The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Exposure to rising inequality shapes Americans' opportunity beliefs and policy support
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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
Verification
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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.
Citations
Cites
(2013) · Cited by 44,563
Unequal democracy: the political economy of the new gilded age
(2008) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.46-1746 · Cited by 2,314
Income Inequality, Equality of Opportunity, and Intergenerational Mobility
Corak, M. (2013) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.27.3.79 · Cited by 1,898
Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe
Alesina, A., & Glaeser, E. L. (2004) · doi:10.1093/0199267669.001.0001 · Cited by 1,500
Social preferences, self-interest, and the demand for redistribution
Fong, C. M. (2001) · Journal of Public Economics · doi:10.1016/s0047-2727(00)00141-9 · Cited by 1,120
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
How Elastic Are Preferences for Redistribution? Evidence from Randomized Survey Experiments
Kuziemko, I., Norton, M. I., Saez, E., & Stantcheva, S. (2015) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20130360 · Cited by 1,109
Belief in a Just World and Redistributive Politics
Bénabou, R., & Jean Tirole, Z. (2006) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/qjec.2006.121.2.699 · Cited by 1,065
Antecedents and Consequences of System-Justifying Ideologies
Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2005) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00377.x · Cited by 1,063
American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword.
Manza, J., & Lipset, S. M. (1996) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2077274 · Cited by 1,009
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- ; Congressional Budget Office Trend in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007 (The Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, 2011).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings, and behaviour
Manstead, A. S. R. (2018) · British Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjso.12251 · Cited by 831
Jost, J. T. (2019) · British Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjso.12297 · Cited by 567
The Misperception of Racial Economic Inequality
Kraus, M. W., Onyeador, I. N., Daumeyer, N. M., Rucker, J. M., & Richeson, J. A. (2019) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691619863049 · Cited by 266
“…reminders about how the current economic system is unjust in ways that unfairly disadvantage racial minorities because they violate beliefs that the opportunity structure in society is fair are likely to increase support for redistributive policies (Day & Fiske, 2017; McCall et al., 2017).”
BackgroundSelf-citationFrom ‘having’ to ‘being’: self‐worth and the current crisis of American society
Lamont, M. (2019) · British Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1111/1468-4446.12667 · Cited by 227
Davidai, S. (2018) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2018.07.012 · Cited by 190
Metadata
- Authors
- McCall, L., Burk, D., Laperrière, M., & Richeson, J. A.
- Affiliations
- The Graduate Center, CUNY (US)
- Northwestern University (US)
- 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
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- 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
