Search

This research aims to test the effect of perceived economic inequality across different domains on affective polarization toward class-based groups. We pretend to replicate previous findings showing that perceived income inequality is positively linked to affective polarization. However, we like to extend this idea by incorporating perceived inequality in other domains as additional predictors of people’s evaluations of social and political groups. Furthermore, we test how system justifying ideologies moderate such a relationship.

In this study, we seek to replicate previous findings from our research about the positive association between perceived economic inequality and affective polarization toward class-based groups. Furthermore, we argue that affective polarization toward class-based groups can be a predictor of supporting actions to redress inequality, such as support for redistribution and collective actions. However, it is highly likely that these associations will be conditional on people's system-justifying ideologies, such as social dominance orientation and other system-justification beliefs. Therefore, this study seeks to contribute to the literature by examining the side effects of perceived economic inequality in exacerbating both positive and negative feelings toward class-based groups, which in turn might motivate people to engage in strategies aimed at reducing inequality.

The role of socioeconomic status (SES) in voting behavior is a perennial issue in social sciences. Both left-wing and right-wing political parties usually package substantively distinct attitudes in social and economic issues together into ideological and/or partisan bundles (see policy bundling Lee and Roemer 2006). Different strands of literature have identified various ideological, threat-related and identity variables that are strongly linked to SES. However, it is not clear which of these variables have a determining influence on how people from different social strata vote. In this study, we will focus on three relevant and recently growing strands of literature that provide very divergent insights into this topic. The first strand of literature focuses on an ideological mechanism and is based on the status-legitimacy hypothesis which posits that low-status groups are more inclined to justify the status quo as fair and legitimate than high-status groups (Jost et al. 2003). However, more recent evidence has shown that both objective and subjective SES are positively associated with the formation of legitimizing beliefs about the economic system (Brandt et al. 2020). In turn, legitimizing beliefs about inequality are associated with less support for redistribution policies (Garcia-Sanchez et al. 2019) and could thus serve as a predictor of voting behavior. The second strand of literature has linked low SES with increased perception of economic and symbolic threats (Manstead 2018; Kraus et al. 2012; Fritsche & Jugert, 2017). In certain contexts, these perceived threats may increase intergroup prejudice and negative attitudes towards outgroups such as immigrants (Fritsche & Jugert, 2017; Riek et al. 2006; Billiet et al. 2014). These attitudes seem to be a very reliable predictor of left vs right-wing voting (Davis & Deole 2016). The third strand of literature employs a social identity framework to explain how people cope with low status. According to social identity theory, people generally strive for and benefit from positive social identities associated with their membership groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). When members of a lower status group perceive the intergroup status differential to be illegitimate, impermeable, and unstable, they are more likely to identify with their group and engage in collective action to change the intergroup status differential (Ellemers, 1993; Tajfel, 1978; Turner & Brown, 1978). However, when collective action is not perceived as a viable strategy, they search for other positive identities. The latter assumption can plausibly explain why the poor are more likely than the rich to identify with their national group (Shayo 2009), while the rich attach more importance to identities that are indicative of their SES position (Easterbrook, Kuppens, and Manstead 2018; Aries and Seider 2007). Interestingly, national identification tends to reduce support for redistribution (Shayo 2009) and may thus increase right-wing voting. Taken together, these three strands of literature propose competing hypotheses regarding the relationship between SES and right vs left-wing voting behavior and potential factors (legitimacy, perceived threats, or identities) that mediate this relationship.

It is an investigation into legitimizing ideologies of the system, specifically social Darwinism and meritocracy. We seek to know the explanatory capacity of these ideologies that allow people to legitimize unequal systems.

Hipótesis 1) Se reflejará una menor menor tolerancia a la desigualdad por parte de los participantes pertenecientes a la condición experimental en comparación con los participantes pertenecientes a la condición control. 2) Se reflejará un mayor apoyo a la redistribución por parte de los participantes del grupo experimental en comparación con los pertenecientes al grupo control. Plan de Análisis de Datos Serán realizadas dos pruebas A T para muestras independientes. La variable independiente será la desigualdad en la vida cotidiana y la variable dependiente será el apoyo a la redistribución y la tolerancia a la desigualdad

The relationship between the degree of economic inequality and peoples’ demand for equality and redistribution remains unclear, since previous studies provided contradictory evidence. On the one hand, there are studies suggesting that despite the rampant inequality, there is no evidence of growing public demand and action for equality and wealth redistribution. On the other hand, it was also found that when people perceive economic inequality, they are more willing to support redistribution. In the present project we propose that the understanding of the intricate relationship between perceived economic inequality and people’s reaction to economic inequality (collective action participation and support for redistribution policies) can be enhanced by taking in consideration the moderating role of two different types of concerns related to economic inequality: Concerns related to justice and concerns related to harmony.

The current pandemic threat (Covid-19) and the economic context derived from it, could contribute to changes in intergroup and intragroup psychosocial mechanisms, and in turn, this may encourage people to reject/fight against inequality. In previous studies (Study 1: https://osf.io/sr2nz/?view_only=287213595094453a84e169627a584a00; Study 2 :https://osf.io/auh4r/?view_only=cf78582e628945d2a1acc6ed9fb010d0), we have analysed the role of social identity and the interdependent self-construal as mediators in parallel between collective economic threat and intolerance towards economic inequality and collective actions. However, some differences emerged between both studies that may be explained by change in emotions (illusion, hope and indignation) and the collective efficacy perceived between the first wave of the pandemic (Study 1) and the second wave of the pandemic in Spain (Study 2). In the current study, we want to confirm our parallel mediation model (including social identity and the interdependent self-construal as mediators), as well as confirm the changes of emotion and collective efficacy between the first and second waves of Covid-19.

In this study we will examined whether differences in relational mobility are related with differences in percevied economic inequality (in everyday life).

In this study, we will explore whether prescriptive meritocratic beliefs could relate differently to concerns about economic inequality in health and education compared to concerns about income inequality.

In this study, we will analyse the moderator role of system-justifying ideologies and socioeconomic status in the relationship between subjective economic inequality in different domains and attitudes towards redistribution and collective actions.

In this study, we will explore subjective economic inequality across different domains: income, health, education, political influence, quality housing, and job opportunities.

In this study, we will analyse the relationship between subjective economic inequality across different domains (e.g., health, education) and attitudes towards redistribution and collective actions.

We will examine the relation between percevied inequality and life satisfaction. We will test whether status anxiety and social trust mediates this relation, and whether this is moderated by social dominance orientation.