As economic inequality and poverty continue to be a concern in the United States, it is imperative to explore the factors shaping attitudes toward policies designed to reduce both. Self-interest tends to be a consistent driver of redistributive policy preferences; as income increases, support for redistribution typically decreases. However, it is also clear that self-interest is not the only motive for supporting or opposing redistributive policies. Certain beliefs, such as those concerning the causes of poverty, may help explain why individuals do not always act in their own material self-interest. Individuals tend, on average, to be more willing to support policies that help people if they believe that people are deserving of the help. In this paper I ask: Is the relationship between family income and redistributive policy preferences moderated by poverty attributions? I find that the effect of family income on redistributive policy preferences is completely muted among individuals who attribute poverty to external factors. Yet, the effect of family income on these policy preferences is strengthened among those who attribute poverty to internal factors. These findings suggest that support for redistribution increases across income groups as individuals increasingly attribute poverty to systemic factors.
AlesinaAlbertoAngeletosGeorge-Marios. 2005. “Fairness and Redistribution.” American Economic Review95 (4): 960–980.
2.
AlesinaAlberto F.GiulianoPaola. 2009. “Preferences for Redistribution.” In: NBER Working Paper No. 14825. Cambridge, MA: NBER.
3.
AlesinaAlberto F.GiulianoPaola. 2011. “Preferences for Redistribution.” In Handbook of Social Economics, edited by BenhabibJessBisinAlbertoJacksonMatthew O., Vol. 1, p93–132. San Diego, CA: North-Holland.
4.
AlesinaAlbertoLa FerraraEliana. 2005. “Preferences for Redistribution in the Land of Opportunities.” Journal of Public Economics89: 897–931.
5.
AlesinaAlbertoStantchevaStefanieTesoEdoardo. 2018. “Intergenerational Mobility and Preferences for Redistribution.” American Economic Review108 (2): 521–554.
6.
AndersenRobertCurtisJosh. 2015. “Social Class, Economic Inequality, and the Convergence of Policy Preferences: Evidence from 24 Modern Democracies.” Canadian Review of Sociology52 (3): 266–288.
7.
AnsolabehereStephenRoddenJonathanSnyderJames M.Jr. 2006. “Purple America.” Journal of Economic Perspectives20: 97–118.
8.
Ballard-RosaCameronMartinLucyScheveKenneth. 2017. “The Structure of American Income Tax Policy Preferences.” Journal of Politics79 (1): 1–16.
9.
BartelsLarry M.2008. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10.
BobbioAndreaCanovaLuiginaManganelliAnna Maria. 2010. “Conservative Ideology, Economic Conservatism, and Causal Attributions for Poverty and Wealth.” Current Psychology29 (3): 222–234.
11.
Brown-IannuzziJazmin L.LundbergKristjen B.McKeeStephanie. 2017. “The Politics of Socioeconomic Status: How Socioeconomic Status May Influence Political Attitudes and Engagement.” Current Opinion in Psychology18: 11–14.
12.
BullockHeather E.2017. “Social Class and Policy Preferences: Implications for Economic Inequality and Interclass Relations.” Current Opinion in Psychology18: 141–146.
13.
BullockHeather E.WilliamsWendy R.LimbertWendy M.. 2003. “Predicting Support for Welfare Policies: The Impact of Attributions and Beliefs about Inequality.” Journal of Poverty7 (3): 35–56.
14.
CavailleCharlotteTrumpKris-Stella. 2015. “The Two Facets of Social Policy Preferences.” Journal of Politics77 (1): 146–160.
15.
CharnessGaryRabinMatthew. 2002. “Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics117 (3): 817–869.
16.
DimickMatthewRuedaDavidStegmuellerDaniel. 2017. “The Altruistic Rich? Inequality and Other-Regarding Preferences for Redistribution.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science11 (4): 385–439.
17.
DimickMatthewRuedaDavidStegmuellerDaniel. 2018. “Models of Other-Regarding Preferences, Inequality, and Redistribution.” Annual Review of Political Science21: 441–460.
18.
EkinsEmily. What Americans Think about Poverty, Wealth, and Work: Findings from the Cato Institute 2019 Welfare, Work, and Wealth National Survey. Cato Institute. 2019; 1–97.
19.
FatkeMatthias. 2018. “Inequality Perceptions, Preferences Conducive to Redistribution, and the Conditioning Role of Social Position.” Societies8 (99): 1–14.
20.
FeaginJoe R.1972. “Poverty: We Still Believe that God Helps Those Who Help Themselves.” Psychology Today6 (6): 101–129.
21.
FeaginJoe R.1975. Subordinating the Poor: Welfare and American Beliefs. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
22.
FehrErnstSchmidtKlaus M.. 1999. “A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation.” Quarterly Journal of Economics114 (3): 817–868.
23.
FehrErnstEpperThomasSennJulien. 2022. “Other-Regarding Preferences and Redistributive Politics.” In: IZA Institute of Labor Economics Discussion. Paper No. 15088. IZA.
24.
FongChristina M.BowlesSamuelGintisHerbert. 2006. “Strong Reciprocity and the Welfare State.” In Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism, and Reciprocity, edited by KolmSerge-ChristopheYthierJean Mercier, Vol. 2, 1439–1464. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
25.
FrankoWilliamTolbertCaroline J.WitkoChristopher. 2013. “Inequality, Self-Interest, and Public Support for ‘Robin Hood’ Tax Policies.” Political Research Quarterly66 (4): 923–937.
26.
GelmanAndrew. 2008. Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote the Way They Do. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27.
GilensMartin. 1996. “Race and Poverty in America: Public Misperceptions and the American News Media.” Public Opinion Quarterly60 (4): 515–541.
28.
GilensMartin. 1999. Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of AntiPoverty Policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
29.
GilensMartinThalAdam. 2018. “Doing Well and Doing Good? How Concern for Others Shapes Policy Preferences and Partisanship Among Affluent Americans.” Public Opinion Quarterly82 (2): 209–230.
30.
GugushviliAlexi. 2016. “Intergenerational Social Mobility and Popular Explanations of Poverty: A Comparative Perspective.” Social Justice Research29 (4): 402–428.
31.
HansenKristina Jessen. 2022. “Greed, Envy, and Admiration: The Distinct Nature of Public Opinion about Redistribution from the Rich.” American Political Science Review117: 1–18.
32.
HauserOliver P.NortonMichael I.. 2017. “(Mis)perceptions of Inequality.” Current Opinion in Psychology18: 21–25.
33.
HomanPatriciaValentinoLaurenWeedEmi. 2017. “Being and Becoming Poor: How Cultural Schemas Shape Beliefs about Poverty.” Social Forces95 (3): 1023–1048.
HuntMatthew O.1996. “The Individual, Society, or Both? A Comparison of Black, Latino, and White Beliefs about the Causes of Poverty.” Social Forces75 (1): 293–322.
36.
HuntMatthew O.2016. “Race, Ethnicity, and Lay Explanations of Poverty in the United States: Review and Recommendations for Stratification Beliefs Research.” Sociology of Race and Ethnicity2 (4): 393–401.
37.
InglehartRonald. 1977. The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38.
InglehartRonald. 1990. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
39.
IyengarShanto. 1990. “Framing Responsibility for Political Issues: The Case of Poverty.” Political Behavior12 (1): 19–40.
40.
JostJohn T.GlaserJackKruglanskiArie W.SullowayFrank J.. 2003. “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition.” Psychological Bulletin129 (3): 339–375.
41.
KellyNathan J.EnnsPeter K.. 2010. “Inequality and the Dynamics of Public Opinion: The Self-Reinforcing Link between Economic Inequality and Mass Preferences.” American Journal of Political Science54 (4): 855–870.
42.
KenworthyLaneMcCallLeslie. 2008. “Inequality, Public Opinion and Redistribution.” Socio-Economic Review6: 35–68.
43.
KluegelJames R.SmithEliot R.. 1981. “Beliefs about Stratification.” Annual Review of Sociology7: 29–56.
44.
KluegelJames R.SmithEliot R.. 1986. Beliefs about Inequality: Americans’ View of what Is and what Ought to Be. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
45.
MaltbyElizabethKreitzerRebecca J.. 2023. “How Racialized Policy Contact Shapes the Social Constructions of Policy Targets.” Policy Studies Journal51: 145–162.
46.
MarquisLionelRossetJan. 2021. “When Explanations for Poverty Help Explain Social Policy Preferences: The Case of European Public Opinion amidst the Economic Recession (2009-2014).” Social Justice Research34: 428–459.
47.
MeltzerAllan H.RichardScott F.. 1981. “A Rational Theory of the Size of Government.” Journal of Political Economy89 (5): 914–927.
48.
MerollaDavid M.HuntMatthew O.SerpeRichard T.. 2011. “Concentrated Disadvantage and Beliefs about the Causes of Poverty: A Multi-Level Analysis.” Sociological Perspectives54 (2): 205–228.
49.
MilesMatthew R.2014. “Process over Outcome: How Perceptions of Procedural Fairness Influence Conservative Support for Redistributive Taxes.” The Social Science Journal51 (4): 615–626.
50.
MurrayNeil D.von MeienHubertus. 2020. “Rational Behavior versus Social Preferences: What Determines Income Redistribution?” doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14171.31521.
51.
OwensLindsay A.PedullaDavid S.. 2014. “Material Welfare and Changing Political Preferences: The Case of Support for Redistributive Social Policies.” Social Forces92 (3): 1087–1113.
52.
PetersenMichael B.2015. “Evolutionary Political Psychology: On the Origin and Structure of Heuristics and Biases in Politics.” Advances in Political Psychology36 (1): 45–79.
53.
PiffPaul K.WiwadDylanRobinsonAngela R.AkninLara B.MercierBrettShariffAzim. 2020. “Shifting Attributions for Poverty Motivates Opposition to Inequality and Enhances Egalitarianism.” Nature Human Behaviour4: 496–505.
54.
PistonSpencer. 2018. Class Attitudes in America: Sympathy for the Poor, Resentment of the Rich, and Political Implications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55.
RagusaJordan Michael. 2015. “Socioeconomic Stereotypes: Explaining Variation in Preferences for Taxing the Rich.” American Politics Research43 (2): 327–359.
56.
RehmPhilipp. 2011. “Social Policy by Popular Demand.” World Politics63 (2): 217–299.
57.
RobinsonJames W.2009. “American Poverty Cause Beliefs and Structured Inequality Legitimation.” Sociological Spectrum29 (4): 489–518.
58.
SadinMeredith L.2014. A Wealth of Ambivalence: How Stereotypes about the Rich Matter for Political Attitudes and Candidate Choice. PhD Dissertation. Princeton University.
59.
SchneiderAnneIngramHelen. 1993. “Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy.” American Political Science Review87 (2): 334–347.
SkitkaLinda J.TetlockPhilip E.. 1993. “Providing Public Assistance: Cognitive and Motivational Processes Underlying Liberal and Conservative Policy Preferences.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology65 (6): 1205–1223.
62.
SmithKevin B.StoneLorene H.. 1989. “Rags, Riches, and Bootstraps: Beliefs about the Causes of Wealth and Poverty.” The Sociological Quarterly30 (1): 93–107.
63.
SznycerDanielLopez SealMaria FlorenciaSellAaronLimJulianPoratRoniShalviShaulHalperinEranCosmidesLedaToobyJohn. 2017. “Support for Redistribution Is Shaped by Compassion, Envy, and Self-Interest, but Not a Taste for Fairness.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences114 (31): 8420–8425.
64.
TrumpKris-Stella. 2018. “Income Inequality Influences Perceptions of Legitimate Income Differences.” British Journal of Political Science48: 929-952.
65.
WangAustin Horng-En. 2018. “Patience Moderates the Class Cleavage in Demand for Redistribution.” Social Science Research70: 18–27.
66.
WeinerBernard. 1995. Judgments of Responsibility: A Foundation for a Theory of Social Conduct. New York: Guilford Press.
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.
