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

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe