Given the near-historic levels of economic inequality in the United States, it is vital to understand when and why people are motivated to reduce it. We examine whether the manner in which economic inequality and policy are framed—in terms of either upper-socio-economic-class advantages or lower-socio-economic-class disadvantages—influences individuals’ reactions to inequality. Across five studies, framing redistributive policy (Study 1) as disadvantage-reducing (versus advantage-reducing) and economic inequality (Studies 2–5) as lower-class disadvantages (versus upper-class advantages or a control frame) enhances support for action to reduce inequality. Moreover, increased support is partly driven by perceptions that inequality is more unjust if framed as lower-class disadvantages. Using diverse methodologies (for example, social media engagement on Facebook) and nationally representative samples of self-reported upper-class and lower-class individuals, this work suggests that the ways in which economic inequality is communicated (for example, by the media) may reliably influence people’s reactions to and concern for the issue.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
All data and materials have been made publicly available via the Open Science Framework and can be accessed at https://osf.io/f9sr7/.
Piketty, T. in Inequality in the 21st Century (eds Grusky, D. & Hill, J.) 43–48 (Avalon, 2017).
Wilkinson, R. G. & Pickett, K. The Spirit Level: Why Equality Is Better for Everyone (Penguin, 2010).
Sanders, B. Issues: income and wealth inequality. Bernie Sanders https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/ (2017).
Alvaredo, F., Chancel, L., Piketty, T., Saez, E. & Zucman, G. World Inequality Report: Executive Summary (World Inequality Database, 2018); https://wir2018.wid.world/files/download/wir2018-summary-english.pdf
Lawson, M., et al. Public Good or Private Wealth. (Oxfam GB, 2019).
Telford, T. Income inequality in America is the highest it’s been since Census Bureau started tracking it, data shows. The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/09/26/income-inequality-america-highest-its-been-since-census-started-tracking-it-data-show/(26 September 2019).
Hastings, O. P. Who feels it? Income inequality, relative deprivation, and financial satisfaction in U.S. states, 1973–2012. Res. Soc. Stratif. Mobil. 60, 1–15 (2019).
Buttrick, N. R. & Oishi, S. The psychological consequences of income inequality. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 11, e12304 (2017).
Oishi, S., Kesebir, S. & Diener, E. Income inequality and happiness. Psychol. Sci. 22, 1095–1100 (2011).
Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R. & Nosek, B. A. A decade of system justification theory: accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Polit. Psychol. 25, 881–919 (2004).
Bartels, L. M. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age (Princeton Univ. Press, 2010).
Savani, K. & Rattan, A. A choice mind-set increases the acceptance and maintenance of wealth inequality. Psychol. Sci. 23, 796–804 (2012).
McCall, L., Burk, D., Laperrière, M. & Richeson, J. A. Exposure to rising inequality shapes Americans’ opportunity beliefs and policy support. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 9593–9598 (2017).
Levitin, M. The triumph of Occupy Wall Street. The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/the-triumph-of-occupy-wall-street/395408/ (2015).
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211, 453–458 (1981).
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. in Choices, Values, and Frames (eds Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A.) 209–223 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000).
Chong, D. & Druckman, J. N. Framing theory. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 10, 103–126 (2007).
Swim, J. K. & Miller, D. L. White guilt: its antecedents and consequences for attitudes toward affirmative action. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 25, 500–514 (1999).
Iyer, A., Leach, C. W. & Crosby, F. J. White guilt and racial compensation: the benefits and limits of self-focus. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 29, 117–129 (2003).
Powell, A. A., Branscombe, N. R. & Schmitt, M. T. Inequality as ingroup privilege or outgroup disadvantage: the impact of group focus on collective guilt and interracial attitudes. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 31, 508–521 (2005).
Lowery, B. S., Chow, R. M., Knowles, E. D. & Unzueta, M. M. Paying for positive group esteem: how inequity frames affect whites’ responses to redistributive policies. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 102, 323–336 (2012).
Phillips, L. T. & Lowery, B. S. The hard-knock life? Whites claim hardships in response to racial inequity. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 61, 12–18 (2015).
Lowery, B. S., Chow, R. M. & Crosby, J. R. Taking from those that have more and giving to those that have less: how inequity frames affect corrections for inequity. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 45, 375–378 (2009).
Chow, R. M. & Galak, J. The effect of inequality frames on support for redistributive tax policies. Psychol. Sci. 23, 1467–1469 (2012).
Phillips, L. T. I ain’t no fortunate one: on the motivated denial of class and race privilege. Acad. Manage. Proc. 2015, 19158 (2015).
Brown, R. M. & Craig, M. A. Intergroup inequality heightens reports of discrimination along alternative identity dimensions. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 46, 869–884 (2020).
van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T. & Spears, R. Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: a quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychol. Bull. 134, 504–535 (2008).
January 2014 Political Survey (Pew Research Center, 2014).
Gilens, M. Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America (Princeton Univ. Press, 2012).
McCall, L. & Kenworthy, L. Americans’ social policy preferences in the era of rising inequality. Perspect. Polit. 7, 459–484 (2009).
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T. & Gosling, S. D. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 6, 3–5 (2011).
2013–2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017); https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml?src=bkmk
Tausch, N. et al. Explaining radical group behavior: developing emotion and efficacy routes to normative and nonnormative collective action. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101, 129–148 (2011).
Brown, R. L. Assessing specific mediational effects in complex theoretical models. Struct. Equ. Modeling 4, 142–156 (1997).
Gunzler, D., Chen, T., Wu, P. & Zhang, H. Introduction to mediation analysis with structural equation modeling. Shanghai Arch. Psychiatry 25, 390–394 (2013).
Perrin, A. & Anderson, M. Share of U.S. Adults Using Social Media, Including Facebook, Is Mostly Unchanged Since 2018 (Pew Research Center, 2019); https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/10/share-of-u-s-adults-using-social-media-including-facebook-is-mostly-unchanged-since-2018/
Glenza, J. Rich Americans live up to 15 years longer than poor peers, studies find. The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/06/us-healthcare-wealth-income-inequality-lifespan (6 April 2017).
Tetlock, P. E. Thinking the unthinkable: sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7, 320–324 (2003).
Montada, L. & Schneider, A. Justice and emotional reactions to the disadvantaged. Soc. Justice Res. 3, 313–344 (1989).
van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T. & Spears, R. On conviction’s collective consequences: integrating moral conviction with the social identity model of collective action. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 51, 52–71 (2012).
Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S. & Acquisti, A. Beyond the Turk: alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 70, 153–163 (2017).
Funder, D. C. & Ozer, D. J. Evaluating effect size in psychological research: sense and nonsense. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 2, 156–168 (2019).
Graubard, B. I. & Korn, E. L. Modelling the sampling design in the analysis of health surveys. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 5, 263–281 (1996).
Most See Inequality Growing, but Partisans Differ over Solutions: About the Survey (Pew Research Center, 2014); https://www.people-press.org/2014/01/23/about-the-survey-147/
Dietze, P. & Knowles, E. D. Social class and the motivational relevance of other human beings: evidence from visual attention. Psychol. Sci. 27, 1517–1527 (2016).
Jackman, M. R. & Jackman, R. W. Class Awareness in the United States (Univ. of California Press, 1983).
Dietze, P. & Knowles, E. D. Social class predicts emotion perception and perspective-taking performance in adults. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220914116 (2020).
Lakhotia, K. & Kempe, D. Approximation Algorithms for Coordinating Ad Campaigns on Social Networks. Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (eds Zhu, W. et al.) 339–348 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2019).
We thank the reviewers of our Time-sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences (TESS) application for their helpful comments as well as the TESS programme itself for support in Study 3. M.A.C. acknowledges support from the National Science Foundation (grant no. NSF-BCS-1823840). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. We thank M. Lee, K. Brennan, C. Hoffman, C. Myers, D. Baltiansky, J. Worrall, P. Ponce and A. Weinberg for helping with the data collection. We also thank L. T. Phillips for her insightful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information Primary handling editor: Aisha Bradshaw.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Dietze, P., Craig, M.A. Framing economic inequality and policy as group disadvantages (versus group advantages) spurs support for action. Nat Hum Behav 5, 349–360 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-00988-4