CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 226Intergenerational and Educational Inequality StudiesIncome, Poverty, and InequalitySocial Policy and Reform Studies

Exposure to rising inequality shapes Americans' opportunity beliefs and policy support

Open access
McCall, Leslie, Burk, Derek, Laperrière, Marie, Richeson, Jennifer A.·2017·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1706253114PMC PMC5594671
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Significance: Although rising economic inequality in the United States has alarmed many, research across the social sciences repeatedly concludes that Americans are largely unconcerned about it. We argue that this conclusion may be premature. Here, we present the results of three experiments that test a different perspective—the opportunity model of beliefs about inequality. Tempering the conclusions of past work, the findings suggest that perceptions of rising economic inequality spark skepticism about the existence of economic opportunity in society that, in turn, may motivate support for equity-enhancing policies. Hence, this work calls for new theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of rising economic inequality, especially those that bridge disciplinary boundaries, as well as the largely separate experimental and correlational literatures.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.1706253114

Cites

46 of 46 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?

  • In another experiment, participants were more likely to express that it is the government's responsibility to reduce inequality when they had been informed about the income distribution and the rising levels of inequality in the US.

    “In another experiment, participants were more likely to express that it is the government's responsibility to reduce inequality when they had been informed about the income distribution and the rising levels of inequality in the US (McCall et al., 2017).”

    From Factual belief polarization between Democrats and Republicans: source or epiphenomenon of ideological and affective polarization? (2024) · cites this paper as McCall et al., 2017

  • Exposing American participants to information about rising economic inequality, compared to control information, led to stronger perceptions that economic success is due to structural factors rather than individual effort.

    “exposing American participants to information about the rising economic inequality, compared to control information, led to stronger perceptions that economic success is due to structural factors rather than individual effort.”

    From The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings, and behaviour (2018) · cites this paper as McCall, Burk, Laperrière, and Richeson (2017)

  • In the largest of three studies, involving a representative sample of American adults, information about rising inequality led to greater endorsement of policies that could be implemented by government and by business to reduce inequality.

    “In the largest of the three studies, involving a representative sample of American adults, it was also found that information about rising inequality led to greater endorsement of policies that could be implemented by government and by business to reduce inequality.”

    From The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings, and behaviour (2018) · cites this paper as McCall, Burk, Laperrière, and Richeson (2017)

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
McCall, L., Burk, D., Laperrière, M., & Richeson, J. A.
Affiliations
  • The Graduate Center, CUNY (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2017-08-22
Volume
114
Issue
36
Pages
9593-9598
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.1706253114
PMC
PMC5594671
OpenAlex
W2747618620
Cited by
226
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 9
FWCI
35.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Russell Sage Foundation (83-13-05)
  • National Science Foundation (TESS)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Intergenerational and Educational Inequality Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Income, Poverty, and Inequality
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Social Policy and Reform Studies
Keywords
economic inequality, structural inequality, individual effort, policy support, inequality reduction, public skepticism, information exposure, social mobility, United States
MeSH terms
Adult, Humans, Income, Politics, Public Policy, Surveys and Questionnaires, Socioeconomic Factors, United States, Models, Economic

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