The rewards people receive are often taken as indirect evidence of their merit. We outline an argument that addresses how the magnitude of macrolevel income inequalities affects perceptions of the distribution of merit in a society. We propose that higher levels of economic inequality will lead to perceptions of greater differences in merit such that societies with higher inequality will be characterized by a larger “merit gap,” namely, larger differences in the perceived merit of the rich and poor. We test these arguments using an online experiment that manipulated the level of inequality (high vs. low) in an anonymized society. Participants perceived a larger merit gap in high versus low inequality societies. Our arguments and findings have implications for attitudes about inequality and redistributive policies.
AshokVivekinanKuziemkoIlyanaWashingtonEbonya. 2015. “Support for Redistribution in an Age of Rising Inequality: New Stylized Facts and Some Tentative Explanations.” Working Paper No. 21529, National Bureau of Economic Research, Chicago, IL.
2.
BenabouRolandTiroleJean. 2006. “Belief in a Just World and Redistributive Politics.”Quarterly Journal of Economics121(2):699–746.
3.
BergerJosephFisekM. HamitNormanRobertWagnerDavid. 1998. “Formation of Reward Expectations in Status Situations.” Pp. 121–54 in Status, Power, and Legitimacy, edited by BergerJ.ZelditchM.Jr.New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
BrezinaTimothyWinderKenisha. 2003. “Economic Disadvantage, Status Generalization, and Negative Racial Stereotyping by White Americans.”Social Psychology Quarterly66(4):402–18.
6.
Brown-IannuzziJazminLundbergKristjenKayAaronPayneKeith. 2014. “Subjective Status Shapes Political Preferences.”Psychological Science26(1):15–26.
7.
BuhrmesterMichaelKwangTracyGoslingSamuel. 2011. “Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality Data?”Perspectives on Psychological Science6(1):3–5.
8.
BullockHeatherWilliamsWendyLimbertWendy. 2003. “Predicting Support for Welfare Policies: The Impact of Attributions and Beliefs about Inequality.”Journal of Poverty7(3):35–56.
9.
ChambersJohn R.SwanLawton K.HeesackerMartin. 2014. “Better Off Than We Know: Distorted Perceptions of Incomes and Income Inequality in America.”Psychological Science25(2):613–18.
10.
CookKaren. 1975. “Expectations, Evaluations, and Equity.”American Sociological Review40(3):372–88.
11.
CozzarelliCatherineWilkinsonAnnaTaglerMichael. 2001. “Attitudes toward the Poor and Attributions for Poverty.”Journal of Social Issues57(2):207–27.
12.
CrucesGuillermoPerez-TrugliaRicardoTetazMartin. 2013. “Biased Perceptions of Income Distribution and Preferences for Redistribution: Evidence from a Survey Experiment.”Journal of Public Economics98:100–12.
13.
DawtryRael J.SuttonRobbie M.SibleyChris G.2015. “Why Wealthier People Think People Are Wealthier, and Why It Matters: From Social Sampling to Attitudes to Redistribution.”Psychological Science26(9):1389–400.
14.
ErikssonKimmoSimpsonBrent. 2012. “What Do Americans Know about Inequality? It Depends How You Ask Them.”Judgment and Decision Making7(6):741–45.
15.
ErikssonKimmoSimpsonBrent. 2013. “The Available Evidence Suggests the Percent Measure Should Not Be Used to Study Inequality: Reply to Norton and Ariely.”Judgment and Decision Making8(3):395–96.
16.
FiskeSusanCuddyAmyGlickPeterXuJun. 2002. “A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype Content: Competence and Warmth Respectively Follow from Perceived Status and Competition.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology82(6):878–902.
17.
HarrodWendy. 1980. “Expectations from Unequal Rewards.”Social Psychology Quarterly43(1):126–30.
18.
HegtvedtKaren. 1992. “When Is a Distribution Rule Just?”Rationality and Society4(3):308–31.
19.
HegtvedtKarenIsomDeena. 2014. “Inequality: A Matter of Justice?” Pp. 65–94 in Handbook of the Social Psychology of Inequality, edited by McLeodJ. D.LawlerE. J.SchwalbeM.New York: Springer.
20.
JostJohnHunyadyOrsolya. 2002. “The Psychology of System Justification and the Palliative Function of Ideology.”European Journal of Social Psychology13(1):111–53.
21.
KluegelJames R.SmithEliot R.1986. Beliefs about Inequality: Americans’ Views of What It Is and What It Ought to Be. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
22.
KunovichSheriSlomczynskiKazimierz. 2007. “Systems of Distribution and a Sense of Equity: A Multilevel Analysis of Meritocratic Attitudes in Post-Industrial Societies.”European Sociological Review23(5):649–63.
23.
LepiankaDorotaGelissenJohnOorschotWim van. 2010. “Popular Explanations of Poverty in Europe: Effects of Contextual and Individual Characteristics across 28 European Countries.”Acta Sociologica53(1):53–72.
24.
NortonDanNortonMichael I.2011. “Building a Better America—One Wealth Quintile at a Time.”Perspectives on Psychological Science6(1):9–12.
25.
OsbergLarsSmeedingTimothy. 2006. “‘Fair’ Inequality? Attitudes toward Pay Differentials: The United States in Comparative Perspective.”American Sociological Review71(3):450–73.
26.
PaolacciGabrieleChandlerJesse. 2014. “Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a Participant Pool.”Current Directions in Psychological Science23(3):184–88.
27.
ReynoldsJeremyXianHe. 2014. “Perceptions of Meritocracy in the Land of Opportunity.”Research in Social Stratification and Mobility36:121–37.
28.
RobinsonJames. 2009. “American Poverty Cause Beliefs and Structured Inequality Legitimation.”Sociological Spectrum29:489–518.
29.
ShepelakNorma. 1989. “Ideological Stratification: American Beliefs about Economic Justice.”Social Justice Research3(3):217–31.
30.
StewartPenniMooreJamesJr.1992. “Wage Disparities and Performance Expectations.”Social Psychology Quarterly55(1):78–85.
31.
WeinbergJillFreeseJeremyMcElhattanDavid. 2014. “Comparing Data Characteristics and Results of an Online Factorial Survey between a Population-Based and a Crowdsource-Recruited Sample”Sociological Science1:292–310.
32.
WilkinsonRichardPickettKate. 2009. “Income Inequality and Social Dysfunction.”Annual Review of Sociology35(1):493–511.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2016. “Income and Poverty in the United States.” Report no. P60-256. Washington, DC: Author.
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.
