nach oben

Social Justice Research

Erschienen in:

05.10.2015

Legitimacy Moderates the Relation Between Perceived and Ideal Economic Inequalities

verfasst von: Guillermo B. Willis, Rosa Rodríguez-Bailón, Lucía López-Rodríguez, Efraín García-Sánchez

Erschienen in: Social Justice Research | Ausgabe 4/2015

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

In this paper we examined the joint effects of perceived economic inequality and legitimacy on ideal economic inequality. We hypothesized that only for those individuals who legitimize inequality, perceived inequality will be positively related to ideal inequality. Conversely, for individuals that do not legitimize inequality, a weaker relation between these variables will be observed. We tested these ideas in two studies. In Study 1, we measured perceived and ideal inequalities (i.e., pay gap) and individual differences in the legitimization of inequality. In Study 2, we measured perceived and ideal inequalities using a novel abacus procedure in which participants had to allocate resources to the different income quintiles, and we then manipulated the legitimacy (vs. illegitimacy) of economic inequality. According to our hypothesis, in both studies we found that when individuals legitimize inequality (vs. when they do not), the relation between perceived and ideal economic inequalities tends to be stronger.

Vorheriger Artikel Anxiety-Based Personal Values and Perceived Organizational Justice

Nächster Artikel Tipping the Scales of Justice: The Influence of Victimization on Belief in a Just World

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Although more participants agreed to participate in the study, only 275 answered to the three main variables of our study (i.e., perceived gap, ideal gap, and opposition to equality). Given that our goal was to examine the relation among these three variables, only these 275 participants are described in this section.

Forty-three participants did the study at the public library, whereas 232 did it at the bus station. There were no significant differences between these two groups in any of the measured variables (ts < 1.3; n.s.).

This effect size has been calculated considering dependent t test, using the following Web site: http://www.psychometrica.de/effect_size.html.

Sixteen cases were removed from the analyses because these participants answered the abacus measure incorrectly. One participant was considered an outlier (with more than 3 SD over the mean in the ideal inequality abacus measure) and was also skipped in the analyses.

As previously reported, almost a quarter of participants did not understand the instructions. However, in a different study, conducted within a different research line, we found that changing the instructions given to participants made it so that only 2 out of 44 (4.45 %) participants performed the task incorrectly. In the new instructions, we first asked participants to build the most egalitarian society and the most unequal society possible. The experimenter helped those who did not follow the instructions. Then participants were asked to build their perceived and ideal societies, as in Study 2.

The pseudo-Gini index can be computed using the following calculator: economics-files.pomona.edu/cconrad/GiniA.xls. The formula to calculate the Gini coefficient is: \({\text{Gini}} = \left( {\frac{2}{{\mu \cdot n^{2} }} \cdot \sum\nolimits_{k = 1}^{n} {k \cdot W_{k} } } \right) - \frac{n + 1}{n}\). Taking into account that μ is the arithmetic mean of resources (green beads) assigned among the quintiles of the society (the five abacus wooden posts); W _k is the amount of resources assigned to each quintile, and it is ranked in ascending order (e.g., k = 1, 2, 3, …, n); and n is the total number of individuals among which the resources are distributed. Considering that we used a fictional society divided into quintiles, n = 5.

Alesina, A., Di Tella, R., & MacCulloch, R. (2004). Inequality and happiness: Are Europeans and Americans different? Journal of Public Economics, 88, 2009–2042. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2003.07.006.CrossRef

Berger, J., Fisek, M. H., Norman, R. Z., & Wagner, D. G. (1998). Formation of reward expectations in status situations. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch (Eds.), Status, power, and legitimacy (pp. 121–153). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cárdenas, M., Meza, P., Lagues, K., & Yañez, S. (2010). Adaptación y validación de la escala de orientación a la dominancia Social (SDO) en una muestra chilena. Universitas Psychologica, 9, 161–168.

Castillo, J. C. (2011). Legitimacy of inequality in a highly unequal context: Evidence from the Chilean case. Social Justice Research, 24, 314–340. doi:10.1007/s11211-011-0144-5.CrossRef

CES. (2013). Informe Distribución de la renta en España: desigualdad, cambios estructurales y ciclos (No. 3). Retrieved from http://www.ces.es/documents/10180/526241/Inf0313.pdf.

Delhey, J., & Dragolov, G. (2013). Why inequality makes Europeans less happy: The role of distrust, status anxiety, and perceived conflict. European Sociological Review, 30, 525–535. doi:10.1093/esr/jct033.

Eidelman, S., & Crandall, C. S. (2009). A psychological advantage for the status quo. In J. T. Jost, A. C. Kay, & H. Thorisdottir (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 85–106). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Eidelman, S., & Crandall, C. S. (2012). Bias in favor of the status quo. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6, 270–281. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00427.x.CrossRef

EUROSTAT. (2014). Inequality of income distribution. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/graph.do?tab=graph&plugin=1&pcode=tsdsc260&language=en&toolbox=data.

Furnham, A. (1984). The protestant work ethic: A review of the psychological literature. European Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 87–104. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420140108.CrossRef

Gijsberts, M. (2002). The legitimation of income inequality in state-socialist and market societies. Acta Sociologica, 45, 269–285. doi:10.1080/000169902762022860.CrossRef

Hadler, M. (2005). Why do people accept different income ratios? A multi-level comparison of thirty countries. Acta Sociologica, 48, 131–154. doi:10.1177/0001699305053768.CrossRef

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.

Jencks, C. (2002). Does inequality matter? Daedalus, 131, 49–64.

Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x.CrossRef

Jost, J. T., Blount, S., Pfeffer, J., & Hunyady, G. (2003). Fair market ideology: Its cognitive-motivational underpinnings. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 53–91. doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(03)25002-4.CrossRef

Jost, J. T., & Thompson, E. P. (2000). Group-based dominance and opposition to equality as independent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism, and social policy attitudes among African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 209–232. doi:10.1006/jesp.1999.1403.CrossRef

Jost, J. T., & van der Toorn, J. (2012). System justification theory. In P. A. M. van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 313–343). London: Sage.CrossRef

Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B. P., Lochner, K., & Prothrow-Stith, D. (1997). Social capital, income inequality, and mortality. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 1491–1498. doi:10.2105/AJPH.87.9.1491.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Kay, A. C., & Friesen, J. (2011). On social stability and social change: Understanding when system justification does and does not occur. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 360–364. doi:10.1177/0963721411422059.CrossRef

Kay, A. C., Gaucher, D., Peach, J. M., Laurin, K., Friesen, J., Zanna, M. P., et al. (2009). Inequality, discrimination, and the power of the status quo: Direct evidence for a motivation to see the way things are as the way they should be. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 421–434. doi:10.1037/a0015997.CrossRefPubMed

Kelley, J., & Evans, M. D. (1993). The legitimation of inequality: Occupational earnings in nine nations. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 75–125. doi:10.1086/230230.CrossRef

Kennedy, B. P., Kawachi, I., Prothrow-Stith, D., Lochner, K., & Gupta, V. (1998). Social capital, income inequality, and firearm violent crime. Social Science and Medicine, 47, 7–17.CrossRefPubMed

Kiatpongsan, S., & Norton, M. I. (2014). How much (more) should CEOs make? A universal desire for more equal pay. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 587–593. doi:10.1177/1745691614549773.CrossRefPubMed

Neckerman, K. M., & Torche, F. (2007). Inequality: Causes and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 335–357. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131755.CrossRef

Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. (2011). Building a better america-one wealth quintile at a time. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 9–12. doi:10.1177/1745691610393524.CrossRefPubMed

Norton, M. I., Neal, D. T., Govan, C. L., Ariely, D., & Holland, E. (2014). The not-so-common-wealth of Australia: Evidence for a cross-cultural desire for a more equal distribution of wealth. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 14, 339–351. doi:10.1111/asap.12058.CrossRef

Oishi, S., Kesebir, S., & Diener, E. (2011). Income inequality and happiness. Psychological Science, 22, 1095–1100. doi:10.1177/0956797611417262.CrossRefPubMed

Osberg, L., & Smeeding, T. (2006). “Fair” inequality? Attitudes toward pay differentials: The United States in comparative perspective. American Sociological Review, 71, 450–473. doi:10.1177/000312240607100305.CrossRef

Pickett, K., & Wilkinson, R. (2010). The spirit level: Why greater equality makes societies stronger. USA: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741.CrossRef

Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7–59. doi:10.1007/BF00055564.CrossRef

Shepelak, N. J., & Alwin, D. F. (1986). Beliefs about inequality and perceptions of distributive justice. American Sociological Review, 51, 30–46. doi:10.2307/2095476.CrossRef

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Son Hing, L. S., Bobocel, D. R., Zanna, M. P., Garcia, D. M., Gee, S. S., & Orazietti, K. (2011). The merit of meritocracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 433–450. doi:10.1037/a0024618.CrossRefPubMed

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. Science, 185, 1124–1131. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.CrossRefPubMed

Uslaner, E. M., & Brown, M. (2005). Inequality, trust, and civic engagement. American Politics Research, 33, 868–894. doi:10.1177/1532673X04271903.CrossRef

Verwiebe, R., & Wegener, B. (2000). Social inequality and the perceived income justice gap. Social Justice Research, 13, 123–149. doi:10.1023/A:1007545823040.CrossRef

Wegener, B. (1990). Equity, relative deprivation, and the value consensus paradox. Social Justice Research, 4, 65–86. doi:10.1007/BF01048536.CrossRef

Titel: Legitimacy Moderates the Relation Between Perceived and Ideal Economic Inequalities
verfasst von: Guillermo B. Willis
Rosa Rodríguez-Bailón
Lucía López-Rodríguez
Efraín García-Sánchez
Publikationsdatum: 05.10.2015
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Social Justice Research / Ausgabe 4/2015
Print ISSN: 0885-7466
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-6725
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-015-0253-7

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2015

Tipping the Scales of Justice: The Influence of Victimization on Belief in a Just World

Anxiety-Based Personal Values and Perceived Organizational Justice

A New Look at Individual Differences in Perceptions of Unfairness: The Theory of Maximally Unfair Allocations in Multiparty Situations

Using Factorial Surveys to Study Justice Perceptions: Five Methodological Problems of Attitudinal Justice Research

Thinking, Saying, Doing in the World of Distributive Justice

Social Identification Predicts Desires and Expectations for Voice

Premium Partner