In recent decades, income inequality has soared in the United States, but few studies utilize experimental methodologies to assess whether having reliable information on income concentration affects the formation of redistribution attitudes. We advance this emerging literature through an analysis of information on the income owned by the top 1% of the income distribution – a group that is socio-politically meaningful and axial to the recent rise of inequality. The empirical evidence draws on a novel split-sample survey experiment (N = 4,000). The results indicate that having the real value of income concentration does not have an average, significant effect on redistribution attitudes. Neither does it moderate the positive association between prior perceptions of concentration and these attitudes. However, the analysis suggests that intense cognitive effort is related to preference revision. This is because, information reduces pro-redistribution attitudes among extreme overestimators who process the information more intensely.
AlbarracinDShavittS (2018) Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology69: 299–327.
2.
BartelsLM (2005) Homer gets a tax cut: Inequality and public policy in the American mind. Perspectives on Politics3(1): 15–31.
3.
BartelsLM (2008) The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4.
BeckerB (2020) Mind the income gaps? Experimental evidence of information’s lasting effect on redistributive preferences. Social Justice Research33(2): 137–194.
5.
BerinskyAJHuberGALenzGS (2012) Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon. com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis20(3): 351–368.
6.
BijleveldE (2018) The feeling of effort during mental activity. Consciousness and Cognition63: 218–227.
7.
BolsenTDruckmanJNCookFL (2014) The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior36: 235–262.
8.
BoudreauCMacKenzieSA (2018) Wanting what is fair: How party cues and information about income inequality affect public support for taxes. The Journal of Politics80(2): 367–381.
9.
BourdieuP (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
CansunarA (2018) Redistribution by the rich: Information, perceptions, and preferences. Doctoral Thesis, Duke University, Durham, NC.
11.
CavailléC (2023) Fair Enough? Support for Redistribution in the Age of Inequality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
ChanMSJonesCAlbarracínD (2017) Countering false beliefs: An analysis of the evidence and recommendations of best practices for the retraction and correction of scientific misinformation. In: JamiesonKHKahanDScheufeleDA (eds) Handbook of the Science of Science Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.341–350.
13.
ChancelLPikettyTSaezE, et al. (2021) World Inequality Report 2022. Paris: World Inequality Lab.
CliffordSJewellRMWaggonerPD (2015) Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology?Research & Politics2(4): 1–9.
16.
Congressional Budget Office (2018) The Distribution of Household Income. Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office.
17.
CrucesGPerez-TrugliaRTetazM (2013) Biased perceptions of income distribution and preferences for redistribution: Evidence from a survey experiment. Journal of Public Economics98: 100–112.
18.
Dabla-NorrisEKochharKSuphaphiphatN, et al. (2015) Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality: A Global Perspective. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
19.
DeVellisRFThorpeCT (2021) Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
DimickMRuedaDStegmuellerD (2018) Models of other-regarding preferences and redistribution. Annual Review of Political Science21: 441–460.
21.
El HedhliKZourrigH (2023) Dual routes or a one-way to persuasion? The elaboration likelihood model versus the unimodel. Journal of Marketing Communications29(5): 433–454.
22.
EpleyNGilovichT (2006) The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic: Why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychological Science17(4): 311–318.
23.
ErikssonKSimpsonB (2012) What do Americans know about inequality? It depends on how you ask them. Judgment and Decision Making7(6): 741–745.
24.
FehrESchmidtKM (2006) The economics of fairness, reciprocity and altruism – Experimental evidence and new theories. In: Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity (Vol. 1), edited by KolmSerge-ChristopheYthierJean Mercier. North-Holland: Elsevier, pp.615–691.
25.
Fernández-AlbertosJKuoA (2018) Income perception, information, and progressive taxation: Evidence from a survey experiment. Political Science Research and Methods6(1): 83–110.
26.
FisherMKeilFC (2018) The binary bias: A systematic distortion in the integration of information. Psychological Science29(11): 1846–1858.
27.
FoleyWRadlJ (2024) Parenting practices and children’s cognitive effort: A laboratory study. Journal of Early Adolescence, 1–27.
28.
FrankoWW (2017) Understanding public perceptions of growing economic inequality. State Politics & Policy Quarterly17(3): 319–348.
29.
García-SánchezEVan der ToornJRodríguez-BailónR, et al. (2019) The vicious cycle of economic inequality: The role of ideology in shaping the relationship between ‘what is’ and ‘what ought to be’ in 41 countries. Social Psychological and Personality Science10(8): 991–1001.
30.
GarziaDda SilvaFFMayeS (2023) Affective polarization in comparative and longitudinal perspective. Public Opinion Quarterly87(1): 219–231.
31.
GerberAGreenD (1999) Misperceptions about perceptual bias. Annual Review of Political Science2(1): 189–210.
GouveiaAF (2017) Political support for reforms of the pension system: Two experiments. Journal of Pension Economics & Finance16(3): 371–394.
34.
Goya-TocchettoDPayneK (2021) How economic inequality shapes thought and action. Journal of Consumer Psychology32(1): 146–161.
35.
GrahamAPickettJTCullenFT (2021) Advantages of matched over unmatched opt-in samples for studying criminal justice attitudes: A research note. Crime & Delinquency67(12): 1962–1981.
36.
HauserOPNortonMI (2017) (Mis) perceptions of inequality. Current Opinion in Psychology18: 21–25.
37.
HeathcoteJPerriFViolanteGL (2010) Unequal we stand: An empirical analysis of economic inequality in the United States, 1967-2006. Review of Economic Dynamics13(1): 15–51.
38.
HeathcoteJPerriFViolanteGL, et al. (2023) More unequal we stand? Inequality dynamics in the United States, 1967-2021. Review of Economic Dynamics50: 235–266.
39.
HirschmanD (2021) Rediscovering the 1%: Knowledge infrastructures and the stylized facts of inequality. American Journal of Sociology127(3): 739–786.
40.
HoffmannFLeeDSLemieuxT (2020) Growing income inequality in the United States and other advanced economies. Journal of Economic Perspectives34(4): 52–78.
41.
HoyCMagerF (2021a) American exceptionalism? Differences in the elasticity of preferences for redistribution between the United States and Western Europe. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization192: 518–540.
42.
HoyCMagerF (2021b) Why are relatively poor people not more supportive of redistribution? Evidence from a randomized survey experiment across ten countries. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy13(4): 299–328.
JachimowiczJMDavidaiSGoya-TocchettoD, et al. (2023) Inequality in researchers’ minds: Four guiding questions for studying subjective perceptions of economic inequality. Journal of Economic Surveys37(5): 1534–1561.
45.
JacksonJCPayneK (2021) Cognitive barriers to reducing income inequality. Social Psychological and Personality Science12(5): 687–696.
46.
JouJLekaGERogersDM, et al. (2004) Contraction bias in memorial quantifying judgment: Does it come from a stable compressed memory representation or a dynamic adaptation process?The American Journal of Psychology117: 543–564.
47.
KeisterLA (2014) The one percent. Annual Review of Sociology40: 347–367.
48.
KenworthyL (2017) Why the surge in income inequality?Contemporary Sociology46: 1–9.
49.
KiatpongsanSNortonMI (2014) How much (more) should CEOs make? A universal desire for more equal pay. Perspectives on Psychological Science9(6): 587–593.
50.
KuhnA (2019) The subversive nature of inequality: Subjective inequality perceptions and attitudes to social inequality. European Journal of Political Economy59: 331–344.
51.
KuziemkoINortonMISaezE, et al. (2015) How elastic are preferences for redistribution? Evidence from randomized survey experiments. American Economic Review105(4): 1478–1508.
52.
McCallL (2013) The Undeserving Rich: American Beliefs about Inequality, Opportunity, and Redistribution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53.
McCallLKenworthyL (2009) Americans’ social policy preferences in the era of rising inequality. Perspectives on Politics7(3): 459–484.
54.
McCallLPercheskiC (2009) Income inequality: New trends and research directions. Annual Review of Sociology36: 329–347.
55.
McCallLBurkDLaperrièreM, et al. (2017) Exposure to rising inequality shapes Americans’ opportunity beliefs and policy support. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences114(36): 9593–9598.
56.
MarandolaGXuY (2021, March) (Mis-) perception of inequality: Measures, determinants, and consequences. Joint research center technical report, European Commission, Brussels.
57.
MilanovicB (2016) Global Inequality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
58.
NewmanBJShahSLauterbachE (2018) Who sees an hourglass? Assessing citizens’ perception of local economic inequality. Research & Politics5(3): 2053168018793974.
59.
NiehuesJ (2014) Subjective perceptions of inequality and redistributive preferences: An international comparison. IW-TRENDS discussion paper 2. Cologne: Cologne Institute for Economic Research.
60.
NortonMIArielyD (2011) Building a better America – One wealth quintile at a time. Perspectives on Psychological Science6(1): 9–12.
61.
OskampSSchultzPW (2005) Attitudes and Opinions. London: Psychology Press.
62.
PageBIJacobsLR (2009) Class War? What Americans Really Think about Economic Inequality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
63.
PageLGoldsteinDG (2016) Subjective beliefs about the income distribution and preferences for redistribution. Social Choice and Welfare47(1): 25–61.
64.
PettyREBriñolP (2010) Attitude Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
65.
PettyREBriñolP (2020) A process approach to influencing attitudes and changing behavior: Revisiting classic findings in persuasion and popular interventions. In: ForgasJPCranoWDFiedlerK (eds) Applications of Social Psychology. London: Routledge, pp.82–103.
66.
PhillipsLTTepperSJGoya-TocchettoD, et al. (2020) Inequality in people’s minds. [Unpublished manuscript] New York University. https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/vawh9
67.
PikettyT (2018) Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
68.
PoultonECPoultonS (1989) Bias in Quantifying Judgements. London: Taylor & Francis.
69.
RadlJFernándezJJ (2022) Pension policy literacy and retirement expectations: A cross-country survey experiment. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B77(4): 739–749.
70.
SandsML (2017) Exposure to inequality affects support for redistribution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences114(4): 663–668.
71.
SetteleS (2022) How do beliefs about the gender wage gap affect the demand for public policy?American Economic Journal: Economic Policy14(2): 475–508.
72.
StantchevaS (2021, October) Perceptions and preferences for redistribution. NBER working paper series, working paper 29370.
73.
TrumpKS (2018) Income inequality influences perceptions of legitimate income differences. British Journal of Political Science48(4): 929–952.
74.
TrumpKS (2019) Public opinion and reactions to increasing income inequality. In: RosenbluthFMWeirM (eds) Who Gets What? The New Politics of Insecurity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 79–102.
75.
TverskyAKahnemanD (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. Science185(4157): 1124–1131.
76.
WillisGBGarcía-SánchezESánchez-RodríguezÁ, et al (2022) The psychological effects of economic inequality depend on its perception. Nature Reviews1: 301–309.
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.
