Examples of such behavior are idleness and the bearing of children out of wedlock. Luttmer found that once recipients work at least 13 weeks a year, the two effects disappear. Respondents are more likely to support welfare spending if recipients are working, and perceived to be trying to help themselves - i.e. acting in accordance with mainstream values. Though individuals who are more likely to receive welfare are also more inclined to support welfare spending, Luttmer's finding strongly suggest that welfare support is determined only in part by financial self-interest. Both African American and white respondents of higher income brackets are more unlikely to support welfare.
Education shows a similar pattern.
At lower education levels, an increase in education decreases support for welfare spending. This is especially notable among respondents with a graduate or professional degree. Since individuals may falsely indicate their preferences in survey settings, Luttmer compares self-reported welfare preferences from 18,764 individuals, to voting behavior on a ballot proposition for welfare cuts in California. This data is matched to census data describing the characteristics of welfare recipients in the respondent's data. Luttmer found that the same demographic characteristics that make one more likely to vote against welfare cuts in California, also make one more likely to report a preference for increased welfare spending.