American politicians often justify income inequality by referencing the opportunities people have to move between economic stations. Though past research has shown associations between income mobility and resistance to wealth redistribution policies, no experimental work has tested whether perceptions of mobility influence tolerance for inequality. In this article, we present a cross-national comparison showing that income mobility is associated with tolerance for inequality and experimental work demonstrating that perceptions of higher mobility directly affect attitudes toward inequality. We find support for both the prospect of upward mobility and the view that peoples’ economic station is the product of their own efforts, as mediating mechanisms.
AlesinaA.La FerraraE. (2005). Preferences for redistribution in the land of opportunities. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 897–931.
2.
BenabouR.OkE. A. (2001). Social mobility and the demand for redistribution: The POUM hypothesis. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 447–487.
3.
BjørnskovC.DreherA.FischerJ. A.SchnellenbachJ.GehringK. (2013). Inequality and happiness: When perceived social mobility and economic reality do not match. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 91, 75–92.
4.
Brown-IannuzziJ. L.LundbergK. B.KayA. C.PayneB. K. (2015). Subjective status shapes political preferences. Psychological Science, 26, 15–26. doi:10.1177/0956797614553947
5.
BuschaF. (2012). Financial expectations and the “left-right” political value scale: Testing for the POUM hypothesis. Economic Letters, 115, 460–464. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2011.12.121
6.
CorakM. (2013). Inequality from generation to generation: The United States in comparison. In RycroftR. S. (Ed.), The economics of inequality, poverty, and discrimination in the 21st century (pp. 107–126). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
7.
CorneoG.GrünerH. P. (2002). Individual preferences for political redistribution. Journal of Public Economics, 83, 83–107.
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.
DabalenA.ParinduriR. A.PaulS. (2015). The effects of the intensity, timing and persistence of personal history of mobility on support for redistribution in transition countries. Economics of Transition, 23, 565–595.
10.
DavidaiS.GilovichT. (2015). Building a more mobile America—One income quintile at a time. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 60–71.
11.
FongC. M. (2006, February26). Prospective mobility, fairness, and the demand for redistribution. Department of Social and Decision Sciences.
12.
GreenD. P.HaS. E.BullockJ. G. (2010). Enough already about “black box” experiments: Studying mediation is more difficult than most scholars suppose. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 628(1), 200–208.
13.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Jaime-CastilloA.Marqués-PeralesI. (2014). Beliefs about social fluidity and preferences for social policies. Journal of Social Policy, 43, 615–633.
16.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27.
17.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R.NosekB. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and un-conscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–919.
18.
KaradjaM.MollerstromJ.SeimD. (2014, February). Richer and holier than thou? The effect of relative income improvements on demand for redistribution (IFN Working Paper No. 1042). Stockholm, Sweden: Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
19.
KiatpongsanS.NortonM. I. (2014). How much (more) should CEOs make? A universal desire for more equal pay. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 587–593. doi:10.1177/1745691614549773
20.
KrausM. W.TanJ. J. X. (2015). Americans overestimate social class mobility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 58, 101–111.
21.
KutnerM. H.NachtsheimC. J.NeterJ. (2004). Applied linear regression models (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
22.
LernerM. J.MillerD. T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1030–1051.
23.
McCoyS. K.MajorB. (2007). Priming meritocracy and the psychological justification of inequality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 341–351.
24.
MitnikP.CumberworthE.GruskyD. (2016). Social mobility in a high inequality regime. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 663(1), 140–184.
PikettyT.SaezE. (2014, May23). Inequality in the long run. Science, 344, 838–843.
32.
RainerH.SeidlerS. (2008). Subjective income and employment expectations and preferences for redistribution. Economic Letters, 99, 449–453. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2007.09.011
33.
SaezE.ZucmanG. (2014, October). Wealth inequality in the United States since 1913: Evidence from capitalized income tax data (Working Paper No. 20625). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w20625
34.
WatsonD.ClarkL. A.TellegenA. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
35.
WilkinsonR. G.PickettK. E. (2009). Income inequality and social dysfunction. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 493–511.
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.
