Do the 98% Really Dislike Inequality? How Ordinary People Legitimize Inequality & Hierarchies

Abstract

Attitudes toward inequality and social hierarchies are highly debated in present-day discourse (Halevy, Chou & Galinsky, 2011). These attitudes are thought to reflect people’s ideological preferences and can affect how people approach important social issues, such as how public goods should be distributed, how much the wealthy should be taxed, and whether lucrative industries should be regulated (cf. Price et al., 2010). Within organizations, attitudes about inequality and social hierarchies may also influence a wide range of outcomes, such as people’s perceptions of fairness (Tyler, 1994), beliefs about what they are entitled to (Miller, 2001), and enthusiasm toward certain social policies (e.g., affirmative action; Sidanius & Pratto, 1994). In this symposium, we present new research that examines the factors that shape these attitudes, and how members of a social system, despite their strong sentiments about egalitarianism, can legitimize inequalities and social hierarchies. The symposium begins with a presentation on how certain personality traits and seemingly innocuous social cues can influence people’s attitudes and beliefs about inequality. Then, it delves into the processes by which members of different strata (i.e., those at the bottom and those at the top) legitimize the existence of social hierarchies. First, Zitek shows that people who are high in psychological entitlement are more in favor of social hierarchies. Second, Savani and Rattan show that activating the concept of choice – a core concept in American culture – can unknowingly lead people to accept inequality and social hierarchies. Third, Belmi and Neale show that even people’s beliefs about how physically attractive they are (self-perceived attractiveness), can surprisingly influence people’s attitudes toward inequality and social hierarchies. Fourth, Overbeck, Tost, and Wazlawek show that individuals can legitimize social hierarchies by attributing superior ethicality to those at the top which, in turn, allows opportunities for the powerful to keep those at the bottom at a disadvantage. Finally, Schaumberg and Lowery show that minimizing the importance of racial differences is one way that Whites maintain the stability of the social hierarchy and, ultimately, their corresponding advantage. Minimizing the Importance of Race in Response to White Privilege: A Hierarchy-Maintenance Behavior Presenter: Rebecca L. Schaumberg; Stanford U. Presenter: Brian Lowery; Stanford U. With Great Power Comes Great…Morality? Presenter: Jennifer R. Overbeck; Eccles School, U. of Utah Presenter: Leigh Plunkett Tost; U. of Michigan, Ann Arbor Presenter: Abbie Wazlawek; Columbia Business School Thinking That One is Attractive Increases the Tendency to Legitimize Inequality & Hierarchies Presenter: Peter Belmi; Stanford U. Presenter: Margaret A. Neale; Stanford U. Justifying Hierarchy and Inequality: The Role of Choice Presenter: Krishna Savani; National U. of Singapore Presenter: Aneeta Rattan; Stanford U. Entitled People Favor Hierarchies Presenter: Emily Zitek; Cornell U. Presenter: Alexander Jordan; Dartmouth College