Analysis of: Economic inequality enhances inferences that the normative climate is individualistic and competitive by Ángel Sánchez-Rodríguez, Guillermo B. Willis, Jolanda Jetten, Rosa Rodríguez-Bailón
Within all societies, there is economic inequality, but it can vary by degree. This article aimed to identify whether or not the normative climate changed based on society’s degree of economic inequality (Sánchez-Rodríquez et al., 2019). Before the experiments were conducted, they hypothesized that participants in high economic inequality conditions would project more individualistic norms onto society. Meaning more competition and less cooperation.
The results from this experiment concluded that when there is high economic inequality, participants concluded that the normative climate was more competitive and based around individualism. For low economic inequality, the participants said it was more cooperative and thrive through collectivism.
The way that they came to this conclusion is by conducting a series of three experiments. Each experiment was done to show how individuals’ behaviours, cognitions, and feelings were affected by economic factors.
Before completing these experiments, there was past evidence supporting the claim that higher perceived inequality within societies results in individuals being more competitive and less cooperative. People tend to be less willing to help others and have lower levels of trust in others (Sánchez-Rodríquez et al., 2019). So, knowing how this inequality shapes people’s perceptions of their ‘normative climates’ is important because people use them as a guide for their behaviour. The experiments in this article aimed to examine this claim and identify resource allocation strategies. They did this by manipulating a variable within a fictional society in order to control for the features that might affect individualism and collectivism. This fictional society was known as Bimboola.
All three of these experiments had identical methods, but each followed with a different set of questions to dig deeper to find further information about the topic. The experiments were done on different sample sizes but for each experiment, half were assigned to high economic inequality and the other half to low economic inequality. The conditions varied the amount of disparity between how much each Bimboola class made. For the high economic inequality salaries these were the differences; upper class: 13,500 BC, middle class: 7000 BC and lower class: 500 BC. For the low economic inequality salaries these were their given differences; upper class: 8000 BC, middle class: 7000 BC and lower class: 6000 BC (Sánchez-Rodríquez et al., 2019). These numbers were given to simulate economic wage gap differences.
Following this, in the first experiment, the participants were asked to rank on a scale to what extent they thought that Bimboola’s economic distribution was unequal. Then they were asked to think about the people who live in Bimboola and to measure individualism-collectivism social norms. The results showed evidence that higher economic inequality leads people to believe that other’s behaviours tend to be governed by individualistic tendencies. In the high economic inequality condition, participants stated there was more independent self-construal. For the second experiment, participants were asked how poor the poorest group was and how wealthy the wealthiest group was (Sánchez-Rodríquez et al., 2019). The results of this experiment indicated an even stronger relationship between higher economic inequality and individualistic norms. They also asked the participants to reallocate resources to determine if there was a difference between high and low economic inequality conditions. The results did not indicate a difference between the two conditions. They decided to do a third experiment where everything was replicated but with a larger sampling group. The results once again showed that for the high economic inequality condition the people were more likely to be independent, were more influenced by their attitudes and prioritized their personal goals. On the other hand, the low economic inequality group were more co-dependent, more influenced by group instructions, and more involved in communal relationships (Sánchez-Rodríquez et al., 2019). In this experiment, they found a difference in resource allocation. For the low economic inequality group, participants were more likely to allocate resources according to cooperation principles. In the high economic inequality condition, people were more hostile and individualistic to the wealthiest group and selfless towards the poorest group.
What was gathered from these three experiments was crucial in understanding how perceived economic inequality was used to infer a particular normative climate. When the gap between the poorest and most rich was larger (more economic inequality), then the participants would expect the people to feel more independent, more expectant of getting something in return from social relationships and look out for their own goals more than goals of the group. When the gap between the poorest and most rich is smaller (less economic inequality), then participants would expect people to feel more connected to others, think more about relationships and look out more for group goals. The third experiment helped discover how resource allocation differed between low and high economic inequality. When there was less economic inequality, participants would share more resources and be more cooperative. When there was more economic inequality, their resource allocation changed, and they became more competitive and even aggressive for resources. Also, in the case of high economic inequality, when participants were asked to allocate resources, they took from the rich and give to the poor, creating a more egalitarian distribution of resources. The researchers suggest that participants showed a more paternalistic attitude towards the poor, where they want to help them but not work closely with them.
A strength of this study is that there are no manipulated conditions, ensuring people’s responses are natural and real responses. Knowing people’s real responses can accurately simulate what people in similar climates are thinking. The conclusions reached from this target article could be both a strength and a weakness. Having this knowledge about resource allocation and could help us predict how people would react in a crisis and in times of need. A current and relevant example is with the Corona Virus Pandemic, and how people are reacting and treating this issue. The conclusions from this target article state that people living in areas with larger economic inequality would be more likely to prioritize their individual goals and allocate less of their resources. Those in smaller economic inequality situations are predicted to be more co-dependent and more giving in the allocation of their resources. We can see evidence of this during the Coronavirus pandemic, with people who are hoarding or stocking up, those people are focusing on individual goals. There are also people who are helping and handing out the necessary resources to those who are in need. These differences could be predicted by whether people are in a high or low economic inequality area. This can be seen as both a strength and a weakness because, knowing these patterns can shape our behaviour, and make it seem okay to act in a particular way. A weakness in the conclusion reached in the target article, is that readers may now use the conclusion for higher economic inequality as an excuse to act more individualistic. Using this conclusion as an excuse for self-centered behaviour is not the goal of these results. Further readings have discovered other conclusions around individualistic behaviour in higher economic inequality conditions.
After some additional reading, I discovered an article called “Income inequality, perceived competitiveness, and approach-avoidance motivation”, this article addresses the issue of economic inequality and how it affects social factors (Sommet et al., 2018). In our target article, when there is a smaller amount of economic inequality in a society, they are more likely to give more and be more trusting of others and for larger economic inequality, they are less trusting in others and more competitive with resources. The article by Sommet et al. (2018) concluded that people’s economic environment predicts their goals, motivations and competitiveness. This is helpful in explaining why individuals in a larger economic inequality climate are more focused on individualistic goals and self-advancement. With a larger economic inequality gap, people feel the need to compare their selves to one another, fostering social competition. Sommet et al. (2018) discuss how income inequality is related to social anxiety and fear; people desire to be seen economically stable or doing well and fear to be perceived as failing or low income. The article provides evidence that economic competition fosters a motivation to win and a fear to not loose (Sommet et al., 2018). This is supporting the target article because it helps us better understand why people in higher economic inequality climates are more individualistic and give less in resource allocation tasks. When people have larger economic distances between themselves and others, they may feel like they need to compare themselves with others and be greedier with the resources they have. The competition that has formed from larger economic gaps, is a supportive explanation for the responses in the resource allocation task in the target article. People were more willing to allocate resources to the poor when it didn’t affect them.
In an article by Wilkinson & Pickett (2017) titled “The enemy between us: The psychological and social costs of inequality”, they hypothesized that depending on the levels of inequality within a society the approaches used will shift. They concluded that societies with smaller economic differences, more egalitarian cultures, are predicted to have higher levels of interpersonal dependence, better community interaction, and lower crime levels (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2017). This is related to the target article because they address the same issues and come to the same conclusions, but with different methods. Both studies found supportive evidence for the conclusion that larger economic inequality results in a more individualistic way of thinking. Richard & Pickett (2017) states that social relationships are not only dependent on individual opinions but are formed by society and past social patterns. This is related to our target article because it concluded that these patterns occur in most societies. This is because participating in the normative climate and knowing how to do so is based on how society has taught you. They stated that people’s behaviour matches their setting (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2017). This means that what is considered normal in one social setting could seem inappropriate or awkward in another. For example, generosity and selflessness are much more valued in an egalitarian setting (small economic inequality) but in a less egalitarian society, it could get exploited. Knowing this helps us better understand why the participant’s responses in the target article to resource allocation were the way they were. This additional reading also touched on the point that the larger the economic difference the more important status becomes. This could be a topic of possible further research; how status and economic inequality affect resource allocation?