People are more tolerant of inequality when it is expressed in terms of individuals rather than groups at the top

Abstract

Despite the ever-growing economic gap between the very wealthy and the rest of the population, support for redistributive policies tends to be low. This research tested whether people’s tolerance of inequality differs when it is represented in terms of a successful individual versus a group of people at the top of the economic ladder. We propose that drawing people’s attention to wealthy individuals undermines support for redistribution by leading people to believe that the rich person’s wealth is well deserved. Across eight studies (n = 2,800), survey participants rated unequal distributions of resources as more fair when presented with an individual, rather than a group, at the top of the distribution. Participants also expressed lower support for redistributive policies after considering inequality represented by successful individuals compared to groups. This effect was driven by people’s different attributions for individual versus group success. Participants thought that individuals at the top were more deserving of their successes and, in turn, were less likely to support redistribution when inequality was represented by individual success. These findings suggest that support for inequality, and policies to reduce it, may depend on who people are led to consider when they think about the top of the economic distribution.

The Importance of Representing Economic Inequality Saliently and to Scale

“…2a, Fig. 2b), when it concerns a single wealthy individual (vs. a group of wealthy individuals), support for redistribution closely aligns with the original results of the group condition in Walker et al (2021).…”

“…This has important policy implications. While our results held together with the results reported by Walker et al (2021) outline a clear bias towards judging extreme individual wealth accumulation as fairer and more deserving, our results also clearly highlight that individuals might not be able to comprehend the magnitude of such inequality unless it is represented saliently and to scale. Hence, we argue that policy initiatives aspiring to increase support for wealth redistributive policies should aim to clearly show how extreme such wealth inequality actually is, when it is scaled to e.g., a median U.S. household income.…”

“…One way to address the issue and reduce extreme wealth inequalities is redistributive policies such as wealth and inheritance taxes (Horowitz et al, 2020). However, support for such policies tend to be low (Kuziemko et al, 2015) and highly affected by political attitudes (Horowitz et al, 2020), polarization (Bechtel et al, 2018;Ordabayeva, 2019) and psychological biases (Walker et al, 2021). To aid in understanding this complex issue, Walker et al 2021 have recently provided compelling evidence, across eight studies, indicating that when economic inequality is presented as an unequal distribution of resources between a single wealthy individual (vs. a group of wealthy individuals) and the rest of the population, such a distribution is considered fairer and more deserving, ultimately resulting in lower support for redistributive policies.…”

The streaking star effect: Why people want superior performance by individuals to continue more than identical performance by groups.

“…We then asked participants how fair current levels of inequality are and how much the people (person) at the top deserved their (his) success. Participants thought the described level of inequality was more fair when the inequality was framed as an individual at the top rather than a group, and they also thought that the individual at the top deserved his wealth more than the group at the top (Walker, Tepper, & Gilovich, 2020). Framing inequality in terms of disparities between groups rather than individuals appears to reduce people’s tolerance of inequality.…”

Money, power, and mitochondria

“…Those who have accumulated extreme wealth in other sectors, and accrued power and influence to go with it, are viewed unfavorably by most people, even if some super‐rich individuals are admired for their creativity (Walker et al , 2021 ). Obscene wealth is still considered obscene, even if some of it is invested in scientific research, in the alleviation of human suffering, or in sponsorship of the arts.…”