Economic inequality diminishes voter preference for competent leaders

A Study on the Link Between Economic Inequality and Voter Behavior

A recent study published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin has found a significant link between economic inequality and voter behavior. The research, involving six experiments with over 1,900 participants from China and the United Kingdom, found that higher levels of economic inequality tend to reduce voters’ preferences for competent political leaders.

The Impact of Economic Inequality on Voter Behavior

The motivation behind the study stems from a growing concern about how economic inequality might be reshaping the political landscape in democratic societies. Recent elections around the globe have highlighted a shift in voter behavior, with an apparent increase in support for populist, dominant, and even extremist leaders. This shift is believed to be influenced by the rising economic disparities observed in many countries.

Traditionally, two key attributes — competence and warmth — have been central to how voters evaluate political candidates. However, despite their importance, there had been little research exploring how these attributes are affected by economic inequality.

“My interest in this topic was primarily driven by a desire to contribute to our understanding of how economic inequality shapes democratic processes. While it’s widely recognized that economic inequality can undermine social cohesion and political stability, its specific role in shaping the pattern of people’s leadership preferences remained less clear. By looking into this relationship and the psychological mechanisms at play, we aimed to take a small step forward in unravelling this complex dynamic,” explained study author Feiteng Long, a PhD candidate in Social, Economic and Organizational Psychology at Leiden University.

The Experimental Design

The researchers utilized a controlled experimental design known as the “Bimboola” paradigm to simulate different levels of economic inequality within a society. In these experiments, participants were introduced to a hypothetical society called “V,” characterized by varying levels of economic inequality. The scenarios were constructed to depict societies with high and low economic inequality.

In the high inequality condition, participants read about a society with significant income disparities between different social classes and a lack of supportive tax policies for lower-income groups. Conversely, the low inequality condition described a society with smaller income gaps and more progressive taxation favoring the economically disadvantaged.

Participants’ social status within these societies was also manipulated to assess whether voter preferences varied with personal economic standing. They were asked to imagine themselves as either belonging to a higher or lower social status group, which helped isolate the effect of participants’ perceived social position on their political preferences.

The Findings

The main dependent variable in the study was the participants’ preferences for hypothetical political leaders described primarily in terms of their competence. These leaders were presented through descriptions emphasizing their ability to perform their duties effectively, make informed decisions, and handle complex problems—qualities essential for competent governance.

Across six separate experiments, higher economic inequality led to a diminished preference for competent leaders. This effect persisted regardless of the participants’ own social status, suggesting that the impact of economic disparity on political preferences is a general phenomenon rather than confined to any specific economic group.

The decrease in preference for competent leaders was mediated by voters’ perceptions of the leaders’ intentions and capabilities. Specifically, high economic inequality was found to increase perceptions that politicians are less likely to care about the general populace and more prone to abuse their power.

These perceptions contributed to voters’ reluctance to support candidates they otherwise regarded as competent. This suggests that in unequal societies, the electorate may fear that competent leaders could use their abilities not to advance public good but to further personal or in-group interests at the expense of societal equality and fairness.

The Importance of Addressing Economic Inequality

“For the average person, the key takeaway is the critical importance of addressing economic inequality for the health of democracy and effective governance,” Long told PsyPost. “As demonstrated in our study, economic inequality fosters negative perceptions of politicians by amplifying concerns about their indifference to the public’s needs, regardless of their competence. Our findings warn that increasing economic inequality can erode trust in government and fuel populist sentiments.”

Limitations and Future Research

But the study, like all research, includes some caveats.

“Firstly, like other experimental studies, the experimental manipulation was highly de-contextualized, potentially limiting the generalizability of our findings to more natural settings,” Long noted. “Moreover, recent theoretical development has subdivided competence into three distinct sub-dimensions, namely competence, assertiveness, and effort. It’s unknown whether the influence of economic inequality on preferences for competent leaders varies across these sub-dimensions of competence. Future research needs to disentangle these complexities, providing a more nuanced understanding of the dynamics at play.”

“We are currently exploring further moral consequences of economic inequality,” Long said. “In the future, we aim to extend our research on economic inequality methodologically. We plan to adopt the experience sampling method to investigate the influence of daily perceptions of economic inequality. Additionally, we will employ a psychophysiological approach to examine stress reactions to economic inequality in a lab setting.”

The study, “Economic Inequality Reduces Preferences for Competent Leaders,” was authored by Feiteng Long, Zi Ye, and Guohua Liu.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.1: By 2030, progressively achieve and sustain income growth of the bottom 40% of the population at a rate higher than the national average.
   • Target 10.4: Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage, and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality.
   • Indicator 10.1.1: Growth rates of household expenditure or income per capita among the bottom 40% of the population and the total population.
   • Indicator 10.4.1: Labour share of GDP, comprising wages and social protection transfers.

2. SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable, and transparent institutions at all levels.
   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory, and representative decision-making at all levels.
   • Indicator 16.6.2: Proportion of population satisfied with their last experience of public services.
   • Indicator 16.7.1: Proportions of positions (by sex, age, persons with disabilities, and population groups) in public institutions (national and local legislatures, public service, and judiciary) compared to national distributions.

Analysis

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The issues highlighted in the article are connected to SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities and SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article’s content, the specific targets that can be identified are:

• Target 10.1: By 2030, progressively achieve and sustain income growth of the bottom 40% of the population at a rate higher than the national average.
• Target 10.4: Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage, and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality.
• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable, and transparent institutions at all levels.
• Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory, and representative decision-making at all levels.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, there are indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets:

• Indicator 10.1.1: Growth rates of household expenditure or income per capita among the bottom 40% of the population and the total population.
• Indicator 10.4.1: Labour share of GDP, comprising wages and social protection transfers.
• Indicator 16.6.2: Proportion of population satisfied with their last experience of public services.
• Indicator 16.7.1: Proportions of positions (by sex, age, persons with disabilities, and population groups) in public institutions (national and local legislatures, public service, and judiciary) compared to national distributions.

Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Copyright: Dive into this article, curated with care by SDG Investors Inc. Our advanced AI technology searches through vast amounts of data to spotlight how we are all moving forward with the Sustainable Development Goals. While we own the rights to this content, we invite you to share it to help spread knowledge and spark action on the SDGs.

Fuente: psypost.org

Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.