American inequality is high and rising, but much of the public still believes the American Dream is alive and well for anyone who works hard. Those views are hard to change, but new research suggests two paths with large effects in opposite directions. Cecilia Mo finds that the national service program Teach for America moved the attitudes of its participants toward those of the racial minority and poor students they teach. But Eunji Kim finds that any efforts are up against a dominant American narrative advanced daily on popular television. Rags-to-riches stories on reality TV shows make their viewers into strong believers in the American Dream.
The Political Research Digest features up-and-coming researchers delivering fresh insights on the big trends driving American politics and policy today. In 15 minutes, you’ll get beyond punditry to data-driven understanding. Subscribe here on iTunes.
Transcript
Matt Grossmann: This week on Political Research Digest, how to change American’s views of inequality from television to national service. From the Niskanen Center, I’m Matt Grossmann.
American inequality is high and rising, but much of the public still believes the American Dream is alive and well for anyone who works hard. Those views are hard to change, but new research suggests two paths with large effects in opposite directions. The national service program, Teach for America, can move attitudes of the teachers who participate towards those of the racial minority and poor students they teach.
I talk to Cecilia Mo, of the University of California Berkeley, about her new American Political Science Review article with Katharine Conn, “When Do the Advantaged See the Disadvantages of Others?” She finds that those who just barely made the cutoff have lower racial resentment and higher perceptions of structural inequality compared to those who just missed it, but this effort is up against a dominant American narrative that anyone can make it with hard work, a perspective advanced daily on popular television.
I also talk with Eunji Kim of the University of Pennsylvania about her new paper, “Entertaining Beliefs in Economic Mobility.” She finds that rags-to-riches stories on reality TV shows make viewers into strong believers in the American Dream.
Attitudes toward inequality differ a lot across social groups based on their disadvantaged or advantaged position, and Cecilia Mo set out to find out how to close that gap.
Cecilia Mo: The focus of the study is first recognizing that there are great divisions by both class and race in our country in terms of how they view the fairness of our society, whether or not meritocracy is something that is just a notion, an idea or something that is real in this country. So when we’re seeing that there is these big differences where those who are more well off, advantaged if you will, are viewing that the American Dream is alive and well. Meanwhile disadvantaged, low-income individuals or racial minorities are seeing that inequality is really stark in this country. And that this idea that if you just work hard, you can get ahead, that that is just a pipe dream. Our starting point was recognizing that difference.
And so the question was, well, what is possible? What can be done short of actually decreasing inequality? What can be done to have advantaged individuals in the society take on the perspective of those who do not have as much as them?
Matt Grossmann: She was motivated by her personal experience in Teach for America, known as TFA, which changed her views.
Cecilia Mo: I was a Teach for America core member in 2002. I served as a high school math teacher in Los Angeles. I think that, not I think I know, that my experience there translated to certain shifts on my end and I think I was curious to see if I was an anomaly or an empirical regularity.
Matt Grossmann: It was a widespread experience. They found that participation had huge lasting effects on the views of society.
Cecilia Mo: We see these participants really taking on and adopting perspectives that are a lot more reflective of disadvantaged members of our country. Seeing that the economic, social, and political status quo is not quite as healthy. That things are not quite as fair, and that racial tolerance actually also increases, and that this is something that happens after they have this immersive experience, but it’s actually quite durable. That even seven years later we still see this effect.
Matt Grossmann: Teach for America moves elite recent college graduates into the nation’s poorest schools.
Cecilia Mo: Teach for America was an organization that started in 1990, and it recruits some of the highest performing college graduates in this country. They do amazing work in being able to track something like over 50,000 individuals to apply each year and, when you look at the numbers, they’re able to attract, say nine percent of all seniors at Ivy League schools to apply.
What they do is they place these top college graduates to some of the lowest performing schools in this country, and they serve as teachers in these schools for at least two years.
Matt Grossmann: It’s part of a long tradition of national service programs that sought to both serve communities and transform participants.
Cecilia Mo: Even at the beginning of the creation of these organizations, there was some sense that national service can do something really meaningful for the participants themselves, that eventually it would create a more civically engaged group of individuals that really care about the health of their country.
Matt Grossmann: But that doesn’t make it easy to change attitudes toward inequality and race, which tend to be very resistant.
Cecilia Mo: Racial attitudes are really hard to change and ideas around disadvantage, those are all really hard to change. I think it all starts with the psychology concept known as the fundamental attribution error. There’s sort of this natural tendency to see the behavior of others as determined by their character while excusing their own behavior based on circumstance, and then people also have a tendency to sort of deny discriminatory actions towards outgroups.
Matt Grossmann: Mo and Conn took advantage of Teach for America’s application process change, which now uses a cutoff score to determine who is accepted.
Cecilia Mo: Teach for America, in 2007, started implementing a selection process where there was a cutoff score where those who made, through an interview process, had a score that exceeded this cutoff score were then admitted and those who were below that cutoff score were rejected. This, for an empirical researcher, was really helpful as the main concern with doing studies like this are what we call selection bias. That there might be that certain types of individuals apply to this program. So are we really picking up an effect which is just sorting that people of a certain kind of disposition are applying to these programs?
If we just focused on participants, we might not really be picking up on any effects of the program. We’re just picking up something about the types of people who do the service work. So by leveraging the selection score, we can compare those who were barely admitted to those who were barely rejected. And the idea is that these two groups are largely similar except for the fact that those who were barely accepted actually participated in the program.
Matt Grossmann: That makes it possible to identify the causal effect of participation, but we still don’t know how big the effect on applicants would compare to making the less interested participate.
Cecilia Mo: In an ideal researcher world, we’d just be able to mandate this program and randomly assign people to two different groups. I think there are a number of things in terms of how we generalize. So one could imagine that what we pick up is an overestimate. If the people who are eager to apply for these national service programs are those who are say more open to sort of seeing social injustice, that they are really eager to sort of take in what’s going on and they’re on more of an activist bent. So if that is who is applying for the program, you could imagine that the effects of the program are overestimates.
But on the flip side we can say that there could be ceiling effects. Meaning if these people who are participating in the program are already of this sort of progressive activist bent, who are very much sympathetic to the plights of the marginalized communities in our country, that there wasn’t really much room to change.
Matt Grossmann: For this group, Mo found big changes in both their awareness of inequality and their disappointment in political institutions ability to address it.
Cecilia Mo: TFA participants are more disappointed with how the institutions work and more likely to say that there are systematic injustices. I can take a step back and think about some of the interviews I had with alums and they sort of speak to, “I had no idea. I was a public school kid. I had no idea that some public schools in our country would have chairs falling apart, might have teachers that are largely sort of babysitting and not really teaching their kids anything,” and this sort of disappointment that took over. I think it’s that kind of experience that’s translating to this perspective, that you know what, our institutions are not working for some members of our society. That just because you are a public school kid, depending on what neighborhood you’re in, you are getting a very different type of education that’s going to set you up for more or less success.
Matt Grossmann: They also found massive effects on racial attitudes, enough to close the gap between whites and blacks on attitudes about black disadvantage.
Cecilia Mo: In terms of the magnitude, a 12.6 percentage point reduction in racial resentment. Well, what does that mean? So if we look at sort of how average black Americans and white Americans answer this racial resentment battery in the American National Elections Study, we see that 12.6 percentage point is equivalent to 72 percent of the difference between how the average white American and the average black American answers this question. So the effect sizes were quite huge. We interpret this as a decrease in blaming of minority communities for where they are in life.
Matt Grossmann: They found changes in closeness to particular groups, but only for those who actually taught the group in question.
Cecilia Mo: Across the board we saw racial resentment decrease, but when we asked questions around closeness to these communities, we saw that the closeness questions really only changed among those who really had day-to-day experiences with those communities. So 80 percent of the school student population that TFA participants work with are African American or Hispanic, but the range of communities that TFA places in quite vary. So when you’re placing in say the Rio Grande Valley, versus Baltimore, versus Detroit, a participant might be in a school where it’s 90 percent African American.
Other participants might be in communities where it’s 90 percent, 100 percent Hispanic. In addition to sort of like general questions around race, we asked these specific questions around specific groups of like, “Do you view yourself as closer to the African American community, Hispanic community and other groups?” We saw that, in terms of these closeness measures, they were restricted to the participants who actually were in communities.
So if you are a TFA participant that is in a largely Hispanic community, we saw movement and closeness to the Hispanic community, but not necessarily the African American community or Asian American community or any other groups. If you are a TFA participant who was mostly working with African Americans, we saw movement in closeness to the African American community, but not necessarily movement in other groups.
Matt Grossmann: They even found effects on unexpressed implicit biases based on skin color.
Cecilia Mo: We also asked this implicit racial measure. So we use implicit association tests with skin color and traditional studies on implicit bias. So implicit bias is sort of that unconscious automatic bias that people might not be aware that they even have. So we included that measure and studies speak to how amazingly difficult it is to change that and it makes sense. If it’s unconscious, that’s something that’s a bit more difficult to move. And at least in our study, we actually saw that skin color bias went down and that that reduction was actually quite significant and meaningful. So that was also something that gave us pause and hopefulness that even unconscious biases can change with these deep immersive experiences.
Matt Grossmann: Mo was happy to show that encounters with minority groups can lead to positive results, but she knows it’s difficult to scale up the program to give most Americans a similar experience.
Cecilia Mo: I think what makes me optimistic is that there’s been so many studies that sort of speak to how intergroup contact may not necessarily translate to good outcomes. Thinking about say the work of Putnam, that you have greater diversity and it might actually translate to breakdowns in trust. So when we’re thinking and sort of seeing these kind of studies that showed it’s really hard to have groups actually take on the perspective of others, it turns out that sometimes having groups that are very different bump up with one another can translate to greater polarization. This study gives me a little hope and optimism that there is in fact a way to bring people together and bridge differences and not just have these differences be accentuated.
Where I have some pause is Teach for America is not a simple intervention. It’s not going to be an easy sell to just say, you know what, every single person should be doing something like TFA or a Peace Corps and invest multiple years of their life to service.
Where I have some greater optimism is this sort of interest in say these gap years. Encouragement of universities really recognizing service, alternative spring break programs, and other sort of smaller scale service-oriented interventions.
What we can’t say from the study is whether or not all two years were necessary to see this movement, and so future research really needs to unpack at what point can you actually start seeing these changes? How long, how immersive? And so that hasn’t fully been sorted out. So in that sense it may be a lighter touch might be possible.
Matt Grossmann: Any efforts will be up against American’s broad and persistent views that mobility is widespread. The related attitude that Eunji Kim sought to explain.
Eunji Kim: Dependent variable, which is the perceptions of upward mobility, is something about the capturing the general belief that you think that anyone in America can get ahead as long as they are working hard. Or you think that the United States is still the land of economic opportunity. So these are the beliefs that I’m trying to explain. Then the reason why I wanted to explain this variable is because unlike the economic reality of intergenerational mobility rates, which refers to the proportion of children who are making more money than their parents at the age of 30, has been declining sharply by more than 40 percent over the last two decades.
But according to many different surveys and polls, a vast measuring of Americans are still very optimistic about the opportunity for a person to get ahead in the U.S. So this puzzling mismatch between public opinion surveys and the economic reality is something that motivated my entire dissertation project.
Matt Grossmann: Americans believe the dream. We have some explanations, but still need to understand who believes the most.
Eunji Kim: American political culture has been the most dominant explanation for why Americans believe in the American Dream, and almost all qualitative explanations have been along the lines of believing the American Dream is just deeply embedded in America methodology due to a unique set of historical factors. Whether its existence of the frontier or the persistence and the work ethic in the colonial era.
My dissertation doesn’t really challenge this view per se, as there are multiple factors that can affect perceptions of economic mobility. But what I’m arguing in my dissertation is that while history of experience is unique to America as a nation, can that really explain that much the individual variations and perceptions of mobility? So American political culture can explain the constant in the belief and the mobility, but it doesn’t really tell us the variations. Right now in my paper, I’m linking the media exposure to mass media to the individual variations in the belief in the American Dream.
Matt Grossmann: The answer she came up with was television, the entertainment media Americans watch most.
Eunji Kim: The important takeaway is that contemporary Americans are watching a lot of rags-to-riches entertainment media. Ranging from America’s Got Talent to Shark Tank, and so this content that we consume for leisure every day matters for the study of politics as they affect perceptions of upward economic mobility.
Matt Grossmann: Americans stand out internationally, both for our high belief in mobility and our extraordinary television diet.
Eunji Kim: Even up to now, the Americans are a much more optimistic any other Europeans, and indeed Americans are the only developed economies according to the latest study that overestimates extent to which upper mobility is possible. Europeans tend to be more pessimistic than economic reality. So that’s that. And when it comes to entertainment media, the answer is yes, because when it comes to TV consumption, there’s no other country that comes close to America when it comes to entertainment media consumption.
Matt Grossmann: The reality TV boom is global, but no one has caught up to us.
Eunji Kim: The rise of reality TV shows is definitely a global phenomena, but what’s interesting is because the sheer number of hours that Americans watching TV are just overwhelmingly higher than the other countries. So the effects of entertainment media, whether that’s reality TV shows that I’m examining in my paper, or others, has to be stronger in the U.S. because we just watch more in this country.
Matt Grossmann: Kim focuses on rags-to-riches television shows which she defines as being about ordinary Americans winning big payoffs in contests of scale.
Eunji Kim: I focused on three narrative components, so basically argued that they are jury competence when in combination should affect people’s belief in the American Dream. And then the first one is the presence of an ordinary person. And then the second is the element of hard work and talent. And then the last is the presence of economic benefits.
And most of the TV shows that are widely referred to as reality TV shows have all three elements. So as an example, I’m going to use American Idol, which used to be America’s single most popular TV show for years, and I don’t know whether you remember about the first winner of the show, American Idol, was Kelly Clarkson, who was a cocktail waitress at a comedy club before entering the contest. She entered the show to pay for her electric bills, hoping to just be a backup singer, but at the end of the many episodes, she won the million-dollar prize of an RCA record contract.
So this is clearly a narrative of an upward mobility trajectory. This kind of serves as a powerful and positive example are the cultivation of view that anyone in America, whether you are a poor waitress, or just a homeowner, or just a home cook, can get ahead as long as they have … They’re ready to take chances, work hard, and have some unique talents ranging from pumpkin carving or to making up a new invention. And these shows are popular regardless of the demographic groups.
Matt Grossmann: In survey data, she confirmed that the effects of watching these shows are on par with having immigrant parents, and don’t show up with other shows.
Eunji Kim: In multivariate regression model that includes for a lot of demographic variables, or religion, party I.D. Basically all the factors that, according to previous literature, that might affect belief in the American Dream, I find that people who watch more than six or more rags-to-riches programs are around four percentage points more likely to believe in the American Dream, and that effect was similar to the effects of having immigrant parents. But we all know the limitations of observational data and measurement problems of self-reported media consumption. So I wouldn’t dwell too much on the size of the effects here, but I wanted to confirm using three different data sets that rags-to-riches entertainment media have independent explanatory power. Even after controlling for their religion, demographics, personal mobility, experience, party I.D., to name just a few.
And people who watch entertainment media are just a fundamentally different from those who don’t, so obviously I worried about spurious relations or reverse. So I ran a couple of placebo tests to really make sure these are really the effects of rags-to-riches entertainment media. And one such placebo test, it was looking at the watching reality TV show that has no talk, critic competent or no rags-to-riches narrative, should not have any effects on the perceptions of economic mobility. So if the narrative is really the key, as I argue, then watching Keeping up with the Kardashians or Jersey Shore should not really affect people’s in the belief in the American Dream. And that’s what I found.
Matt Grossmann: Republicans and optimists believe in upward mobility more than Democrats and the economically challenged, but everyone watches reality TV.
Eunji Kim: One of the reasons why people from both partisan aisles are watching these shows is because they are not thinking about politics when they’re watching entertainment media. So that’s one of the reasons why, in this very polarized era right now, that entertainment media consumption might be the least polarizing content and right now and when it comes to correlations and the effect size, absolutely right, a Republican ideology is the biggest predictor, but the other important predictor that I found was something about just general level of optimism toward life. So if you just in general think that, well, you’re an optimist and you’re more likely to believe in the American Dream, but the other negative predictor was something related to people’s personal economic experiences. For instance, if you are unemployed, then definitely you’re less likely to believe in the American Dream as well.
Matt Grossmann: But Kim didn’t just rely on surveys. She went out and experimentally took TV to the people.
Eunji Kim: This was basically a huge truck equipped with two rooms, and each room had a TV screen and a chair. So throughout July to October 2018, I drove this truck to suburban Pennsylvania. Particularly targeting local events, farmers markets, or flea markets that attract diverse populations. I even went to one blueberry festival, where they’re selling blueberry pies and all of this local unique cuisines. So these were the non-partisan events that I targeted to make sure that I can recruit both Democrats and Republicans for my experiments.
Recruited onsite, you were paid $10, and most of them thought that it was a scam. But people who agreed to participate in my survey were randomly assigned to be in the treatment group, and those were watching one of four TV programs that have the rags-to-riches narrative.
And those who were in the control group watched the Dog Intervention reality TV show, that features an ordinary person who is a dog owner but they didn’t have any element of the hard work, or talent, or economic benefits.
Matt Grossmann: She positioned it as a non-political consumer interest test.
Eunji Kim: So I try to make an impression that what I’m really interested, in the survey, is their opinions about the TV show itself, and whether that’s actually entertaining and marketable to many people’s, rather than like a political survey.
Matt Grossmann: Even five minutes of viewing the TV shows had strong effects, but people usually watch much more.
Eunji Kim: In everyday life, Americans are watching this episode or a TV show for an hour instead of for five minutes. Even though I made sure to edit the videos to capture the entire narrative of the upward mobility, I think that it in real life, the effect size might be stronger than six percentage points, because, as I noted, that these are just the effects of watching the program for five minutes.
Matt Grossmann: She doesn’t know how long the effects would persist, but thinks people watched the shows repeatedly.
Eunji Kim: One of the perennial concern, that we have as media effects scholar, is that any media effects are very short-lived, whether it’s campaign effects or effects of being exposure to a political boomer. So these are very short lived, the effects. We know that, previous literatures confirmed that, but I think one of the methodological convenience of focusing on the shared narrative of rags-to-riches entertainment media, is that because these episodes, these programs, are constantly airing in the air that even if the media effects are short lived, if you’re watching this every single night or every week, then it just reinforces and the effects will accumulate.
So I think for this particular type of study, I worry less about the duration of media effects relative to, for instance, studies that we look at the effects of partisan media or political news.
Matt Grossmann: Rags-to-riches TV might even explain the rise of Donald Trump, star of The Apprentice.
Eunji Kim: People view Donald Trump much more favorably due to their previous exposure to The Apprentice. And we know from decades of political science literature that brand-name recognition and favorability ratings are powerful political tools. They are often linked to electoral fortunes. So I think that might have been the mechanism, and to the extent that Americans are watching four hours of TV every day, and that most Americans are watching entertainment media over news media, I think more politicians might be turning to entertainment media to build their reputations and maximize their exposure to the public.
The Apprentice, particularly the earlier seasons, fit the characteristics of the rags-to-riches media. Because it features ordinary contestants who ultimately get a job in Manhattan and an opportunity to work for Donald Trump. So in this particular episodes, or in this particular TV show, Donald Trump are not necessarily a rags-to-riches, because he wasn’t really poor to begin with, and he was not really seeking a job, but I think because the overall narrative of that particular, very popular, TV show was the idea of self made men. And Donald Trump was viewed as a person who’s giving out that opportunity to ordinary people.
I think that kind of … I don’t want to oversell this, obviously, but it’s very in sync with the idea that he is the only person who can make the America great again, and who can make the American economic fortunes to expand. So I think it’s in sync with the narrative that he was selling in The Apprentice.
Matt Grossmann: It certainly fits with the historical story, people hold on to rags-to-riches stories even in the face of inequality.
Eunji Kim: Historians actually agree that one of the reasons why Americans turn to rags-to-riches time novels. And then the reason why these are popular had two parts. So first of all, maybe the income and equality motivated people to consume more of the stories to justify the status quo, so that’s absolutely one part of the answer. And then the other part is, well, on top of that, psychological explanations, these popular novels were just popular and people happen to be reading them, and that affected people’s belief in the American Dream.
So I think it goes both ways, and even today it might be true that because we have like widening gap in the rich and poor, and maybe that’s why we’re just turning more to the rags-to-riches stories, because we want to hold on to that dream. But whatever their reason that make people to watch the entertainment TV, the end result, as my experimental data and observational data show, is that whatever the mechanism that makes people to tune into that TV show, the consequences of watching the rags to riches, entertainment media is that they make people to believe more in the American Dream.
Matt Grossmann: Cecilia Mo agrees that Americans are attracted to these kinds of stories, but not everyone believes them, and the difficulty is getting the advantage to see the views of the disadvantaged.
Cecilia Mo: Now I think the sort of rags to riches kind of shows, they do like emphasize a meritocracy and what it means, what this American Dream looks like. And I think my starting point was that people have different reactions to these rags-to-riches stories that some folks were like, “Yeah, that’s very much what’s possible in this country and I’m going to work hard and I want to be in. I want to be able to have more than what my parents had.” And then there are other individuals that look at these stories and say like, “Yeah, that’s great, but that just doesn’t apply to me.” That people like me don’t get to get ahead in life in that way. And some of the questions that were asked of racial minorities for instance, the way in which they answer questions around meritocracy and hard work, their response will be, “Yeah, hard work is really important. It’s just that it’s not enough.”
And so I might sort of, in sort of seeing these studies, I would be inclined to say that that community will look at these stories and say like, “That’s great. It just doesn’t apply to me.” If we then sort of think about the people who say, “Well, it does apply to me,” I think the question is like, how do you get those who think that the rags-to-riches is possible and sort of think about what maybe that actually doesn’t work in all cases, and having that broader perspective and being able to be empathetic to communities that just feel that that story is not not the story for their community and it’s something that’s more of an exception.
Matt Grossmann: And Eunji Kim says persistent beliefs in the ease of pulling yourself up will be hard to change.
Eunji Kim: There has been like heightened media coverage that the fading American Dream and like politicians from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump said enough, that American Dream has turned into an American nightmare. But concurrently, an alarming number of Americans have been tuning out the news entirely. So I think that’s one of the reasons why I do not have optimistic answer to your question. and then the truth is that the stories of downward economic mobility is not as fun or as entertaining as a series of upward mobility, because who wants to tune in to the riches to rags entertainment media, versus a rags to riches entertainment media?
So I think this particular upward mobility storyline, it’s just appealing to us as human beings because that’s what we want to hear, and I don’t think that entertainment media in any days to come will produce the opposite storyline. And just because we’re watching more and more entertainment media as media choices increase, and given that Americans are watching so much TV, I’m not really sure what will become the prevailing trends to inform Americans about the actual mobility rates.
Matt Grossmann: Mo’s next step is to find out whether national service programs cannot just change attitudes but actually promote political action, and the initial results are promising.
Cecilia Mo: The other sort of natural next step is it’s one thing when you see attitudinal belief shifts. It’s another thing if those shifts actually translate to action. So given that the effects that we saw were more sort of this disappointment and how institutions were failing, and this recognition that there were these groups that were more disenfranchised, one could imagine that it could actually cause greater depression and just being sad, and if people are then sort of feeling these changes and they’re being depressed and sort of want to crawl into a hole, that is something that can logically happen.
On the flip side, one might imagine that people can be really activated and want to do something about what they’ve seen. And so the next questions that I’m asking are, do these shifts, and beliefs, and attitudes translate to real behavioral changes? What are they picking in terms of their careers? Are they more civically engaged? Are they more likely to run for office? Are they more likely to vote, and register to vote? And so, in terms of some of the next things that I’m immediately, I can sort of speak to the fact that it seems like our initial analysis of turnout, that we are seeing greater voter turnout amongst those who participate in TFA, which is really exciting, and greater voter registration. It does seem like people are picking careers that are not necessarily the most lucrative but are really more linked with making systemic changes.
Matt Grossmann: But Kim says, if we want to understand where mainstream Americans are coming from, we may need to stop ignoring what they watch most.
Eunji Kim: We are not really talking about the elephant in the room, which is the fact that Americans are consuming an overwhelming amount of entertainment media, and every day, and an alarming number of them are tuning out the news entirely. Their effects on economic perceptions or intergroup relations, racial stereotypes, just to name a few are vastly understudied. And I sometimes wonder whether the reasons why entertainment media is so understudied in the field of social science is because of a sense of elitism, that we just don’t study this content because this content are so low, low brow. They’re not worthy of research. They’re just unfortunate distractions from a democratic society. And I think as media environment is changing, and as more people are watching entertainment news, maybe this norm has to change.
Matt Grossmann: There’s a lot more to learn. Political Research Digest is available biweekly from the Niskanen Center and on iTunes. I’m your host, Matt Grossman. Thanks to Cecilia Mo and Eunji Kim for joining me. Join us next time to find out how Americans react to increasingly diverse places.