In the United States, both economic inequality and political conflict are on the rise. We investigated whether subjective socioeconomic status (SSS) may help explain why these dual patterns emerge. We hypothesized that higher SSS may increase naïve realism—the belief that one perceives the world as it is, rather than as interpreted through one’s own knowledge and beliefs—regarding political issues. Using a representative sample of the American electorate, we found that higher SSS predicted more political naïve realism toward those from a different political party (Study 1). The remaining experiments examined the causal relationship between SSS and political naïve realism (Studies 2–5). We extended these findings by investigating whether SSS influenced participants’ willingness to exclude those with contrary views from a vote (Studies 4 and 5). Together, these studies demonstrate that SSS enhances political naïve realism and can lead to the exclusion of others with contrary opinions.
AdlerN. E.EpelE. S.CastellazzoG.IckovicsJ. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy White women. Health Psychology, 19, 586–592.
2.
BartelsL. M. (2016). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age. Princeton University Press.
Brown-IannuzziJ. L.LundbergK. B.KayA. C.PayneB. K. (2015). Subjective social status shapes support for redistribution. Psychological Science, 26, 15–26.
5.
Brown-IannuzziJ. L.LundbergK. B.McKeeS. (2017). The politics of social class: How socioeconomic status may influence political attitudes and engagement. Current Opinions in Psychology, 18, 11–14.
6.
ButlerJ. V. (2014). Inequality and relative ability beliefs. The Economic Journal, 126, 907–948.
7.
FastN. J.ChenS. C. (2009). When the boss feels inadequate: Power, incompetence, and aggression. Psychological Science, 20, 1406–1413.
8.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.
9.
FestingerL. (1954). A Theory of Social Comparison Processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.
10.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.
11.
FrantzC. M. (2006). I AM being fair: The bias blind spot as a stumbling block to seeing both sides. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28, 157–167.
12.
GelmanA.KenworthyL.SuY. S. (2010). Income inequality and partisan voting in the United States. Social Science Quarterly, 91, 1203–1219.
13.
GilensM.PageB. I. (2014). Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12, 564–581.
14.
GilovichT. (1990). Differential construal and the false consensus effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 623–634.
15.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. The Guilford Press.
16.
JostJ. T.BurgessD. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence and the conflict between group and system justification motives in low status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 293–305.
17.
KahanD. M.PetersE.DawsonE. C.SlovicP. (2017). Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. Behavioral Public Policy, 1, 54–86. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2016.2
18.
KahnemanD.SlovicP.TverskyA. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press.
19.
KeltnerD.RobinsonR. J. (1993). Imagined ideological differences in conflict escalation and resolution. International Journal of Conflict Management, 4, 249–262.
20.
KeltnerD.RobinsonR. J. (1997). Defending the status quo: Power and bias in social conflict. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1066–1077.
21.
KennedyK. A.ProninE. (2008). When disagreement gets ugly: Perceptions of bias and the escalation of conflict. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 833–849.
22.
KrausM. W. (2018). Beggars do not envy millionaires: Social comparison, socioeconomic status, and subjective well-being. In DienerE.OishiS.TayL. (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. Noba Scholar Handbook Series: Subjective Well-Being (pp. 1–18). DEF Publishers.
23.
KrausM. W.CôtéS.KeltnerD. (2010). Social class, contextualism, and empathic accuracy. Psychological Science, 21, 1716–1723.
24.
KundaZ. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.
25.
LaurisonD. (2015). The willingness to state an opinion: Inequality, don’t know responses, and political participation. Sociological Forum, 30, 925–948.
26.
LernerM. J. (1965). Evaluation of performance as a function of performer’s reward and attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 355–360.
27.
LibermanV.MinsonJ. A.BryanC. J.RossL. (2012). Naïve realism and capturing the “wisdom of dyads.”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 507–512.
28.
LordC. G.RossL.LepperM. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098–2109.
29.
MillerD. T.RossM. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction?Psychological Bulletin, 82, 213–225.
30.
PennebakerJ. W.BoydR. L.JordanK.BlackburnK. (2015). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. The University of Texas at Austin.
PiffP. K. (2014). Wealth and the inflated self: Class, entitlement, and narcissism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 34–43.
35.
PiffP. K.KrausM. W.CôtéS.ChengB. H.KeltnerD. (2010). Having less, giving more: The influence of social class on prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 771–784.
36.
PreacherK. J.CurranP. J.BauerD. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448.
37.
ProninE. (2008). How we see ourselves and how we see others. Science, 320, 1177–1180.
38.
ProninE.GilovichT.RossL. (2004). Objectivity in the eye of the beholder: Divergent perceptions of bias in self versus other. Psychological Review, 111, 781–799.
39.
ProninE. (2007). Perception and misperception of bias in human judgment. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 37–43.
40.
ProninE.LinD. Y.RossL. (2002). The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 369–381.
41.
RobinsonR. J.KeltnerD. (1996). Much ado about nothing? Revisionists and traditionalists choose an introductory English syllabus. Psychological Science, 7, 18–24.
42.
RossL.GreeneD.HouseP. (1977). The false consensus effect: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279–301.
43.
RossL.WardA. (1995). Psychological barriers to dispute resolution. In ZannaM. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 27, pp. 255–304). Academic Press.
44.
RossL.WardA. (1996). Naive realism in everyday life: Implications for social conflict and misunderstanding. In BrownT.ReedE. S.TurielE. (Eds.), The Jean Piaget Symposium Series: Values and knowledge (pp. 103–135). Lawrence Erlbaum.
45.
SaezE.ZucmanG. (2014). Wealth inequality in the United States since 1913: Evidence from capitalized income tax data(National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 20625). http://www.nber.org/papers/w20625
StephensN. M.MarkusH. R.PhillipsL. T. (2014). Social class culture cycles: How three gateway contexts shape selves and fuel inequality. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 611–634.
48.
VerbaS.NieN. H. (1972). Participation in America. The University Press.
49.
VoorheisJ.McCartyN.ShorB. (2015). Unequal incomes, ideology and gridlock: How rising inequality increases political polarization. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2649215
50.
YairO.Sulitzeanu-KenanR. (2015). Biased judgment of political bias: Perceived ideological distance increases perceptions of political bias. Political Behavior, 37, 487–507.
51.
ZellE.AlickeM. D. (2010). The local dominance effect in self-evaluation: Evidence and explanations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 368–384.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
