Cited by 54Income, Poverty, and InequalitySocial Policy and Reform StudiesElectoral Systems and Political Participation

Attitudes Toward Economic Inequality: The Illusory Agreement

Open access
Pedersen, Rasmus T., Mutz, Diana C.·2019·Political Science Research and Methods

Abstract

Recent studies of attitudes toward economic inequality suggest that most people around the world prefer very low levels of inequality, despite well-known trends toward greater inequality within many countries. Even within countries, people across the political spectrum are said to be in remarkable agreement about the ideal level of economic inequality. Using survey data from 40 countries and a novel survey experiment in the United States, we show that this apparent agreement is illusory. When relying on a widely used cross-national survey measure of Ideal Pay Ratios, preferred levels of inequality are heavily influenced by two well-documented sources of perceptual distortion: the anchoring effect and ratio bias. These effects are substantial and many times larger than the influence of fundamental political predispositions. As a result, these cross-national survey measures tapping preferences regarding economic inequality produce misleading conclusions about desired levels of inequality.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/psrm.2018.18

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. Ariely, Dan, George Loewenstein, and Drazen Prelec. 2003. '"Coherent Arbitrariness": Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences'. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 118:73-106.
  2. Choi, James J., Emily Haisley, Jennifer Kurkoski, and Cade Massey. 2012. Small Cues Change Savings Choices. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
  3. Conover, Pamela Johnston, and Stanley Feldman. 1981. 'The Origins and Meaning of Liberal/ Conservative Self-Identifications'. American Journal of Political Science 25:617-45.
  4. Cox, Nicholas J. 2008. 'Speaking Stata: Correlation With Confidence, or Fisher's z Revisited'. Stata Journal 8:413-39.
  5. Critcher, Clayton R., and Thomas Gilovich. 2008. 'Incidental Environmental Anchors'. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 21:241-51.
  6. Denes-Raj, Veronika, and Seymour Epstein. 1994. 'Conflict Between Intuitive and Rational Processing: When People Behave Against Their Better Judgment'. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology 66:819-29.
  7. Denes-Raj, Veronika, Seymour Epstein, and Jonathan Cole. 1995. 'The Generality of the Ratio-Bias Phenomenon'. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21:1083-92.
  8. Feldman, Stanley. 1988. 'Structure and Consistency in Public Opinion: The Role of Core Beliefs and Values'. American Journal of Political Science 32:416-40.
  9. Furnham, Adrian, and Hua Chu Boo. 2011. 'A Literature Review of the Anchoring Effect'. The Journal of Socio-Economics 40:35-42.
  10. International Social Survey Programme (ISSP). 2012. 'Social Inequality IV, GESIS Variable Report 2012/ 307'. Cologne: GESIS. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.11506. · DOI
  11. Kelley, Jonathan, and Mariah D. R. Evans. 1993. 'The Legitimation of Inequality: Occupational Earnings in Nine Nations'. American Journal of Sociology 22:75-125.
  12. Kirkpatrick, Lee A., and Seymour Epstein. 1992. 'Cognitive-Experiential Self-Theory and Subjective Probability: Further Evidence for Two Conceptual Systems'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63:534-44.
  13. Luttig, Matthew. 2013. 'The Structure of Inequality and Americans' Attitudes Toward Redistribution'. Public Opinion Quarterly 77:811-21.
  14. McCall, Leslie. 2013. The Undeserving Rich: American Beliefs about Inequality, Opportunity, and Redistribution. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  15. McClosky, Herbert, and John Zaller. 1984. The American Ethos: Public Attitudes Toward Capitalism and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  16. Okan, Yasmina, Rocio Garcia-Retamero Edward T. Cokely, and Antonio Maldonado. 2012. 'Individual Differences in Graph Literacy: Overcoming Denominator Neglect in Risk Comprehension'. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 25:390-401.
  17. Osberg, Lars, and Timothy Smeeding. 2006. '"Fair" Inequality? Attitudes Toward Pay Differentials: The United States in Comparative Perspective'. American Sociological Review 71:450-73.
  18. Pandelaere, Mario, Barbara Briers, and Christophe Lembregts. 2011. 'How to Make a 29% Increase Look Bigger: The Unit Effect in Option Comparisons'. Journal of Consumer Research 38:308-22.
  19. Piketty, Thomas. 2014. Capital in the 21st Century. Cambridge: Harvard University.
  20. Piketty, Thomas, and Emmanuel Saez. 2001. Income Inequality in the United States, 1913-1998 (Series Updated to 2000 available). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
  21. Piketty, Thomas, and Emmanuel Saez. 2006. The Evolution of Top Incomes: A Historical and Interna- tional Perspective. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
  22. Plous, Scott. 1989. 'Thinking the Unthinkable: The Effects of Anchoring on Likelihood Estimates of Nuclear War1'. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 19:67-91.
  23. Shaw, Greg M., and Laura Gaffey. 2012. 'Trends: American Public Opinion on Economic Inequality, Taxes, and Mobility: 1990-2011'. Public Opinion Quarterly 76:576-96.
  24. Simmons, Joseph P., Robyn A. LeBoeuf, and Leif D. Nelson. 2010. 'The Effect of Accuracy Motivation on Anchoring and Adjustment: Do People Adjust from Provided Anchors?'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99:917-32.
  25. Strack, Fritz, and Thomas Mussweiler. 1997. 'Explaining the Enigmatic Anchoring Effect: Mechanisms of Selective Accessibility'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73:437-46.
  26. Svallfors, Stefan. 1993. 'Dimensions of Inequality: A Comparison of Attitudes in Sweden and Britain'. European Sociological Review 9:267-87.
  27. Svallfors, Stefan. 1997. 'Words of Welfare and Attitudes to Redistribution: A Comparison of Eight Western Nations'. European Sociological Review 13:283-304.
  28. Trump, Kris-Stella. 2014. 'Income Inequality Influences Perceptions of Legitimate Income Differences'. British Journal of Political Science (First View), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123416000326. · DOI · Paper page

Authors
Pedersen, R. T., & Mutz, D. C.
Affiliations
VIVE - The Danish Center for Social Science Research (DK)
Corresponding author
Mutz, Diana C.
Venue
Political Science Research and Methods
Published
2018-05-21
Volume
7
Issue
04
Pages
835-851
ISSN
  • 2049-8470 (ISSN-L)
  • 2049-8489
OpenAlex
W2803219270
Cited by
54
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
7.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Political Science Research and Methods (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Cambridge
  • Danmarks Frie Forskningsfond (12-127749)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Income, Poverty, and Inequality
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Social Policy and Reform Studies
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
Keywords
economic inequality, attitudes toward inequality, anchoring effect, ratio bias, perceptual distortion, political ideology, survey experiment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review