The present studies provide evidence that social-sampling processes lead wealthier people to oppose redistribution policies. In samples of American Internet users, wealthier participants reported higher levels of wealth in their social circles (Studies 1a and 1b). This was associated, in turn, with estimates of higher mean wealth in the wider U.S. population, greater perceived fairness of the economic status quo, and opposition to redistribution policies. Furthermore, results from a large-scale, nationally representative New Zealand survey revealed that low levels of neighborhood-level socioeconomic deprivation—an objective index of wealth within participants’ social circles—mediated the relation between income and satisfaction with the economic status quo (Study 2). These findings held controlling for relevant variables, including political orientation and perceived self-interest. Social-structural inequalities appear to combine with social-sampling processes to shape the different political attitudes of wealthier and poorer people.
AlesinaA.AngeletosG. M. (2005). Fairness and redistribution. American Economic Review, 95, 960–980.
2.
AlesinaA.GiulianoP. (2011). Preferences for redistribution. In BisinA.BenhabibJ. (Eds.), Handbook of social economics (Vol. 1, pp. 93–131). San Diego, CA: North-Holland.
3.
ArrowK. J.DebreuG. (1954). Existence of an equilibrium for a competitive economy. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 22, 265–290.
4.
BartelsL. M. (2005). Homer gets a tax cut: Inequality and public policy in the American mind. Perspectives on Politics, 3, 15–31.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5.
7.
ChambersJ. R.SwanL. K.HeesackerM. (2014). Better off than we know: Distorted perceptions of incomes and income inequality in America. Psychological Science, 25, 613–618.
8.
CrucesG.Perez-TrugliaR.TetazM. (2013). Biased perceptions of income distribution and preferences for redistribution: Evidence from a survey experiment. Journal of Public Economics, 98, 100–112.
9.
DeNavas-WaltC.ProctorB. D.SmithJ. C. (2013). Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2012. Current population report (Report No. P60-245). Retrieved from the U.S. Census Bureau Web site: https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-245.pdf
10.
DeutschM. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice?Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137–149.
11.
FeldmanS. (1982). Economic self-interest and political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 26, 446–466.
12.
FiedlerK. (2000). Beware of samples! A cognitive-ecological sampling approach to judgment biases. Psychological Review, 107, 659–676.
13.
FongC. (2001). Social preferences, self-interest and the demand for redistribution. Journal of Public Economics, 82, 225–246.
14.
GalesicM.OlssonH.RieskampJ. (2012). Social sampling explains apparent biases in judgments of social environments. Psychological Science, 23, 1515–1523.
GibsonJ. J. (1960). The concept of the stimulus in psychology. American Psychologist, 15, 694–703.
17.
HasenfeldY.RaffertyJ. A. (1989). The determinants of public attitudes toward the welfare state. Social Forces, 67, 1027–1048.
18.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford.
19.
HochschildJ. L. (1986). What’s fair: American beliefs about distributive justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20.
JostJ. T. (1995). Negative illusions: Conceptual clarification and psychological evidence concerning false consciousness. Political Psychology, 16, 397–424.
21.
KayA. C.JostJ. T. (2003). Complementary justice: Effects of “poor but happy” and “poor but honest” stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 823–837.
22.
KrügerJ. (1999). Lake Wobegon be gone! The “below-average effect” and the egocentric nature of comparative ability judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 221–232.
23.
MasseyD. S.FischerM. J.DickensW. T.LevyF. (2003). The geography of inequality in the United States, 1950–2000. In GaleW. G.Rothenberg PackJ. (Eds.), Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs 2003 (pp. 1–40). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
24.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.
25.
MeltzerA. H.RichardS. F. (1981). A rational theory of the size of government. The Journal of Political Economy, 89, 914–927.
26.
MitchellG.TetlockP. E.MellersB. A.OrdonezL. D. (1993). Judgments of social justice: Compromises between equality and efficiency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 629–639.
27.
NisbettR. E.KundaZ. (1985). Perception of social distributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 297–311.
28.
NortonM. I.ArielyD. (2011). Building a better America—one wealth quintile at a time. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 9–12.
29.
OkunA. M. (1975). Equality and efficiency: The big tradeoff. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
PaolacciG.ChandlerJ.IpeirotisP. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411–419.
32.
PrattoF.SidaniusJ.StallworthL. M.MalleB. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763.
33.
PrattoF.StewartA. L. (2012). Group dominance and the half-blindness of privilege. Journal of Social Issues, 68, 28–45.
34.
RavallionM. (1992). Poverty comparisons: A guide to concepts and methods (Living Standards Measurement Study Working Paper No. 88). Washington, DC: World Bank.
35.
RawlsJ. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36.
ReagansR. (2011). Close encounters: Analyzing how social similarity and propinquity contribute to strong network connections. Organization Science, 22, 835–849.
37.
SalmondC.CramptonP.AtkinsonJ. (2007). NZDep2006 index of deprivation. Wellington, NZ: University of Otago, Department of Public Health.
38.
ScottJ. T.MatlandR. E.MichelbachP. A.BornsteinB. H. (2001). Just deserts: An experimental study of distributive justice norms. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 749–767.
39.
SearsD. O.FunkC. L. (1991). The role of self-interest in social and political attitudes. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 1–91). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
SmithE. R.SeminG. R. (2007). Situated social cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 132–135.
42.
SmithH. J.TylerT. R. (1996). Justice and power: When will justice concerns encourage the advantaged to support policies which redistribute economic resources and the disadvantaged to willingly obey the law?European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 171–200.
TiliouineH.CumminsR. A.DavernM. (2006). Measuring wellbeing in developing countries: The case of Algeria. Social Indicators Research, 75, 1–30.
45.
WellmanB. (1996). Are personal communities local? A Dumptarian reconsideration. Social Networks, 18, 347–354.
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.
