Individuals may consider socioeconomic status (SES) change from an absolute or relative standpoint. Across five studies and supplementary analyses of secondary data, we found that individuals who perceive SES as being unlikely to change (i.e., low perceived social mobility) tend to consider SES change from a relative standpoint—i.e., one person’s gain in SES occurs at the expense of another’s loss in SES—reflecting that they harbor zero-sum beliefs regarding social hierarchies. In other words, the extent to which individuals believe that society is mobile predicts how they consider the nature of social mobility. This relationship is mediated by a scarcity mindset and further predicts the tendency for aggression. The findings held when we controlled for variables such as perceived economic inequality, income, and education.
AlesinaA.StantchevaS.TesoE. (2018). Intergenerational mobility and preferences for redistribution. American Economic Review, 108(2), 521–554.
2.
AndersonC.WillerR.KilduffG. J.BrownC. E. (2012). The origins of deference: When do people prefer lower status?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 1077–1088.
3.
Andrews-FearonP.DavidaiS. (2023). Is status a zero-sum game? Zero-sum beliefs increase people’s preference for dominance but not prestige. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(2), 389–409.
4.
BellerE.HoutM. (2006). Intergenerational social mobility: The United States in comparative perspective. The Future of Children, 16(2), 19–36.
5.
BoboL.HutchingsV. L. (1996). Perceptions of racial group competition: Extending Blumer’s theory of group position to a multiracial social context. American Sociological Review, 951–972.
6.
BoyerP.PetersenM. B. (2018). Folk-economic beliefs: An evolutionary cognitive model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 41, e158.
7.
BrownN. D.Jacoby-SenghorD. S.RaymundoI. (2022). If you rise, I fall: Equality is prevented by the misperception that it harms advantaged groups. Science Advances, 8(18), eabm2385.
8.
BussA. H.PerryM. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 452–459.
9.
CallanM. J.SheadN. W.OlsonJ. M. (2011). Personal relative deprivation, delay discounting, and gambling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5), 955–973.
10.
CannonC.GoldsmithK.RouxC. (2019). A self-regulatory model of resource scarcity. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29(1), 104–127.
11.
ChettyR.HendrenN.KlineP.SaezE.TurnerN. (2014a). Is the United States Still a Land of Opportunity? Recent Trends in Intergenerational Mobility. American Economic Review, 104(5), 141–147.
12.
ChettyR.HendrenN.KlineP.SaezE. (2014b). Where is the land of opportunity? The geography of intergenerational mobility in the United States. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(4), 1553–1623.
13.
ChettyR.GruskyD.HellM.HendrenN.ManducaR.NarangJ. (2017). The fading American dream: Trends in absolute income mobility since 1940. Science, 356(6336), 398–406.
14.
DavidaiS. (2018). Why do Americans believe in economic mobility? Economic inequality, external attributions of wealth and poverty, and the belief in economic mobility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 138–148.
15.
DavidaiS. (2023). Economic inequality fosters the belief that success is zero-sum. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 01461672231206428.
16.
DavidaiS.GilovichT. (2015a). Building a More Mobile America—One Income Quintile at a Time. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(1), 60–71.
17.
DavidaiS.GilovichT. (2015b). What Goes Up Apparently Needn’t Come Down: Asymmetric Predictions of Ascent and Descent in Rankings. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 28(5), 491–503.
18.
DavidaiS.TepperS. J. (2023). The psychology of zero-sum beliefs. Nature Reviews Psychology, 2(8), 472–482.
19.
DavidaiS.WienkM. N. (2021). The psychology of lay beliefs about economic mobility. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 15(8), e12625.
20.
DayM. V.FiskeS. T. (2017). Movin’ on up? How perceptions of social mobility affect our willingness to defend the system. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(3), 267–274.
21.
DayM. V.FiskeS. T. (2019). Understanding the nature and consequences of social mobility beliefs. In JettenJ.PetersK. (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Inequality (pp. 365–380). Springer International Publishing.
22.
De BruijnE.-J.AntonidesG. (2022). Poverty and economic decision making: A review of scarcity theory. Theory and Decision, 92(1), 5–37.
23.
DouglasB. D.EwellP. J.BrauerM. (2023). Data quality in online human-subjects research: Comparisons between MTurk, Prolific, CloudResearch, Qualtrics, and SONA. Plos One, 18(3), e0279720.
24.
DuH.HuangY.MaL.ChenX.ChiP.KingR. B. (2023). Subjective economic inequality is associated with lower well-being through more upward comparison and lower trust. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, aphw.12467.
25.
EssesV. M.JacksonL. M.ArmstrongT. L. (1998). Intergroup competition and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration: An instrumental model of group conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 54(4), 699–724.
26.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160.
27.
FosterG. M. (1965). Peasant society and the image of limited good. American Anthropologist, 67(2), 293–315.
28.
FriedmanS. (2014). The price of the ticket: Rethinking the experience of social mobility. Sociology, 48(2), 352–368.
29.
GoldsmithK.RouxC.MaJ. (2018). When seeking the best brings out the worst in consumers: Understanding the relationship between a maximizing mindset and immoral behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(2), 293–309.
30.
GreitemeyerT.SagioglouC. (2016). Subjective socioeconomic status causes aggression: A test of the theory of social deprivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(2), 178–194.
31.
GriskeviciusV.TyburJ. M.GangestadS. W.PereaE. F.ShapiroJ. R.KenrickD. T. (2009). Aggress to impress: Hostility as an evolved context-dependent strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 980–994.
32.
GugushviliA.ZelinskaO.PrägP.BulczakG. (2022). Does perceived social mobility affect health? Evidence from a fixed effects approach. Social Science & Medicine, 294, 114705.
33.
HassonY.AmirE.Sobol-SaragD.TamirM.HalperinE. (2022). Using performance art to promote intergroup prosociality by cultivating the belief that empathy is unlimited. Nature Communications, 13(1), 7786.
34.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.
35.
HeT.Derfler-RozinR.PitesaM. (2020). Financial vulnerability and the reproduction of disadvantage in economic exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(1), 80–96.
JohnsonS. G.ZhangJ.KeilF. C. (2022). Win–win denial: The psychological underpinnings of zero-sum thinking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151(2), 455–474.
40.
KyeB.ParkH. (2019). Intergenerational status mobility in nineteenth-century Korea: Evidence of Seoul household registers from 1897 to 1906. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 60, 52–65.
41.
KakkarH.SivanathanN. (2022). The impact of leader dominance on employees’ zero-sum mindset and helping behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(10), 1706–1724.
42.
KrausM. W.KeltnerD. (2013). Social class rank, essentialism, and punitive judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(2), 247–261.
43.
KrausM. W.TanJ. J. (2015). Americans overestimate social class mobility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 58, 101–111.
44.
KristoffersonK.McFerranB.MoralesA. C.DahlD. W. (2017). The dark side of scarcity promotions: How exposure to limited-quantity promotions can induce aggression. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(5), 683–706.
45.
KroschA. R.TylerT. R.AmodioD. M. (2017). Race and recession: Effects of economic scarcity on racial discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(6), 892–909.
46.
KuchynkaS. L.BossonJ. K.VandelloJ. A.PuryearC. (2018). Zero-sum thinking and the masculinity contest: Perceived intergroup competition and workplace gender bias. Journal of Social Issues, 74(3), 529–550.
47.
LinC.ThorntonM. (2023). Evidence for bidirectional causation between trait and mental state inferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 108, 104495.
48.
LisnekJ. A.CaluoriN.Brown-IannuzziJ. L.OishiS. (2024). Investigating how high perceived economic inequality exacerbates intergroup competition, zero-sum beliefs, and perceived intergroup prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 01461672241234787.
49.
LorberM. F. (2004). Psychophysiology of aggression, psychopathy, and conduct problems: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130(4), 531–552.
MérolaV.HelgasonA. F. (2016). Are we in the same boat or not? The opposite effects of absolute and relative income shifts on redistributive preferences. The Journal of Politics, 78(4), 1107–1123.
52.
MijsJ. J. B.DaenekindtS.De KosterW.Van Der WaalJ. (2022). Belief in meritocracy reexamined: Scrutinizing the role of subjective social mobility. Social Psychology Quarterly, 85(2), 131–141.
MurayamaK.ElliotA. J. (2012). The competition–performance relation: A meta-analytic review and test of the opposing processes model of competition and performance. Psychological Bulletin, 138(6), 1035–1070.
55.
NortonM. I.SommersS. R. (2011). Whites see racism as a zero-sum game that they are now losing. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(3), 215–218.
56.
OlivettiC.PasermanM. D. (2015). In the name of the son (and the daughter): Intergenerational mobility in the United States, 1850–1940. American Economic Review, 105(8), 2695–2724.
57.
OngisM.DavidaiS. (2022). Personal relative deprivation and the belief that economic success is zero-sum. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151(7), 1666–1680.
58.
ReuvenyR. (2007). Climate change-induced migration and violent conflict. Political Geography, 26(6), 656–673.
59.
RobertsR.DavidaiS. (2022). The psychology of asymmetric zero-sum beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(3), 559–575.
60.
Różycka-TranJ.BoskiP.WojciszkeB. (2015). Belief in a zero-sum game as a social axiom: A 37-nation Study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(4), 525–548.
61.
Różycka-TranJ.PiotrowskiJ. P.Żemojtel-PiotrowskaM.JurekP.OsinE. N.AdamsB. G.ArdiR.BălțătescuS.BhomiA. L.BogomazS. A.CieciuchJ.ClintonA.De ClunieG. T.CzarnaA. Z.EstevesC. S.GouveiaV.HalikM. H. J.KachatryanN.KambleS. V.. . . MaltbyJ. (2021). Belief in a zero-sum game and subjective well-being across 35 countries. Current Psychology, 40(7), 3575–3584.
62.
RuthigJ. C.KehnA.GamblinB. W.VanderzandenK.JonesK. (2017). When women’s gains equal men’s losses: Predicting a zero-sum perspective of gender status. Sex Roles, 76(1–2), 17–26.
63.
SmithH. J.PettigrewT. F.PippinG. M.BialosiewiczS. (2012). Relative deprivation: A theoretical and meta-analytic review. Personality and social psychology review, 16(3), 203–232.
64.
SchönbrodtF. D.PeruginiM. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize?. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(5), 609–612.
65.
SagioglouC.ForstmannM.GreitemeyerT. (2019). Belief in social mobility mitigates hostility resulting from disadvantaged social standing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(4), 541–556.
66.
Schuman-OlivierZ.TrombkaM.LovasD. A.BrewerJ. A.VagoD. R.GawandeR.DunneJ. P.LazarS. W.LoucksE. B.FulwilerC. (2020). Mindfulness and behavior change. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 28(6), 371–394.
67.
ShahA. K.MullainathanS.ShafirE. (2012). Some Consequences of Having Too Little. Science, 338(6107), 682–685.
68.
SirolaN.PitesaM. (2017). Economic downturns undermine workplace helping by promoting a zero-sum construal of success. Academy of Management Journal, 60(4), 1339–1359.
69.
SommetN.ElliotA. J.JamiesonJ. P.ButeraF. (2019). Income inequality, perceived competitiveness, and approach-avoidance motivation. Journal of Personality, 87(4), 767–784.
70.
SpillerS. A. (2011). Opportunity cost consideration. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(4), 595–610.
71.
WangX.ChenW.-F.HongY.-Y.ChenZ. (2022). Perceiving high social mobility breeds materialism: The mediating role of socioeconomic status uncertainty. Journal of Business Research, 139, 629–638.
72.
WangX.WangX.ChenZ. (2023). High social mobility leads to delayed reproduction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 52(4), 1365–1377.
73.
WilkinsC. L.WellmanJ. D.BabbittL. G.ToosiN. R.SchadK. D. (2015). You can win but I can’t lose: Bias against high-status groups increases their zero-sum beliefs about discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 57, 1–14.
74.
YeagerD. S.DweckC. S. (2020). What can be learned from growth mindset controversies?American Psychologist, 75(9), 1269.
75.
YoonS.KimH. C. (2016). Keeping the American dream alive: The interactive effect of perceived economic mobility and materialism on impulsive spending. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(5), 759–772.
76.
YoonS.KimH. C. (2018). Feeling economically stuck: The effect of perceived economic mobility and socioeconomic status on variety seeking. Journal of Consumer Research, 44, 1141–1156.
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.
