IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bjposi/v48y2018i04p929-952_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Income Inequality Influences Perceptions of Legitimate Income Differences

Author

Listed:
  • Trump, Kris-Stella

Abstract

This article argues that public opinion regarding the legitimacy of income differences is influenced by actual income inequality. When income differences are perceived to be high, the public thinks of larger income inequality as legitimate. The phenomenon is explained by the system justification motivation and other psychological processes that favor existing social arrangements. Three experiments show that personal experiences of inequality as well as information regarding national-level income inequality can affect which income differences are thought of as legitimate. A fourth experiment shows that the system justification motivation is a cause of this effect. These results can provide an empirical basis for future studies to assume that the public reacts to inequality with adapted expectations, not increased demands for redistribution.

Suggested Citation

  • Trump, Kris-Stella, 2018. "Income Inequality Influences Perceptions of Legitimate Income Differences," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(4), pages 929-952, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:48:y:2018:i:04:p:929-952_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007123416000326/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Knell, Markus & Stix, Helmut, 2020. "Perceptions of inequality," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    2. Bellani, Luna & Bertogg, Ariane & Kulic, Nevena & Strauß, Susanne, 2022. "How information about inequality impacts support for school closure policies: Evidence from the pandemic," Working Papers 11, University of Konstanz, Cluster of Excellence "The Politics of Inequality. Perceptions, Participation and Policies".
    3. Kathleen E. Powers & Joshua D. Kertzer & Deborah J. Brooks & Stephen G. Brooks, 2022. "What’s Fair in International Politics? Equity, Equality, and Foreign Policy Attitudes," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 66(2), pages 217-245, February.
    4. Pritchard, John P. & Zanchetta, Anna & Martens, Karel, 2022. "A new index to assess the situation of subgroups, with an application to public transport disadvantage in US metropolitan areas," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 86-100.
    5. Brun, Martín & D'Ambrosio, Conchita & Ferrer-i-Carbonell, Ada & Ramos, Xavier, 2023. "After You. Cognition and Health-Distribution Preferences," IZA Discussion Papers 16126, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. de Bresser, Jochem & Knoef, Marike, 2022. "Eliciting preferences for income redistribution: A new survey item," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    7. Wright, Reilly & Aldama, Abraham, 2023. "Not all luck is created equal: Sources of income inequality and willingness to redistribute," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    8. Maurice Dunaiski & Janne Tukiainen, 2023. "Does income transparency affect support for redistribution? Evidence from Finland's tax day," Discussion Papers 159, Aboa Centre for Economics.
    9. Leo Ahrens, 2020. "Unfair Inequality and the Demand for Redistribution," LIS Working papers 771, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    10. de Bresser, Jochem & Knoef, Marike, 2021. "Preferences for Income Redistribution : A New Survey Item and Experimental Evidence," Discussion Paper 2021-035, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    11. Hoy, Christopher & Mager, Franziska, 2021. "American exceptionalism? Differences in the elasticity of preferences for redistribution between the United States and Western Europe," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 518-540.
    12. Marino, Maria & Iacono, Roberto & Mollerstrom, Johanna, 2023. "(Mis-)perceptions, information, and political polarization," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 119268, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Andreas Kuhn, 2020. "The individual (mis-)perception of wage inequality: measurement, correlates and implications," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 59(5), pages 2039-2069, November.
    14. Abraham Aldama & Cristina Bicchieri & Jana Freundt & Barbara Mellers & Ellen Peters, 2021. "How perceptions of autonomy relate to beliefs about inequality and fairness," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-16, January.
    15. Summers, Kate & Accominotti, Fabien & Burchardt, Tania & Hecht, Katharina & Mann, Liz & Mijs, Jonathan J.B, 2022. "Deliberating inequality: a blueprint for studying the social formation of beliefs about economic inequality," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 114591, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Kris‐Stella Trump, 2023. "Income inequality is unrelated to perceived inequality and support for redistribution," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 104(2), pages 180-188, March.
    17. Matías Strehl Pessina, 2022. "Sectores de altos ingresos y preferencias por redistribución," Documentos de Trabajo (working papers) 22-15, Instituto de Economía - IECON.
    18. Sarah Perret, 2021. "Why were most wealth taxes abandoned and is this time different?," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(3-4), pages 539-563, September.
    19. de Bresser, Jochem & Knoef, Marike, 2021. "Preferences for Income Redistribution : A New Survey Item and Experimental Evidence," Other publications TiSEM 246972d6-0fdb-4243-9e34-2, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    20. Kuhn, Andreas, 2019. "The subversive nature of inequality: Subjective inequality perceptions and attitudes to social inequality," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 331-344.
    21. Nils D. Steiner, 2022. "Economic inequality, unfairness perceptions, and populist attitudes," Working Papers 2203, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    22. Mu, Ren, 2022. "Perceived relative income, fairness, and the role of government: Evidence from a randomized survey experiment in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:48:y:2018:i:04:p:929-952_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jps .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.