological Forum, 34\u003c/em\u003e(2), 501\u0026ndash;521. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12507\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6429946/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6429946/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigates aporophobia\u0026mdash;discrimination against the poor\u0026mdash;within the context of neoliberal political economy, focusing on intergenerational differences in attitudes among young people and adults in Barcelona (Spain). A survey distributed to college students and their adult close contacts (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;832) reveals moderate aporophobic beliefs across both age groups, with young people displaying higher levels of aporophobia than their adult counterparts. We frame this finding within neoliberalism's meritocratic narrative, which attributes poverty to individual failure rather than structural causes \u0026mdash;fostering moral blame and legitimizing exclusion. Drawing on the social rivalry hypothesis, we interpret aporophobia as a cultural and psychological mechanism for sustaining beliefs in fairness amid inequality. Our results suggest that internalized neoliberal values among youth may pose a cultural threat to poverty alleviation efforts by undermining empathy and political support for redistributive policies. Recognizing aporophobia as a hidden boundary to effective poverty reduction highlights the need for policy and educational interventions that challenge meritocratic myths and promote structural awareness across generations.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The hidden barrier to poverty alleviation: aporophobia and the rise of neoliberalism morality among youth","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-06-11 17:50:33","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6429946/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-09-03T20:29:23+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-07-04T09:04:43+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-06-22T10:27:59+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"286444908326598990240221649552332100352","date":"2025-06-12T07:04:30+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"211817197523961765072184638286902737900","date":"2025-06-11T09:16:33+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"81480993664590282100487574648778856515","date":"2025-06-10T09:34:32+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-06-10T06:34:34+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-06-07T07:59:15+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-05-13T15:32:12+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","date":"2025-04-11T16:11:16+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"01c8264d-6ca3-4a1d-abb0-46947d4b334c","owner":[],"postedDate":"June 11th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[{"id":49857933,"name":"Social science/Development studies"},{"id":49857934,"name":"Social science/Social policy"},{"id":49857935,"name":"Social science/Sociology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-13T11:09:57+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-06-11 17:50:33","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6429946","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6429946","identity":"rs-6429946","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}