CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,119Income, Poverty, and InequalitySocial Policy and Reform StudiesSocial Issues and Policies

Building a Better America—One Wealth Quintile at a Time

Norton, Michael I., Ariely, Dan·2011·Perspectives on Psychological Science
DOI 10.1177/1745691610393524
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Disagreements about the optimal level of wealth inequality underlie policy debates ranging from taxation to welfare. We attempt to insert the desires of "regular" Americans into these debates, by asking a nationally representative online panel to estimate the current distribution of wealth in the United States and to "build a better America" by constructing distributions with their ideal level of inequality. First, respondents dramatically underestimated the current level of wealth inequality. Second, respondents constructed ideal wealth distributions that were far more equitable than even their erroneously low estimates of the actual distribution. Most important from a policy perspective, we observed a surprising level of consensus: All demographic groups-even those not usually associated with wealth redistribution such as Republicans and the wealthy-desired a more equal distribution of wealth than the status quo.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1745691610393524

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Another study found that Democrats and Republicans are about equally divided in their beliefs and ideals about income inequality.

    “Using the same measure, another study found that both groups are about equally divided in their beliefs and ideals about income inequality (Norton and Ariely, 2011).”

    From Factual belief polarization between Democrats and Republicans: source or epiphenomenon of ideological and affective polarization? (2024) · cites this paper as Norton and Ariely, 2011

  • Respondents' preferred distribution of wealth among citizens was closer to equality than even their own incorrect estimations of the distribution.

    “their preferred distribution of wealth among citizens was closer to equality than even their own incorrect estimations of the distribution”

    From The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings, and behaviour (2018) · cites this paper as Norton and Ariely (2011)

  • Norton and Ariely (2011) found that respondents greatly underestimated the degree of wealth inequality in the United States, believing that the wealthiest 20% owned 59% of the wealth, where the actual figure is 84%.

    “respondents greatly underestimated the degree of wealth inequality in the United States, believing that the wealthiest 20% of the population owned 59% of the wealth, where the actual figure is 84%”

    From The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings, and behaviour (2018) · cites this paper as Norton and Ariely (2011)

  • The preference for a more equal distribution of wealth also held for wealthy respondents and Republican voters, albeit to a lesser extent than poorer and Democrat counterparts.

    “This also held for wealthy respondents and Republican voters – albeit to a lesser extent than their poorer and Democrat counterparts.”

    From The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings, and behaviour (2018) · cites this paper as Norton and Ariely (2011)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 25 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Norton, Michael I.
ORCID
Venue
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2011-01
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
9-12
ISSN
  • 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-6924
DOI
10.1177/1745691610393524
OpenAlex
W2133875312
Cited by
1,119
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 97 · 2023: 79 · 2022: 86 · 2021: 117 · 2020: 124 · 2019: 96 · 2018: 85 · 2017: 64 · 2016: 65 · 2015: 61 · 2014: 45 · 2013: 53 · 2012: 30
FWCI
161.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Safety Research › Social Issues and Policies
Keywords
wealth inequality, public opinion on inequality, partisanship

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