🗂️ What Was Studied

Is public support for social welfare programs shaped not just by exposure to economic risk but by how individuals tolerate risk? Prior work frames economic downturns as prompting people to either "reach out" (support more government welfare) or "pull back" (support less). Those studies, however, do not account for the conditional interplay between an individual's perceived exposure to risk and that individual's risk orientation. This study examines that conditional relationship in the American states.

📊 New survey data and what was measured

• New survey data from respondents in the American states.
• Key measures: perceived exposure to economic risk, individual risk orientation (risk-averse vs. risk-acceptant), and support for welfare spending.
• Analysis assesses how risk orientation moderates the link between perceived risk exposure and support for social welfare expansion.

🔑 Key findings

• Risk orientation conditions the effect of perceived economic risk on welfare support.
• When individuals perceive themselves as exposed to economic risk:
• Those who are risk averse become substantially more supportive of welfare expansion.
• Those who are risk acceptant become less supportive of welfare expansion.
• Overall, support for welfare spending depends both on whether people see themselves at risk and on their propensity to tolerate that risk.

🌍 Why it matters

These results resolve mixed findings about whether tough economic times make the public "reach out" or "pull back." Public opinion on welfare is not uniform during periods of risk; it is polarized by personal risk tolerance. This has implications for forecasting public responses to economic shocks and for designing policies and messaging that account for variation in risk outlook across the electorate.