The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Building a Better America—One Wealth Quintile at a Time
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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 the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“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)
In the citing paper
“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)
In the citing paper
“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)
Citations
Cites
A Theory of Justice: Original Edition
Rawls, J. (1971) · doi:10.4159/9780674042605 · Cited by 9,496
Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests
Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355302760193904 · Cited by 3,970
Polarized America: the dance of ideology and unequal riches
(2007) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-3551 · Cited by 1,793
Alesina, A., & Angeletos, G.-M. (2005) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/0002828054825655 · Cited by 1,521
The spirit level: why greater equality makes societies stronger
(2010) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.47-5973 · Cited by 1,387
Social Mobility and Redistributive Politics
Piketty, T. (1995) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/2946692 · Cited by 1,337
Social Mobility and the Demand for Redistribution: The Poum Hypothesis
Bénabou, R., & Ok, E. A. (2001) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/00335530151144078 · Cited by 1,227
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
Beliefs About Inequality: American's Views of What Is and What Ought To Be
Alwin, D. F., Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, E. R. (1987) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2071506 · Cited by 960
Inequality in America: what role for human capital policies?
(2004) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.41-6647 · Cited by 740
Homer Gets a Tax Cut: Inequality and Public Policy in the American Mind
Bartels, L. M. (2005) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s1537592705050036 · Cited by 620
Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals?
Napier, J. L., & Jost, J. T. (2008) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02124.x · Cited by 597
The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger
Woolf, S. H. (2010) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2010.07.002 · Cited by 523
Beliefs about Inequality: Americans' Views of What Is and What Ought to Be
Ohsfeldt, R. L., Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, E. R. (1987) · Southern Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/1059348 · Cited by 472
Fleishman, J. A., Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, E. R. (1988) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2579458 · Cited by 451
“Fair” Inequality? Attitudes toward Pay Differentials: The United States in Comparative Perspective
Osberg, L. S., & Smeeding, T. M. (2006) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/000312240607100305 · Cited by 438
Keister, L. A. (2000) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511625503 · Cited by 398
The Correlation of Wealth across Generations
Charles, K. K., & Hurst, E. (2003) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/378526 · Cited by 308
Keister, L. A. (2000) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 274
Top heavy : the increasing inequality of wealth in America and what can be done about it
Wolff, E. N., & Fund, T. C. (1996) · Cited by 181
From wealth to well-being? Money matters, but less than people think
Aknin, L. B., Norton, M. I., & Dunn, E. W. (2009) · The Journal of Positive Psychology · doi:10.1080/17439760903271421 · Cited by 168
Self-citationInequality, Too Much of a Good Thing
Krueger, A. B. (2018) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780429494468-4 · Cited by 119
Keister, L. A. (2005) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511807589 · Cited by 91
The global pattern of household wealth
Davies, J., Sandström, S., Shorrocks, A. F., & Wolff, E. N. (2009) · Journal of International Development · doi:10.1002/jid.1648 · Cited by 39
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: How the rich are different from the poor.
Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., Mendoza-Denton, R., Rheinschmidt, M. L., & Keltner, D. (2012) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0028756 · Cited by 1,397
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
Self-citationIntergenerational Mobility and Preferences for Redistribution
Alesina, A., Stantcheva, S., & Teso, E. (2018) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20162015 · Cited by 992
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
Cruces, G., Truglia, R. N. P., & Tetaz, M. (2012) · Journal of Public Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2012.10.009 · Cited by 824
Metadata
- Authors
- Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Duke University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Norton, Michael I.
- 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
- 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
- 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 › Sociology and Political Science › 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