Income Mobility Breeds Tolerance for Income Inequality: Cross-National and Experimental Evidence

Perspectives on Psychological Science

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 373-380

  Shariff, Azim F ^a   Wiwad, Dylan ^b   Aknin, Lara B ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

^b SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Fairness; Income inequality; Income mobility; Social mobility

Indexed keywords

ECONOMICS; HUMAN; INCOME; PERCEPTION; SATISFACTION; SOCIAL CLASS; UNITED STATES;

HUMANS; INCOME; PERSONAL SATISFACTION; SOCIAL MOBILITY; SOCIAL PERCEPTION; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84971384507     PISSN: 17456916     EISSN: 17456924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1745691616635596     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. A.AlesinaE.La Ferrara (2005). Preferences for redistribution in the land of opportunities. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 897–931.
2. R.BenabouE.A.Ok (2001). Social mobility and the demand for redistribution: The POUM hypothesis. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 447–487.
3. C.BjørnskovA.DreherJ.A.FischerJ.SchnellenbachK.Gehring (2013). Inequality and happiness: When perceived social mobility and economic reality do not match. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 91, 75–92.
4. J.L.Brown-IannuzziK.B.LundbergA.C.KayB.K.Payne (2015). Subjective status shapes political preferences. Psychological Science, 26, 15–26. doi:10.1177/0956797614553947
5. F.Buscha (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. M.Corak (2013). Inequality from generation to generation: The United States in comparison. In (Ed.), The economics of inequality, poverty, and discrimination in the 21st century (pp. 107–126). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
7. G.CorneoH.P.Grüner (2002). Individual preferences for political redistribution. Journal of Public Economics, 83, 83–107.
8. G.CrucesR.Perez-TrugliaM.Tetaz (2013). Biased perceptions of income distribution and preferences for redistribution: Evidence from a survey experiment. Journal of Public Economics, 98, 100–112.
9. A.DabalenR.A.ParinduriS.Paul (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. S.DavidaiT.Gilovich (2015). Building a more mobile America—One income quintile at a time. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 60–71.
11. C.M.Fong (2006, February26). Prospective mobility, fairness, and the demand for redistribution. Department of Social and Decision Sciences.
12. D.P.GreenS.E.HaJ.G.Bullock (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. A.F.Hayes (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
14. International Social Survey Programme. (2009). Social Inequality IV [Dataset]. Retrieved from http://zacat.gesis.org/webview/index.jsp?object=http://zacat.gesis.org/obj/fStudy/ZA5400
15. A.Jaime-CastilloI.Marqués-Perales (2014). Beliefs about social fluidity and preferences for social policies. Journal of Social Policy, 43, 615–633.
16. J.T.JostM.R.Banaji (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27.
17. J.T.JostM.R.BanajiB.A.Nosek (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. M.KaradjaJ.MollerstromD.Seim (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. S.KiatpongsanM.I.Norton (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. M.W.KrausJ.J.X.Tan (2015). Americans overestimate social class mobility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 58, 101–111.
21. M.H.KutnerC.J.NachtsheimJ.Neter (2004). Applied linear regression models (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
22. M.J.LernerD.T.Miller (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1030–1051.
23. S.K.McCoyB.Major (2007). Priming meritocracy and the psychological justification of inequality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 341–351.
24. P.MitnikE.CumberworthD.Grusky (2016). Social mobility in a high inequality regime. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 663(1), 140–184.
25. F.Newport (2015). Americans continue to say U.S. wealth distribution is unfair (Gallup Report). Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/182987/americans-continue-say-wealth-distribution-unfair.aspx
26. M.I.NortonD.Ariely (2011). Building a better America—One wealth quintile at a time. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 9–12.
27. OECD. (2011). Divided we stand: Why inequality keeps rising. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/dividedwestandwhyinequalitykeepsrising.htm
28. OECD. (2014a). Focus on top incomes and taxation in OECD countries: Was the crisis a big game changer? Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/OECD2014-FocusOnTopIncomes.pdf
29. OECD. (2014b). Income inequality update—June 2014: Rising inequality: Youth and poor fall further behind. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/social/OECD2014-Income-Inequality-Update.pdf
30. Pew Research Center, U.S. Politics and Policy. (2014). Most see inequality growing, but partisans differ over solutions. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2014/01/23/most-see-inequality-growing-but-partisans-differ-over-solutions/
31. T.PikettyE.Saez (2014, May23). Inequality in the long run. Science, 344, 838–843.
32. H.RainerS.Seidler (2008). Subjective income and employment expectations and preferences for redistribution. Economic Letters, 99, 449–453. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2007.09.011
33. E.SaezG.Zucman (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. D.WatsonL.A.ClarkA.Tellegen (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. R.G.WilkinsonK.E.Pickett (2009). Income inequality and social dysfunction. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 493–511.
36. World Bank. (2009). World Development Indicators database. Retrieved from http://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/GNIPC.pdf
37. World Bank. (2010). World Development Indicators database. Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI