Why, despite the fact that income inequality has increased over the last 40 years, do Americans not support the US government's efforts to reduce income disparities between the rich and poor? In The Economic Other, Megan Condon and Amber Wichowsky examine how cross-class comparison influences status perception and political attitudes, as well as why Americans do not engage in the type of cross-class comparison that could increase support for redistribution. As Democrats have long debated how to tax the rich and whether to increase social spending on the poor and the middle class to advance President Biden's agenda, the book offers insights into understanding public opinion about these issues.
The book's main argument is that Americans’ subjective status and attitudes toward inequality are determined by whether they compare themselves to the rich or the poor and how frequently they engage in these comparisons, but that Americans are insulated from cross-class comparisons due to increasing geographical segregation and economic anxiety. Among the various types of social comparisons, upward comparisons cause individuals to perceive their social status as lower and demand that the government enact policies to reduce income inequality. Condon and Wichowsky use a variety of analogies to help us understand how people experience inequality through social comparisons. The most simple and intuitive analogy, based on social psychology research, involves medalists on the Olympic podium, sad-looking silver medalists and happier looking bronze medalists. Bronze medalists are more inclined to compare themselves to players who did not win any medals at all, and they are more likely to be excited to earn any medal. Silver medalists, on the other hand, feel a sense of loss since they are comparing themselves to the gold medalist. If Americans had more silver medalists, there would be more demand for wealth redistribution. However, our anxious minds avoid these comparisons, and opportunities for comparisons disappear as the rich and the poor are less likely to come into contact.
Condon and Wichowsky tested their theory using survey experiments from two nationally representative surveys and four convenience samples. The respondents were assigned to three groups: a downward comparison group, an upward comparison group, and a control group. Respondents in the first two groups were shown a vignette, encouraged to compare themselves to either a high-or low-status individual in the vignette, and asked to imagine and describe an interaction with that individual. Following the vignette, respondents were asked to answer questions about their perceived status, support for redistribution, and political efficacy.
Chapters 6 and 7 present the key evidence that demonstrates the effect of cross-class comparison on status perception and redistributive attitudes. Subjects who were prompted to compare themselves to the very wealthy scored 0.55 rungs lower on the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status than those who were asked to compare themselves to the very poor. Given that the perceived status gap between the study's high-income and low-income individuals is only 1.5 rungs, the upward comparison effect is sizable. Upward comparisons also make individuals more likely to support wealth redistribution. When asked about redistribution in an abstract and symbolic way, comparing themselves to the rich did not sway people's opinions. The upward comparison treatment, on the other hand, increased support for specific social welfare policies like college aid, food stamps, and unemployment insurance.
Part 3 of the book contains a wide range of observational and experimental evidence that explains why Americans do not compare themselves to the wealthy. Because of the increasing degree of economic segregation, Americans have less chance of having real-world cross-class contact with the wealthy than before, as demonstrated in Chapter 8. Individuals who live in less affluent zip codes are more likely to believe their status is higher than it is. Because of rising economic anxiety, Americans prefer to compare themselves to others who are worse off (Chapter 9). Anxiety-inducing treatments from the study's survey experiment increase the likelihood that experiment subjects will choose a person from the lower rung when given the option of choosing between the higher and lower rungs. In Chapter 10, the book discusses how upward comparisons can lead to a decrease in political efficacy, which may lead to a demobilizing effect.
One of the book's most important contributions is its emphasis on the intersectional understanding of the effect of cross-class comparison by including the lenses of race and gender. Scholars of race, ethnicity, and politics will value the book's detailed examination of heterogeneity across races and genders. However, discussions about the heterogeneous treatment effects often left me with more questions than answers. The treatment effects differ markedly between women and men and between non-white and white individuals. However, because the book's goal was not to explain racial and gender differences, it does not provide theoretical explanations for why these differences exist. When class, race, and gender are taken into account, nationally representative surveys lack the statistical power to detect heterogeneous treatment effects. Future research can build on this book by developing theories that explain racial and gender differences in cross-class comparisons and their effects, as well as using racial and ethnic minority oversamples.
Understanding the role of downward comparisons in future research can also help to advance the book's research agenda. Even though downward comparisons have no overall effect, the book reports evidence that some subgroups, particularly white non-college men, are more responsive to them. Given that downward comparisons have been found to reduce support for redistribution among affluent individuals, a more comprehensive examination of downward comparisons will be a promising research topic (Sands, Reference Sands2017).
Overall, The Economic Other provides a new social-psychological and innovative understanding of Americans’ subdued reaction to inequality. It employs rigorous survey experiments as well as an in-depth review of the literature, open-ended responses, and media coverage of the wealthy. In fact, the detailed, qualitative analysis of how Americans describe their imagined relationship with the economic other in Chapters 4 and 5 is one of the most fascinating parts to read. In America, economic inequality has always been inextricably linked to racial inequality. The book will motivate race, ethnicity, and politics scholars to better understand the intersection of class, race, and gender.
