Mind The Gap: Overestimating Income Inequality

I’m thrilled to be breaking my dissertation-imposed “mini-hiatus” this week with a series of guest posts over at the BPS Research Digest, where I’ve been asked to take over guest hosting duties for the week and write a few pieces on some recent awesome Social Psych research.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


I'm thrilled to be breaking my dissertation-imposed "mini-hiatus" this week with a series of guest posts over at the BPS Research Digest, where I've been asked to take over guest hosting duties for the week and write a few pieces on some recent awesome Social Psych research.

First up -- recent research has given us a lot of talking points about income inequality in the United States, specifically the idea that Americans vastly underestimate the true level of wealth inequality that exists in our country. However, could some of this finding be biased by the fact that people are just plain bad at forming concrete estimates for really tricky, abstract concepts? In a new paper, John Chambers and colleagues address this possible methodological issue by tweaking the way they asked people about wealth (or, rather, income) inequality, and the results might surprise you.

How much money do you think you would have to make each year to land yourself in the infamous One Percent of salary earners?

According to a new study, your answer is very likely to be wrong. Research conducted by John Chambers of St. Louis University and colleagues at the University of Florida reveals that – at least where Americans are concerned – people are actually significantly likely to overestimate how much money is earned by the richest people.

...

Chambers and colleagues asked Americans to estimate the percentage of US citizens whose annual incomes fell into three categories: Under $35,000, $35,000-$74,999, and $75,000 or higher. These numbers roughly represent the cutoff points for the bottom, middle, and top third of American earners. Yet, on average, the respondents in this survey greatly overestimated the percentage of Americans who fall into the lowest category (estimating 48 percent) and underestimated the percentage of Americans who fall into the highest category (estimating 23 percent).


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


 

For the rest of this post, head over to the BPS Research Digest!

 

Melanie Tannenbaum is a freelance writer and science communications consultant currently living in the Bay Area. She received her Ph.D. in social psychology from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2015, where her research focused on the science of persuasion and motivation regarding political, environmental, and health-related behavior. For more info, see her personal website.

More by Melanie Tannenbaum

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe