Attitudes Toward Economic Inequality: The Illusory Agreement
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Previous research has demonstrated that participants use factual beliefs as an anchor for their ideals.
“Previous research has demonstrated that participants use factual beliefs as an anchor for their ideals (Pedersen and Mutz, 2019).”
From Factual belief polarization between Democrats and Republicans: source or epiphenomenon of ideological and affective polarization? (2024) · cites this paper as Pedersen and Mutz, 2019
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
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810 · see citing works
Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpr057 · Cited by 4,008 · see citing works
Building a Better America—One Wealth Quintile at a Time
Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. (2011) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691610393524 · Cited by 1,119 · see citing works
How People Organize the Political World: A Schematic Model
Conover, P. J., & Feldman, S. (1984) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/2110789 · Cited by 378 · see citing works
How Much (More) Should CEOs Make? A Universal Desire for More Equal Pay
Kiatpongsan, S., & Norton, M. I. (2014) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691614549773 · Cited by 337 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 28
- Ariely, Dan, George Loewenstein, and Drazen Prelec. 2003. '"Coherent Arbitrariness": Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences'. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 118:73-106.
- Choi, James J., Emily Haisley, Jennifer Kurkoski, and Cade Massey. 2012. Small Cues Change Savings Choices. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
- Conover, Pamela Johnston, and Stanley Feldman. 1981. 'The Origins and Meaning of Liberal/ Conservative Self-Identifications'. American Journal of Political Science 25:617-45.
- Cox, Nicholas J. 2008. 'Speaking Stata: Correlation With Confidence, or Fisher's z Revisited'. Stata Journal 8:413-39.
- Critcher, Clayton R., and Thomas Gilovich. 2008. 'Incidental Environmental Anchors'. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 21:241-51.
- 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.
- Denes-Raj, Veronika, Seymour Epstein, and Jonathan Cole. 1995. 'The Generality of the Ratio-Bias Phenomenon'. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21:1083-92.
- Feldman, Stanley. 1988. 'Structure and Consistency in Public Opinion: The Role of Core Beliefs and Values'. American Journal of Political Science 32:416-40.
- Furnham, Adrian, and Hua Chu Boo. 2011. 'A Literature Review of the Anchoring Effect'. The Journal of Socio-Economics 40:35-42.
- International Social Survey Programme (ISSP). 2012. 'Social Inequality IV, GESIS Variable Report 2012/ 307'. Cologne: GESIS. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.11506. · DOI
- Kelley, Jonathan, and Mariah D. R. Evans. 1993. 'The Legitimation of Inequality: Occupational Earnings in Nine Nations'. American Journal of Sociology 22:75-125.
- 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.
- Luttig, Matthew. 2013. 'The Structure of Inequality and Americans' Attitudes Toward Redistribution'. Public Opinion Quarterly 77:811-21.
- McCall, Leslie. 2013. The Undeserving Rich: American Beliefs about Inequality, Opportunity, and Redistribution. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
- McClosky, Herbert, and John Zaller. 1984. The American Ethos: Public Attitudes Toward Capitalism and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- 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.
- Osberg, Lars, and Timothy Smeeding. 2006. '"Fair" Inequality? Attitudes Toward Pay Differentials: The United States in Comparative Perspective'. American Sociological Review 71:450-73.
- 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.
- Piketty, Thomas. 2014. Capital in the 21st Century. Cambridge: Harvard University.
- 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.
- Piketty, Thomas, and Emmanuel Saez. 2006. The Evolution of Top Incomes: A Historical and Interna- tional Perspective. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
- Plous, Scott. 1989. 'Thinking the Unthinkable: The Effects of Anchoring on Likelihood Estimates of Nuclear War1'. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 19:67-91.
- 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.
- 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.
- Strack, Fritz, and Thomas Mussweiler. 1997. 'Explaining the Enigmatic Anchoring Effect: Mechanisms of Selective Accessibility'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73:437-46.
- Svallfors, Stefan. 1993. 'Dimensions of Inequality: A Comparison of Attitudes in Sweden and Britain'. European Sociological Review 9:267-87.
- Svallfors, Stefan. 1997. 'Words of Welfare and Attitudes to Redistribution: A Comparison of Eight Western Nations'. European Sociological Review 13:283-304.
- 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
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rekker, R. (2024) · Frontiers in Political Science · doi:10.3389/fpos.2024.1254826 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
- 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
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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