Angela R. Robinson

Amidst rising economic inequality and mounting evidence of its pernicious social effects, what motivates opposition to inequality? Five studies (n = 34,442) show that attributing poverty to situational forces is associated with greater concern about inequality, preference for egalitarian policies and inequality-reducing behaviour. In Study 1, situational attributions for poverty were associated with reduced support for inequality across 34 countries. Study 2 replicated these findings with a nationally representative sample of Americans. Three experiments then tested whether situational attributions for poverty are malleable and motivate egalitarianism. Bolstering situational attributions for poverty through a writing exercise (Study 3) and a computer-based poverty simulation (Studies 4a and b) increased egalitarian action and reduced support for inequality immediately (Studies 3 and 4b), 1 d later and 155 d post-intervention (Study 4b). Causal attributions for poverty offer one accessible means of shaping inequality-reducing attitudes and actions. Situational attributions may be a potent psychological lever for lessening societal inequality.

Does belief in free will increase support for economic inequality? Five studies using diverse measures and methods tested this question. Study 1 finds belief in free will is associated with increased support for inequality. Study 2 manipulates belief in free will and does not find evidence that this changes support for inequality. Studies 3 and 4 find that people are more willing to support inequality in a hypothetical universe where free will exists compared to one where it does not (dz = 0.10–0.13), indicating that people believe the existence of free will justifies inequality. However, a between-subjects design in Study 5 fails to replicate this finding. Overall, our results suggest that if belief in free will increases support for economic inequality, the effect is likely small and potentially sensitive to the methods used to detect it.

Past research has documented myriad pernicious psychological effects of high economic inequality, prompting interest into how people perceive, evaluate, and react to inequality. Here we propose, refine, and validate the Support for Economic Inequality Scale (SEIS)–a novel measure of attitudes towards economic inequality. In Study 1, we distill eighteen items down to five, providing evidence for unidimensionality and reliability. In Study 2, we replicate the scale’s unidimensionality and reliability and demonstrate its validity. In Study 3, we evaluate a United States version of the SEIS. Finally, in Studies 4–5, we demonstrate the SEIS’s convergent and predictive validity, as well as evidence for the SEIS being distinct from other conceptually similar measures. The SEIS is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing perceptions of and reactions to economic inequality and provides a useful tool for researchers investigating the psychological underpinnings of economic inequality.

Does belief in free will increase support for economic inequality? Five studies using diverse measures and methods yield mixed evidence for this question. Study 1 finds belief in free will is associated with increased support for inequality. Study 2 manipulates belief in free will and does not find evidence that this changes support for inequality. Studies 3 and 4 find that people are more willing to support inequality in a hypothetical universe where free will exists compared to one where it does not (d = 0.11-0.13), indicating that people believe the existence of free will justifies inequality. However, a between-subjects design in Study 5 fails to replicate this finding. Overall, our results suggest that if belief in free will increases support for economic inequality, the effect is likely small and potentially sensitive to the methods used to detect it.

Individuals of lower socioeconomic status (SES) display increased attentiveness to others and greater prosocial behavior compared to individuals of higher SES. We situate these effects within Pepper & Nettle's contextually appropriate response framework of SES. We argue that increased prosocial behavior is a contextually adaptive response for lower-SES individuals that serves to increase control over their more threatening social environments.

We interrogated historical continuity and change in discourses of enlightenment and racism through the analysis of 160 years of New Zealand Speeches from the Throne (1854–2014, 163 speeches). Enlightenment discourses of benevolence and perfectibility were prevalent in all periods, much more so than racism. ‘Old‐fashioned’ racism took the form of an assumed civilizational superiority (including accusations of ‘barbarism’) during colonization, with ‘modern’ racism taking forms like blaming Māori for not ‘productively’ using the land. Both declined to almost zero by the 20th century, undermining the idea of ‘old‐fashioned’ versus ‘modern’ racism. Utilitarian discourses peaked in the late 19th to early 20th centuries as justification for Māori land alienation. ‘Master discourses of enlightenment’ consisted of a central core of social representations that changed at the periphery, with a gradual expansion of symbolic inclusion of Māori in discourses of national identity to the point where biculturalism is the dominant discourse for elites today.

People use control strategies to improve their physical as well as interpersonal situations. Previous research has maintained that Japanese, compared with North Americans, are more oriented toward secondary control (changing oneself) than primary control (changing one’s circumstances). However, Heckhausen and Schulz’s work suggests dominance of primary control over secondary control across cultures. The conflicting views regarding Japanese control orientations are reconciled by considering situational variation. Based on an extended framework of primary control, two empirical studies examined the alternative hypothesis that control orientation would be affected by perceived urgency and concern about harmony maintenance. Study 1 used open-ended questions (n = 171) to validate the extended primary control taxonomy, and revealed that participants’ control orientations were influenced by their subjective urgency of control and perceived difficulty in maintaining interpersonal harmony. Study 2 (n = 246) replicated the latter results with Likert-type scale ratings. These results support the extended framework of primary control and identify two situational predictors of control orientation.