CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 41Social and Intergroup PsychologySocial Power and Status DynamicsExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies

Is higher inequality less legitimate? Depends on How You Frame it!

Bruckmüller, Susanne, Reese, Gerhard, Martiny, Sarah E.·2017·British Journal of Social Psychology
DOI 10.1111/bjso.12202
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Economic inequality is increasing both globally and in various countries around the world, and such inequality has been linked to worsening health, well‐being, and social cohesion. A key predictor for whether people take action against inequality is the extent to which they perceive it as illegitimate. We investigate how two variables jointly predict the legitimization of inequality, namely the perceived magnitude of differences in economic outcomes and the way these differences are described. Two experiments (total N = 190) tested whether framing the same difference in outcomes as an advantaged group having more or as a disadvantaged group having less moderates whether higher inequality is perceived as less legitimate. Participants perceived bigger differences as less legitimate when these differences were framed as the disadvantaged group having less. When they were framed as the advantaged group having more, the perceived magnitude of differences and legitimacy beliefs were unrelated. Together, this research highlights the importance of language for how people perceive and respond to inequality.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bjso.12202

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Relatively subtle variations in framing of inequality, such as whether an advantaged group is described as having more or a disadvantaged group is described as having less, influence perceptions of the legitimacy of these differences.

    “relatively subtle variations in such framing, such as whether an advantaged group is described as having more or a disadvantaged group is described as having less, influence perceptions of the legitimacy of these differences”

    From The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings, and behaviour (2018) · cites this paper as Bruckmüller, Reese, and Martiny (2017)

  • Larger differences between groups were evaluated as less legitimate when the disadvantaged group was described as having less.

    “larger differences between groups were evaluated as less legitimate when the disadvantaged group was described as having less.”

    From The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings, and behaviour (2018) · cites this paper as Bruckmüller, Reese, and Martiny (2017)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bruckmüller, S., Reese, G., & Martiny, S. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Koblenz and Landau (DE)
  • UiT The Arctic University of Norway (NO)
Corresponding author
Bruckmüller, Susanne
ORCID
Venue
British Journal of Social Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-05-25
Volume
56
Issue
4
Pages
766-781
ISSN
  • 0144-6665 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8309
DOI
10.1111/bjso.12202
OpenAlex
W2619510374
Cited by
38
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3
FWCI
5.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • British Journal of Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (RO4826/1‐1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Keywords
economic inequality, framing effects, language and perception, public attitudes toward inequality, social justice
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Income, Male, Social Perception, Socioeconomic Factors, Vulnerable Populations, Young Adult

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