Lay Explanations of Wealth: Attributions for Economic Success1

Being Perceived as a Vital Force or a Burden: The Social Utility-Based Acceptance/Rejection (SUBAR) Model

This paper proposes a new theoretical model to explain the acceptance/rejection of agents (co-workers) and various social groups (people with mental disorders or disabilities, the elderly, the unemployed/poor, ethnic minorities) in a given social system: the social utility-based acceptance/rejection (SUBAR) Model. Based on a social utility approach, it is proposed that human social cognition evaluates and reacts to agents/groups in a social system on the basis of the perceived strengths and significant contributions they bring to the system (upward forces; e.g., skills, resources, willingness) and the perceived weaknesses that may harm the system (downward forces; e.g., use of social benefits, dependence). While the perception of upward forces for the system (i.e., vital forces) is accompanied by acceptance (positive attitudes and behaviors), the perception of downward forces (i.e., burdens on the system) promotes rejection (negative attitudes and behaviors). The combination of the two indicators predicts that low vital forces/high burden targets will be the most rejected and high vital forces/low burden targets will be the most accepted. The high burden/high vital forces and low vital forces/low burden targets should be evaluated at an intermediate level between the other two. This naive calculation of the forces exerted by agents/groups in a social system is moderated by various variables (scarcity of economic resources, values) and responds to a functional attempt to regulate individual and collective interests, themselves dependent on the efficiency of given systems. Finally, the relationship of the SUBAR model to other relevant theories will also be discussed.

Why are some countries rich and others poor? development and validation of the attributions for Cross-Country Inequality Scale (ACIS)

Understanding lay theories on the causes of economic inequality is the first step to comprehending why people tolerate, justify, or react against it. Accordingly, this paper aims to develop and validate with two cross-sectional studies the Attributions for Cross-Country Inequality Scale (ACIS), which assesses how people explain cross-country economic inequality-namely, the uneven distribution of income and wealth between poor and rich countries. After selecting and adapting items from existing scales of attributions for poverty and wealth, in Study 1, we tested the factorial structure of this initial pool of items in three countries with different levels of economic development and inequality, namely, Italy (n = 246), the UK (n = 248), and South Africa (n = 228). Three causal dimensions emerged from the Exploratory Factor Analysis: "rich countries" (blaming the systematic advantage of and exploitation by rich countries), "poor countries" (blaming the dispositional inadequacy and faults of poor countries), and "fate" (blaming destiny and luck). The retained items were administered in Study 2 to three new samples from Italy (n = 239), the UK (n = 249), and South Africa (n = 248). Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) corroborated the factorial structure of the ACIS, and Multi-Group CFA supported configural and metric invariances of the scale across countries. In addition, we show internal consistency and construct validity of the scale: the scale correlates with relevant constructs (e.g., beliefs about cross-country inequality and ideological orientation) and attitudes toward relevant policies related to international redistribution and migration. Overall, the scale is a valid instrument to assess causal attribution for cross-national inequality and is reliable across countries. By focusing on resource distribution from an international perspective, this scale will allow researchers to broaden the discussion on economic inequality to a global level.

The psychology of income wealth threshold estimations: A registered report

How do people estimate the income that is needed to be rich? Two correlative survey studies (Study 1 and 2, N = 568) and one registered experimental study (Study 3, N = 500) examined the cognitive mechanisms that are used to derive an answer to this question. We tested whether individuals use their personal income (PI) as a self-generated anchor to derive an estimate of the income needed to be rich (= income wealth threshold estimation, IWTE). On a bivariate level, we found the expected positive relationship between one's PI and IWTE and, in line with previous findings, we found that people do not consider themselves rich. Furthermore, we predicted that individuals additionally use information about their social status within their social circles to make an IWTE. The findings from study 2 support this notion and show that only self-reported high-income individuals show different IWTEs depending on relative social status: Individuals in this group who self-reported a high status produced higher IWTEs than individuals who self-reported low status. The registered experimental study could not replicate this pattern robustly, although the results trended non-significantly in the same direction. Together, the findings revealed that the income of individuals as well as the social environment are used as sources of information to make IWTE judgements, although they are likely not the only important predictors.

Causal Beliefs for Socioeconomic Status Attainment Scale: Development and Validation

That individuals attain socioeconomic status (SES) through their own effort and ability, which is a staple pillar of the meritocratic ethos and has been a popular topic of inquiry within social psychology. However, this focus on merit overshadowed other important causal factors that contribute to one's SES, such as opportunity and chance. This study presents psychometrically validated scales measuring one's causal beliefs of SES attainment for themselves (agency beliefs) and others (society beliefs). Utilizing a nationally representative sample, participants completed 68 items of causal agency and society beliefs for low and high SES attainment. Through factor analyses, item response theory, and careful item reduction, three subscales and six dimensions measuring (1) merit (effort and ability), (2) opportunity (social connections and privilege), and (3) chance (luck and fate) are introduced for each belief system. Correlation analyses reveal general support for construct validity. Implications and future directions are discussed.

The effect of perceived wealth and poverty on adolescents' character judgments

American adolescents between the ages of 11 and 16 were shown a photograph and a brief biographical sketch of a stranger in their own age group. The stranger was described as poor, wealthy, or neutral (no economic cues provided). Subjects were asked to rate the stranger on 20 characterological traits arranged in a semantic differential format. Strangers depicted as poor received significantly lower overall ratings than did neutral or wealthy strangers. Wealthy strangers were perceived to be more intelligent, to make better grades, to make friends more easily, and to embody other positive traits to a greater degree than neutral or poor strangers. Contrary to findings in other studies, however, poor individuals were not perceived to be lazy or to mishandle money. No interactions were found between affluence-based character judgments and the sex or age of subjects.

The perception of poverty and wealth among teenagers

This study is concerned with the perception of poverty and wealth among high-school teenagers. Over 300 teenagers completed a questionnaire which probed their perceptions of the attributions and consequences of poverty and wealth, and requested them to estimate the income for both a specified "poor" and "rich" man. The results indicate that all groups in this sample emphasized the significance of the family and downplayed the significance of luck when dealing with poverty and wealth. Further, the groups emphasized the economic consequences of poverty and wealth and they did not rate their psychological consequences as being of much importance. The results are discussed in terms of the small literature relevant to this topic.