PSYC 307 - Lecture Income and Inequality

knowledge gap

the gap in knowing what we have and what we think we have

desirability gap

how do we get people to think differently about what we really want

action gap

how do we take these things and actually do something abt it

economic inequality 

differences in people’s economic wellbeing within a group 

how is economic inequality measured (2)

• income inequality

• wealth inequality

income inequality

uneven distribution of income within a population

wealth inequality

uneven distribution of assets within a population (e.g income, property, cars)

authoritarianism

obedience to authority figures

features of authoritarianism (3)

• intolerance of minorities (e..g ethnic, religious etc)

• support for more aggressive use of military force 

• more likely to condone illegal government behaviour

relationship between inequality and power differential (2)

• the greater the income inequality, the greater the power differential in society

• e.g the rich can continue exercising more power

what does greater experience with power difference lead to 

greater acceptance over time and start to perceive it as natural 

what happens if there is more acceptance of authoritarianism (3)

• it leads to more fatalism about one’s situation and less political engagement

• those with power want those without power to feel powerless and fatalistic about situations as it maintains their power

• this is done intentionally as with higher political interest it causes more challenge

less political engagement amongst those with less power leads to (4)

• less political interest

• less political discussion

• less electoral participation

• leading to greater political inequality

what does different SES lead to 

differences in behaviour and psychological tendencies 

high SES (4)

• more independent self construal

• engage in more dispositional attribution

• have sense of personal control

• engage in more unethical behaviour

low SES

• more interdependent self construals

• engage in more empathy and helping behaviour

• less likely to engage in and benefit from educational and occupational opportunities, when they do join they feel out of place

what is the perception with people with low SES 

• they are more likely to engage in behaviour that are perceived to exacerbate situations 

• e..g having many children, non optimal financial decisions, harmful health behaviours

why is it that this perception exists (3)

• they are more present oriented, less future oriented and more pessimistic about future than higher SES

• they have greater external mortality risks (e..g pollution, poor water condition

• these can all cause greater impulsivity leading to behaviours that are immediately beneficial 

why do people with high SES not have this perception

they also engage in these behaviours but it is because they have the money to recover

what does poverty lead to

leads to a particular mindset which leads to certain behaviours

bandwidth

mental ability to do things, we are not born with it

what happens if bandwidth is stretched thin 

we dont have the ability to do things 

cognitive capacity

ability to keep track of things

executive control

ability to inhibit ourselves

what impedes bandwidth (2)

• involuntary focus on the lack of resources, capturing attention

• not abt inherent capability but immediate capacity

what did Mani, Mullainathan, Shafir and Zhao (2013) do (5)

• they went to malls in the poorer and richer part of the city 

• asked participants to read a paragraph 

• the paragraph either had “$300 service” (easy condition) or $3000 service (hard condition)

how did they assess cognitive capacity (3)

• through Raven’s progressive matrices

• culture free test of intelligence

• testing one’s ability to detect patterns

how did they assess executive control (3)

• through computer screen of inhibition of heart and flower

• press button on same side for heart

• but opposite side button for flower

cognitive capacity result (2)

• scores for easy tasks was similar for both poor and rich participants

• but in the hard task, the poorer participants had lower scores than the rice

why was it that doing easy task was similar for both groups

when dealing with each task, it was not death threatening and it wasnt about resource scarcity so the bandwidth for cognitive capacity is similar

why was there a difference in score for the hard task (2)

• bandwidth decreases as the task for was more threatening and more concerned

• it yielded a difference of about 13-14 IQ points, almost 1SD difference

results on executive control 

• when engaging in easy task, similar levels of executive control 

• but in hard task, see more differences and poorer participants scored lower 

what else did these researchers also look at 

how an individual’s bandwidth can change with financial situation 

who did these researchers look at

sugarcane farmers who experience scarcity pre- harvest but no scarcity post harvest

how did they measure for executive control task (2)

• report how many numbers or letters they see (e..g XXX → 3, 555 → 3)

• letters easier than numbers

what did results for cognitive control show (3)

• pre-harvest scores were lower than post harvest scores when they have more resources 

• indicating that within the same groups of people, their cognitive capacity changes if they have more or less resources 

• yields a difference of about 9-10 IQ points, almost 1 SD difference 

what did results for executive control task show (2)

• reaction time: prior to harvest with more resource scarcity, they take longer time to react to ask and have less bandwidth and was more difficult

• error rates: when completing tasks pre- harvest, they made more errors and were less accurate

what did their study on the surgarcane farmers demonstrate

how even within an individual when their economic situation changes, so will their bandwidth