In an impressive review and empirical analysis of ethnographic records, the target article demonstrates that inequality exists even in traditional subsistence groups typically characterized as egalitarian. Consequently, the authors argue that the defining feature of egalitarian societies is not that they have equality as an outcome. Instead, what makes these societies egalitarian is the way in which individuals assert and manage self-interested motives through societal processes like demand-sharing, risk-pooling, consensus-based collective decision-making, and residential mobility. Importantly, equality may not always be achieved when such processes are at play, but neither is it necessarily desired.

We believe that this process orientation offers a promising perspective to better understand how (in)equality emerges and to address its causes – not just in traditional subsistence groups, but more broadly. For us, an important question arising from the article is how such egalitarian processes can be harnessed and institutionalized systematically to reduce inequality in industrialized nations, which are characterized by strongly skewed wealth and income distributions (OECD, 2024).

To do so, it is vital to better understand how diverse variables moderate between egalitarian processes and their outcomes. The authors discuss several such variables and conditions; however, interindividual differences in people’s psychology and how those interact with egalitarian processes remain underspecified. Importantly, psychological differences can result from adaptations to existing inequalities, and there is reason to believe that they determine how individuals self-select into egalitarian processes and whether they can actually benefit from them.

One reason is that people often make decisions by “satisficing” rather than optimizing, meaning they set aspiration levels and choose options that are “good enough” for them (Simon, Reference Simon1956). The aspiration levels vary markedly depending on where individuals fall in a society’s resource distribution – whether by chance of birth or due to unexpected events such as health shocks. Indeed, differences in aspirations are at the core of the most prominent psychological correlates of inequality, such as optimism (the general belief that outcomes will be beneficial; Boehm et al., Reference Boehm, Chen, Williams, Ryff and Kubzansky2015), risk preference (the tendency to favor potentially large but uncertain rewards; Frey et al., Reference Frey, Richter, Schupp, Hertwig and Mata2021), and future orientation (the preference for large, delayed rewards over smaller, more immediate rewards; Pepper & Nettle, Reference Pepper and Nettle2017). All of these variables tend to be less pronounced among people with fewer resources – except among those living in extreme scarcity, who may need to take risks to survive (de Courson, Frankenhuis, & Nettle, Reference de Courson, Frankenhuis and Nettle2026). Crucially, and as we will illustrate below, these psychological differences in aspirations, optimism, risk preference, and future orientation shape the extent to which individuals self-select into and can benefit from institutionalized egalitarian processes.

In many industrialized nations, demand-sharing or risk-pooling is realized through redistributive policies that reallocate resources to the disadvantaged, protecting them from the detrimental consequences of shocks and helping them accumulate embodied capital, like education. In the European Union, one example is providing children from less advantaged families with university grants. However, a significant socioeconomic aspiration gap hampers the effectiveness of these policies (Guyon & Huillery, Reference Guyon and Huillery2021). Despite similar qualifications, individuals with fewer resources tend to have less optimistic expectations of their potential, a lower tolerance for the uncertainty that comes with pursuing higher education, and less motivation to seek status. Such psychological factors contribute to young individuals from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds being less likely to participate in such policies, resulting in worse long-term career prospects (Boon-Falleur, Huillery, & Chevallier, Reference Boon-Falleur, Huillery and Chevallier2025; Hakimov, Schmacker, & Terrier, Reference Hakimov, Schmacker and Terrier2023).

Participation in (consensus-based) collective decision-making processes may likewise be influenced by psychological differences shaped by inequality. In the United States, individuals with lower socioeconomic status are less likely to participate in democratic processes, partly because they feel little entitlement to do so and have limited belief in their ability to shape political outcomes (Laurison, Reference Laurison2016). Such differences in perceived agency as a function of inequality may be present from an early stage in life. Preschoolers from disadvantaged families, for example, are less likely to participate in group discussions, possibly because they perceive doing so as riskier than their more advantaged peers (Goudeau et al., Reference Goudeau, Sanrey, Autin, Stephens, Markus, Croizet and Cimpian2023). Repeatedly avoiding such social risks can undermine social identity and belonging, particularly during adolescence (Tomova, Andrews, & Blakemore, Reference Tomova, Andrews and Blakemore2021), and may contribute to the development of persistent psychological differences in adulthood (Ciranka & Hertwig, Reference Ciranka and Hertwig2023). Thus, even if deliberative conventions and institutionalized measures in principle ensure equal access to collective decision-making processes, inequality-driven differences in optimism, risk perception, and aspirations affect how individuals engage in such processes, how quickly they yield to majority views, and whether they are willing to bear the psychological and social costs of dissent. To fully realize the benefits of consensus-based collective decision-making processes, it is therefore necessary to understand the psychological factors and dynamics involved when individuals participate in them.

Lastly, whether individuals take advantage of (residential) mobility – or, more abstractly, explore the unknown rather than exploit what they have – depends on their aspiration levels and optimism that their efforts will be successful. Research on how people search for and extract resources from the environment has repeatedly shown that individuals behave as if they calibrate their expectations to the environment’s reward rate (Ciranka, Chevallier, & Nettle, Reference Ciranka, Chevallier and Nettle2026; Schakowski et al., Reference Schakowski, Deffner, Kortet, Niemelä, Kavelaars, Monk, Pykälä and Kurvers2026). In an environment that is percieved to be resource-scarce, this results in increased exploitation of potentially suboptimal solutions at the expense of not exploring better options for the future (Decker et al., Reference Decker, Leonard, Romeo, Itiat, Hubbard, Bauer, Grotzinger, Giebler, Torres, Imhof and Gabrieli2025). That is, even if policies were in place to equalize exploration or mobility costs, those with fewer resources would likely remain at a disadvantage because of individual psychological differences resulting from psychological adaptations to the accumulated learning experiences that different socioeconomic ecologies facilitate.

In sum, even when hard-won measures such as egalitarian processes are, in principle, available to all, inequalities will likely persist and may even increase, because inequality affects the psychological processes that determine self-selection into egalitarian processes. We thus argue that institutionalized egalitarian processes can only reduce inequality and help most individuals thrive if they are attuned to differences in people’s psychology and cognition. This calls for dedicated research into how individual psychology interacts with and is shaped by egalitarian processes.