“Of
all the babies that die every year, what percent should be from the richest 20%
and what percent should be from the poorest 20%?” – Mike Norton
In
the Saturday morning session, some of my favorite social
psychologists/researchers presented their ongoing work on lay beliefs about
inequality in the United States. It is encouraging to see the new generation of
psychology scholars taking on important issues related to social justice and
inequality!
The
first talk was presented by Mike Norton of the Harvard Business School. Norton,
in prior research, has shown that people are remarkably inaccurate about the
amount of wealth inequality in the United States—all types of people, liberals,
conservatives, rich, or poor people tend to underestimate inequality in
America. In this talk, Norton described new research examining beliefs about
health inequality. Specifically, if life expectancy has increased by 3.2 years
in the last 20 years, who has seen the largest share of this increase? The
findings aligned with the previous work on wealth inequality beliefs—people
underestimate the extent that poorer people have reduced (rather than
increased) life expectancy over the last 20 years.
In
the second talk, Krishna Savani of Singapore National University described
research suggesting that thinking about choice increases support for wealth
inequality. In Savani’s words, “When choice is salient, Americans will think
that the rich are rich because of good choices they have made and the poor are
poor because of the bad choices they have made.” Across several studies, Savani
finds that getting people to think about choice—e.g., priming how many choices
they made throughout the day, relative to thinking about the things they
did—leads people to be less concerned about inequality in society and less
likely to support redistribution.
In
the third talk in this symposium, Aneeta Rattan of Stanford University examined
inequalities in education. Specifically, Rattan asked “How can people construe
education as more of a right and less of a resource?” In her talk, Rattan
discussed how beliefs about the universal intellectual potential of
individuals—that under the right circumstances, all people can excel in
education—systematically leads to increases in support for attitudes suggesting
that education is a right and not a resource. In one example, getting people to
agree with statements suggesting that intellectual potential was universal v.
not, led people to be more supportive of a constitutional amendment
guaranteeing rights to education for all Americans. Importantly, these effects
occurred independently of the political orientation of participants.
Taken
together, the research in this symposium shed light on issues of wealth
distribution in the United States, and offered some very intriguing possibilities
changing attitudes about inequality in society.
No comments:
Post a Comment