نگرش به فقر و عوامل آنها در جامعه لبنان

This paper examines the causal attribution of poverty among Lebanese Christian and Muslim students through a pre-conceptualized scale along fatalistic, individualistic, and structural dimensions. Factor analysis results reproduced the factor dimensions reported by J. Feagin [Psychology Today 6 (1972) 101–129; Subordinating poor persons: Welfare and American beliefs. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1975] explanations for the causes of poverty were more structural than individualistic. The MANOVA regression analysis showed no significant differences between religious affiliations (Muslim and Christian) and students' subjective report of their parents' level of educational attainment (high, medium, low). However, significant mean differences (F(3,200)=3.43, p=0.018) are found for class on the individualistic dimension. There was some suggestion that parents of students whose occupational status appeared higher were more likely to favor individualistic explanations for poverty. The high rating on the structural dimension of the poverty scale showed Lebanese student attitudes to the causes of poverty in a rapidly changing society. Recommendations are offered for further research on heterogeneous samples.

Several recent psychosocial studies have emphasized the importance of race as a predictor of beliefs concerning poverty (Kim, 2000; Hunt, 1996). Others have stressed the link between political behavior and explanations for poverty (Carr & MacLachlan, 1998; Furnham, 1982 and Furnham, 1993), often noting the role of ideology, family socialization, stability, and social stratification (Morcol, 1997; Kluegel & Smith, 1986). Studies have also pointed to the relevance of political behavior in its support for or opposition to government-sponsored welfare programs (Gilens, 1995; Feagin, 1975). Utilizing causal attribution theory (Heider, 1958), Feagin (1972) classified the attitudes to poverty into three dimensions: individualistic, which blames poverty on the poor themselves, fatalistic which blames poverty on bad luck and fate, and structuralism which places responsibility on situational factors such as lack of education and low wages. Studies examining the individualistic, fatalistic, and structuralist dimensions showed that the majority of Americans explained poverty in individualistic terms (Hunt, 1996; Smith & Stone, 1989; Kluegel and Smith, 1981 and Kluegel and Smith, 1986; Feagin, 1975) reflecting the strength of the dominant individualistic ideology of that country (Merton, 1968). Studies conducted outside the US, however, have shown diminished support for individualism concerning poverty. Feather (1974) who replicated Feagin's experiment, for instance, found that Australians were less likely to attribute the causes of poverty to individualistic reasons than Americans did. Feather's study reported significant differences between the age groups of subjects in his study: the younger subjects were less likely to blame poverty on individualistic reasons than their elders were. Studies have also examined the attitudes to the causes of poverty from a cross-cultural perspective (McFadyen, 1998; Carr & MacLachlan, 1998; Furnham, 1993; Morcol, 1997). These studies have reported mixed results for the causal attribution of poverty. Morcol's (1997) study, for instance, documented greater popularity for structural views among Turks, who tend to be influenced by the ideological structure of their society. Carr and MacLachlan (1998), through the observer to actor shift, found that Malawi students held more individualistic (blame the victim) attitudes to the causes of poverty than did their Australian counterparts. Other studies indicated that party affiliation and political behavior affected the formation of beliefs about poverty. Furnham (1982), for instance, found that Conservative voters in the UK rated individualistic explanations for poverty more frequently than their Labour counterparts who favored structural explanations of poverty. Understanding people's beliefs concerning the causes of poverty surely depends on the economic conditions of society, the prevalent religious structure (Tuma, 1998), and the institutional programs to combat poverty (Feather, 1974). Other variables such as the dominant ideology of society, and effects of socialization and life experiences of groups distinguished by race, class, gender, age, education, religion, and income (Kluegel and Smith, 1981 and Kluegel and Smith, 1986) are also important determinants for explaining the causes of poverty in psychosocial terms. While existing studies on poverty have focused on race (Kim, 2000; Hunt, 1996), class (Williamson, 1974), as well on cultural and linguistic differences (Smith & Bond, 1993) as determinants for explaining the causes of poverty, very little is known about Christian and Muslim attitudes to the causes of poverty. It would be interesting to understand the attitudes to poverty in Lebanon in the light of the prevalence of religious institutions which consider poverty, as the God-given natural order (Tuma, 1998), transformation of urban Lebanese from structuralism to individualism (Khashan, 1992), the socioeconomic disparities between Muslims and Christians (Johnson, 1986), and the sharp decline in the standards of living (Haddad, 1986). This study attempts to understand the differences between Lebanese Muslims and Christians in assessing reasons for the causes of poverty as derived from Feagin (1975). Furthermore, this study attempts to integrate socio-demographic variables in order to understand their impact on students' attitudes towards the causes of poverty. 2. Method 2.1. Sample A random sample of 232 students from a total enrollment of 1400 students of two universities in North Lebanon was selected for the study. The sample represented 16.5% of the total population of students at the two universities. A random sampling design was used to increase the precision of variable estimates. Of the students surveyed, 61.2% were females and 38.8% males. Almost half the students (53.9%) came from Christian groups, and 46.1% from Muslim groups. In the analysis of the study because of the relatively small size the confessional groupings in the sample were clustered into two groups, Muslims and Christians.