People’s desired levels of inequality are informed by the levels of inequality they perceive to exist. Perceived economic inequality is used as a reference point in determining people’s ideal level of inequality. However, recent research has suggested that the strength of this relationship depends on people’s endorsement of system-justifying beliefs. The current article extends this body of research by replicating these findings across 41 countries (N = 42,078), showing the impact of system-justifying beliefs at both the individual and the societal levels. We conducted a multilevel analysis and found that the higher the endorsement of equality of opportunity beliefs—both at the individual and the societal levels—and meritocratic beliefs—at the individual level—the stronger the relationship between perceived and ideal economic inequality. These findings are in support of a motivated account of the perceived legitimacy of economic inequality.
AdlerN. E.EpelE. S.CastellazzoG.IckovicsJ. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, White women. Health Psychology, 19, 586–592. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.19.6.586
2.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
3.
Bar-TalD. (2000). Shared beliefs in a society: Social psychological analysis. Shared beliefs in a society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4.
Bar-TalD. (2007). Sociopsychological foundations of intractable conflicts. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 1430–1453. doi:10.1177/0002764207302462
5.
Bar-TalD.RavivA.RavivA.Dgani-HirshA. (2009). The influence of the ethos of conflict on Israeli Jews’ interpretation of Jewish—Palestinian encounters. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 53, 94–118. doi:10.1177/0022002708325942
6.
Bar-TalD.SharvitK.HalperinE.ZafranA. (2012). Ethos of conflict: The concept and its measurement. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 18, 40–61. doi:10.1037/a0026860
7.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB. M.WalkerS. C. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01
8.
BitektineA. (2011). Toward a theory of social judgments of organisations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. Academy of Management Review, 36, 151–179. doi:10.5465/amr.2009.0382
9.
BitektineA.HaackP. (2015). The “macro” and the “micro” of legitimacy: Toward a multilevel theory of the legitimacy process. Academy of Management Review, 40, 49–75. doi:10.5465/amr.2013.0318
10.
Brown-IannuzziJ. L.LundbergK. B.McKeeS. (2017). The politics of socioeconomic status: How socioeconomic status may influence political attitudes and engagement. Current Opinion in Psychology, 18, 11–14. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.06.018
11.
ButtrickN. R.OishiS. (2017). The psychological consequences of income inequality. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11, e12304. doi:10.1111/spc3.12304
12.
CastilloJ. C. (2011). Legitimacy of inequality in a highly unequal context: Evidence from the Chilean case. Social Justice Research, 24, 314–340. doi:10.1007/s11211-011-0144-5
13.
CastilloJ. C. (2012a). Is inequality becoming just? Changes in public opinion about economic distribution in Chile. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 31, 1–18. doi:10.1111/j.1470-9856.2011.00605.x
14.
CastilloJ. C. (2012b). La legitimidad de las desigualdades salariales. Una aproximación multidimensional [The legitimacy of income inequalities. A multidimensional approach]. Revista Internacional de Sociología, 70, 533–560. doi:10.3989/ris.2010.11.22
CimpianA.SalomonE. (2014). The inherence heuristic: An intuitive means of making sense of the world, and a potential precursor to psychological essentialism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37, 461–480. doi:10.1017/S0140525X13002197
17.
Costa-LopesR.DovidioJ. F.PereiraC. R.JostJ. T. (2013). Social psychological perspectives on the legitimation of social inequality: Past, present and future. European Journal of Social Psychology, 237, 229–237.
18.
DaveyL.BobocelR.Son HingL. S.ZannaM. P. (1999). Preference for the merit principle scale: An indidual difference measure of distributive justice preferences. Social Justice Research, 12, 223–240. doi:10.1023/A
19.
Duru-BellatM.TenretE. (2012). Who’s for meritocracy? Individual and contextual variations in the faith. Comparative Education Review, 56, 223–247. doi:10.1086/661290
20.
FeldmanS. (1999). Economic values and inequality. In RobinsonJ. P.ShaverP. R.WrightsmanL. S. (Eds.), Measures of political attitudes (pp. 159–201). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
21.
HadlerM. (2005). Why do people accept different income ratios? A multi-level comparison of thirty countries. Acta Sociologica, 48, 131–154. doi:10.1177/0001699305053768
22.
HeckR.ThomasS. L. (2015). An introduction to multilevel modeling techniques. MLM and SEM approaches using Mplus (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
23.
HoxJ. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and aplications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
24.
ISSP Research Group (2017). International Social Survey Programme: Social Inequality IV - ISSP 2009. Study No. ZA5400 Data file version 4.0.0. Cologne: Gesis Data Archive. doi: 10.4232/1012777
25.
JassoG. (1978). On the justice of earnings: A new specification of the justice evaluation function. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 1398–1419. Retrieved fromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2778110
26.
JassoG. (2015). Thinking, saying, doing in the world of distributive justice. Social Justice Research, 28, 435–478. doi:10.1007/s11211-015-0257-3
27.
JassoG.TörnblomK. Y.SabbaghC. (2016). Distributive justice. In SabbaghC.SchmittM. (Eds.), Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 201–218). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-3216-0
28.
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.
29.
JostJ. T.GaucherD.SternC. (2015). “The world isn’t fair”: A system justification perspective on social stratification and inequality. In MikulincerM.ShaverP. R. (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Volume 2: Group processes (Vol. 2, pp. 317–340). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/14342-012
30.
JostJ. T.HunyadyO. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 260–265. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00377.x
31.
JostJ. T.SterlingJ. L.LangerM. (2015). From “is” to “ought” and sometimes “not.”Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46, 1287–1291. doi:10.1177/0022022115600268
32.
KayA. C.GaucherD.PeachJ. M.LaurinK.FriesenJ.ZannaM. P.SpencerS. J. (2009). Inequality, discrimination, and the power of the status quo: Direct evidence for a motivation to see the way things are as the way they should be. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 421–434. doi:10.1037/a0015997
33.
KelleyJ.EvansM. D. R. (1993). The legitimation of inequality: Occupational earnings in nine nations. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 75–125. doi:10.1086/230230
34.
KluegelJ. R.SmithE. R. (1986). Beliefs about inequality. Americans’ views of what is and what ought to be. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
35.
KnowlesE. D.LoweryB. S. (2012). Meritocracy, self-concerns, and whites’ denial of racial inequity. Self and Identity, 11, 202–222. doi:10.1080/15298868.2010.542015
36.
KunovichS.SlomczynskiK. M. (2007). Systems of distribution and a sense of equity: A multilevel analysis of meritocratic attitudes in post-industrial societies. European Sociological Review, 23, 649–663. doi:10.1093/esr/jcm026
37.
LarsenC. A. (2016). How three narratives of modernity justify economic inequality. Acta Sociologica, 59, 93–111. doi:10.1177/0001699315622801
38.
LedgerwoodA.MandisodzaA. N.JostJ. T.PohlM. J. (2011). Working for the system: Motivated defense of meritocratic beliefs. Social Cognition, 29, 322–340. doi:10.1521/soco.2011.29.3.322
39.
McCoyS. K.MajorB. (2007). Priming meritocracy and the psychological justification of inequality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 341–351. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.04.009
40.
MijsJ. J. B. (2016). The unfulfillable promise of meritocracy: Three lessons and their implications for justice in education. Social Justice Research, 29, 14–34. doi:10.1007/s11211-014-0228-0
41.
PaternosterR.BrameR.MazerolleP.PiqueroA. R. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36, 859–866.
42.
PedersenR. T.MutzD. C. (2018). Attitudes toward economic inequality: The illusory agreement. Political Science Research and Methods, 6215, 1–17. doi:10.1017/psrm.2018.18
43.
PreacherK. J.ZhangZ.ZyphurM. J. (2016). Multilevel structural equation models for assessing moderation within and across levels of analysis. Psychological Methods, 21, 189–205. doi:10.1037/met0000052
44.
RoemerJ. E. (1998). Equality of opportunity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
45.
RutlandA.CameronL.MilneA.McGeorgeP. (2005). Social norms and self-presentation: Children’s implicit and explicit intergroup attitudes. Child Development, 76, 451–466. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00856.x
46.
SchröderM. (2017). Is income inequality related to tolerance for inequality?Social Justice Research, 30, 23–47. doi:10.1007/s11211-016-0276-8
47.
ShamonH.DülmerH. (2014). Raising the question on ‘who should get what?’ again: On the importance of ideal and existential standards. Social Justice Research, 27, 340–368. doi:10.1007/s11211-014-0217-3
48.
SharvitK. (2014). How conflict begets conflict: Activation of the ethos of conflict in times of distress in a society involved in an intractable conflict. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 252–261. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2014.07.017
49.
ShepelakN. J. (1989). Ideological stratification: American beliefs about economic justice. Social Justice Research, 3, 217–231. doi:10.1007/BF01048450
50.
ShepelakN. J.AlwinD. F. (1986). Beliefs about inequality and perceptions of distributive justice. American Sociological Review, 51, 30–46.
51.
SherifM. (1936). The psychology of social norms. Oxford, England: Harper.
52.
Son HingL. S.BobocelD. R.ZannaM. P.GarciaD. M.GeeS. S.OraziettiK. (2011). The merit of meritocracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 433–450. doi:10.1037/a0024618
53.
SznycerD.Lopez SealM. F.SellA.LimJ.PoratR.ShalviS.…ToobyJ. (2017). Support for redistribution is shaped by compassion, envy, and self-interest, but not a taste for fairness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 114, 8420–8425. doi:10.1073/pnas.1703801114
54.
TrumpK. S. (2017). Income inequality influences perceptions of legitimate income differences. British Journal of Political Science, 1–24. doi:10.1017/S0007123416000326
55.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.
56.
van der ToornJ.JostJ. T. (2014). Twenty years of system justification theory: Introduction to the special issue on “ideology and system justification processes.”Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17, 413–419. doi:10.1177/1368430214531509
57.
WalkerH. A. (2014). Legitimacy and inequality. In McLeodJ. D.LawlerE. J.SchwalbeM. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology of inequality (pp. 353–377). New York, NY; London, England: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9002-4
58.
WilkinsonR. G.PickettK. E. (2017). The enemy between us: The psychological and social costs of inequality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 11–24. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2275
59.
WillisG. B.Rodríguez-BailónR.López-RodríguezL.García-SánchezE. (2015). Legitimacy moderates the relation between perceived and ideal economic inequalities. Social Justice Research, 28, 493–508. doi:10.1007/s11211-015-0253-7
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.
