Social distancing practices have been widely recommended to curb the COVID-19 pandemic. However, despite the medical consensus, many citizens have resisted adhering to and/or supporting its implementation. While this resistance may stem from the non-negligible personal economic costs of implementing social distancing, we argue that it may also reside in more fundamental differences in normative principles and belief systems, as reflected by political orientation. In a study conducted in Brazil, we test the relative importance of these explanations by examining whether and how support for social distancing varies according to self-identified political orientation and personal economic vulnerability. Results show that while economic vulnerability does not influence support for social distancing, conservatives are systematically less supportive of these practices than liberals. Discrepancies in sensitivity to threats to the economic system help explain the phenomenon.

Low socioeconomic status (SES) consumers tend to be more price sensitive than their high-SES counterparts. Nonetheless, various economic-related burdens, such as mobility costs and lack of information, often hinder their ability to attend to scarcity—a phenomenon called “ghetto tax.” The current research moves a step further to show that even when very poor consumers can exert price sensitivity and are fully informed, a “psychological ghetto tax” often discourages them from doing so. Across five studies, we demonstrate that, relative to (a) high-SES consumers or (b) contexts of intragroup interaction, low-SES consumers are willing to pay higher prices and to accept lower value rewards to avoid commercial settings that require intergroup interaction (e.g., poor consumers in a high-end shopping mall). This effect is driven by the poor consumers’ heightened expectations of discrimination in upscale commercial settings, a concern virtually nonexistent among wealthy consumers. Companies’ inclusion statements emphasizing customer equality and/or customer diversity can serve as safety cues against stigmatized identities and increase low-SES consumers’ price sensitivity.

Social distancing practices have been widely recommended to curb the COVID-19 pandemic. However, despite the medical consensus, many citizens have resisted adhering to and/or supporting its implementation. While this resistance may stem from the non-negligible personal economic costs of implementing social distancing, we argue that it may also reside in more fundamental differences in normative principles and belief systems, as reflected by political orientation. In a study conducted in Brazil, we test the relative importance of these explanations by examining whether and how support for social distancing varies according to self-identified political orientation and personal economic vulnerability. Results show that while economic vulnerability does not influence support for social distancing, conservatives are systematically less supportive of these practices than liberals. Discrepancies in sensitivity to threats to the economic system help explain the phenomenon.