In "Racial Attitudes and Opposition to Welfare" by Martin Gilen, a multidimensional study consisting of survey data, regression analysis, and analysis of covariance structure is used to identify both the presence and magnitude of racial attitudes in shaping white Americans' harsh opposition to welfare programs. Gilen provides an in-depth analysis of the existing literature, acknowledging both past successes and failures. When discussing his research, Gilen clearly outlines his scope and purpose as well as providing the reader with a clear representation of the methodology and findings. Gilen's work undoubtedly uses current literature, new methodology, and interconnected findings to provide the reader with an indisputable picture of the role that racial attitudes play in constructing opposing views of welfare. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay In his introduction, Gilen provides the reader with a comprehensive overview of the current literature. In acknowledging past research failures, Gilen notes that “past scientists have been slow to examine the implications of racial attitudes outside the realm of racial politics, per se” (Gilen, 1995, p. 994) . Previous research shows that Americans generally unquestioningly support welfare programs that citizens contribute to over the course of their lives, such as Social Security. When it comes to so-called “handouts,” white public opinion is far from satisfactory. Gilen links past efforts to interpret Americans' views on welfare through the roles of economic self-interest and individualism. For more than 30 years, it was said, “only that 'primitive self-interest'” could provide the best explanation of trends in views of social welfare. Individualism, which is at the core of American society, has proven to be an important factor in the formation of welfare. This belief originated with Tocqueville and was carried forward until the late 1900s. In his final statements on past research, Gilen focuses on the pitfalls. He notes that “racial attitudes have been almost entirely neglected in analyzes of Americans' views on welfare” (996). Although two authors, Kleugal and Smith, attempted to examine welfare support by pairing egalitarianism, self-interest, and individualism with racial attitudes, they acknowledged failure because their racial attitude items created a weak index. Gilen uses the lack of research in this particular area as a means of defining the scope of his work. His goal is not only to “show the importance of racial attitudes” but also to clearly identify the “racial views most responsible for generating opposition to welfare” in America (997). Gilen's study was conducted using data from the 1986 National Election Study (NES). He chose the year carefully, stating that “the 1986 NES contains both a broader range of questions about racial attitudes and a greater number of items addressing individualism than more recent surveys” (997). He clearly outlines the NES's questions and how they relate to his own, noting that the study doesn't explicitly ask what welfare spending is overall, but rather whether programs should be increased, decreased, or kept the same. This concise explanation of the scope of Gilen's choice study allows the reader to recognize his caution and.