强调机会(而非结果)会增加对经济再分配的支持

IF 4.3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
David Dolifka, Katherine L. Christensen, Franklin Shaddy
{"title":"强调机会(而非结果)会增加对经济再分配的支持","authors":"David Dolifka, Katherine L. Christensen, Franklin Shaddy","doi":"10.1177/19485506241228469","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"High levels of economic inequality are associated with numerous negative individual and societal consequences, and people prefer less of it. Opposition to redistributive policies designed to reduce inequality (e.g., taxing the rich to assist the poor), however, remains persistent. In this research, we propose a simple intervention to boost support for such policies. Specifically, we suggest that describing inequality between babies (in rich or poor homes) makes unequal opportunities more salient than describing inequality between adults. Because unequal opportunities are more difficult to rationalize than unequal outcomes, this results in a shift away from individualistic attributions and toward structural attributions for inequality. Critically, structural problems require structural solutions (e.g., redistributive efforts). We test this account across five preregistered studies ( N = 5,800), spanning various presentation modalities (e.g., visual depictions, written descriptions), demographics (e.g., race, gender), inequality-reducing policies (e.g., taxation, food stamps), and a consequential choice underscoring implications for donation behavior.","PeriodicalId":21853,"journal":{"name":"Social Psychological and Personality Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Highlighting Opportunities (Versus Outcomes) Increases Support for Economic Redistribution\",\"authors\":\"David Dolifka, Katherine L. Christensen, Franklin Shaddy\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/19485506241228469\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"High levels of economic inequality are associated with numerous negative individual and societal consequences, and people prefer less of it. Opposition to redistributive policies designed to reduce inequality (e.g., taxing the rich to assist the poor), however, remains persistent. In this research, we propose a simple intervention to boost support for such policies. Specifically, we suggest that describing inequality between babies (in rich or poor homes) makes unequal opportunities more salient than describing inequality between adults. Because unequal opportunities are more difficult to rationalize than unequal outcomes, this results in a shift away from individualistic attributions and toward structural attributions for inequality. Critically, structural problems require structural solutions (e.g., redistributive efforts). We test this account across five preregistered studies ( N = 5,800), spanning various presentation modalities (e.g., visual depictions, written descriptions), demographics (e.g., race, gender), inequality-reducing policies (e.g., taxation, food stamps), and a consequential choice underscoring implications for donation behavior.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21853,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Psychological and Personality Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Psychological and Personality Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506241228469\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Psychological and Personality Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506241228469","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

严重的经济不平等会给个人和社会带来许多负面影响,因此人们更希望减少经济不平等。然而,反对旨在减少不平等的再分配政策(如向富人征税以帮助穷人)的呼声依然不绝于耳。在本研究中,我们提出了一个简单的干预措施,以提高对此类政策的支持。具体来说,我们认为,描述婴儿之间(富裕家庭或贫困家庭)的不平等比描述成年人之间的不平等更能突出机会的不平等。由于不平等的机会比不平等的结果更难合理化,这就导致不平等的归因从个人主义转向结构性归因。重要的是,结构性问题需要结构性解决方案(如再分配努力)。我们通过五项预先登记的研究(N = 5,800)对这一观点进行了验证,这些研究涉及不同的呈现方式(如视觉描述、书面描述)、人口统计学(如种族、性别)、减少不平等的政策(如税收、食品券),以及强调对捐赠行为影响的后果选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Highlighting Opportunities (Versus Outcomes) Increases Support for Economic Redistribution
High levels of economic inequality are associated with numerous negative individual and societal consequences, and people prefer less of it. Opposition to redistributive policies designed to reduce inequality (e.g., taxing the rich to assist the poor), however, remains persistent. In this research, we propose a simple intervention to boost support for such policies. Specifically, we suggest that describing inequality between babies (in rich or poor homes) makes unequal opportunities more salient than describing inequality between adults. Because unequal opportunities are more difficult to rationalize than unequal outcomes, this results in a shift away from individualistic attributions and toward structural attributions for inequality. Critically, structural problems require structural solutions (e.g., redistributive efforts). We test this account across five preregistered studies ( N = 5,800), spanning various presentation modalities (e.g., visual depictions, written descriptions), demographics (e.g., race, gender), inequality-reducing policies (e.g., taxation, food stamps), and a consequential choice underscoring implications for donation behavior.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.50
自引率
1.80%
发文量
77
期刊介绍: Social Psychological and Personality Science (SPPS) is a distinctive journal in the fields of social and personality psychology that focuses on publishing brief empirical study reports, typically limited to 5000 words. The journal's mission is to disseminate research that significantly contributes to the advancement of social psychological and personality science. It welcomes submissions that introduce new theories, present empirical data, propose innovative methods, or offer a combination of these elements. SPPS also places a high value on replication studies, giving them serious consideration regardless of whether they confirm or challenge the original findings, with a particular emphasis on replications of studies initially published in SPPS. The journal is committed to a rapid review and publication process, ensuring that research can swiftly enter the scientific discourse and become an integral part of ongoing academic conversations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信