Attitudes towards income inequality: ‘Winners’ versus ‘losers’ of the perceived meritocracy

Karlijn Roex*, T. Huijts, I.J.P. Sieben

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

7 Citations (Scopus)
129 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Individuals with a higher social position are more tolerant of current income inequality than individuals with a lower social position. Besides this, attitudes towards income inequality are influenced by inequality-legitimising myths in a given society. Little is known about how these two factors interact. This study combines these two lines of research and argues that different social strata are more polarised in their attitudes towards inequality in societies with strong prevalent meritocratic perceptions. We expect lower-status individuals (i.e. with a lower income or education) to experience a threat to their group esteem and therefore be less likely to support their society’s inequalities in societies with such strong meritocratic perceptions. This hypothesis was tested using data from the International Social Survey Programme 2009 (Social Inequality) on 39 countries. The results show that different social strata are indeed more polarised in their attitudes towards inequality in societies where meritocratic perceptions are more prevalent. Our results are robust for income, but not for education. This suggests that in perceived meritocracies, people regard income as the primary indicator of effort and ability.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)47-63
JournalActa Sociologica
Volume62
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019

Keywords

  • BELIEFS
  • FAIRNESS
  • Income inequality
  • International Social Survey Programme 2009 (Social Inequality)
  • LAND
  • LEGITIMATION
  • SYSTEM
  • TOLERANCE
  • UNITED-STATES
  • meritocratic perceptions
  • polarisation
  • social identity theory
  • system justification theory

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Attitudes towards income inequality: ‘Winners’ versus ‘losers’ of the perceived meritocracy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this