Lower-income individuals are frequently criticized for their consumption decisions; this research examines why. Eleven preregistered studies document systematic differences in permissible consumption—interpersonal judgments about what is acceptable (or not) for others to consume—such that lower-income individuals’ decisions are subject to more negative and restrictive evaluations. Indeed, the same consumption decisions may be deemed less permissible for a lower-income individual than for an individual with higher or unknown income (studies 1A and 1B), even when purchased with windfall funds. This gap persists among participants from a large, nationally representative sample (study 2) and when testing a broad array of “everyday” consumption items (study 3). Additional studies investigate why: The same items are often perceived as less necessary for lower- (versus higher-) income individuals (studies 4 and 5). Combining both permissibility and perceived necessity, additional studies (studies 6 and 7) demonstrate a causal link between the two constructs: A purchase decision will be deemed permissible (or not) to the extent that it is perceived as necessary (or not). However, because—for lower-income individuals—fewer items are perceived as necessary, fewer are therefore socially permissible to consume. This finding not only exposes a fraught double standard, but also portends consequential behavioral implications: People prefer to allocate strictly “necessary” items to lower-income recipients (study 8), even if such items are objectively and subjectively less valuable (studies 9A and 9B), which may result in an imbalanced and inefficient provision of resources to the poor.

We document a link between the relational diversity of one’s social portfolio—the richness and evenness of relationship types across one’s social interactions—and well-being. Across four distinct samples, respondents from the United States who completed a preregistered survey ( n = 578), respondents to the American Time Use Survey ( n = 19,197), respondents to the World Health Organization’s Study on Global Aging and Adult Health ( n = 10,447), and users of a French mobile application ( n = 21,644), specification curve analyses show that the positive relationship between social portfolio diversity and well-being is robust across different metrics of well-being, different categorizations of relationship types, and the inclusion of a wide range of covariates. Over and above people’s total amount of social interaction and the diversity of activities they engage in, the relational diversity of their social portfolio is a unique predictor of well-being, both between individuals and within individuals over time.

Economic inequality affects not only individuals’ judgments and behavior in their own lives, but also those individuals’ judgements and behavior toward others—both people and firms. First, the consumption decisions of others are often evaluated through a moral lens, such that lower‐income consumers are held to more negative, restrictive standards of what is acceptable to purchase. Second, firms that perpetuate inequality among their employees or their customers—through unequal pay or unequal services—are viewed negatively. We discuss the implications of economic inequality shaping people’s moral scrutiny of others.

Patient satisfaction has evolved into a standard measure for quality and value in health care. Given the importance of patient satisfaction to overall hospital quality measures, a growing literature has investigated a number of variables that affect satisfaction in the emergency department (ED). For instance, studies have demonstrated that certain objective visit-related metrics, such as reduced wait time to see a provider, shorter length of stay, and a higher num-

Nine studies investigate when and why people may paradoxically prefer bad news—e.g., hoping for an objectively worse injury or a higher-risk diagnosis over explicitly better alternatives. Using a combination of field surveys and randomized experiments, the research demonstrates that people may hope for relatively worse (versus better) news in an effort to preemptively avoid subjectively difficult decisions (Studies 1–2). This is because when worse news avoids a choice (Study 3A)—e.g., by “forcing one’s hand” or creating one dominant option that circumvents a fraught decision (Study 3B)—it can relieve the decision-maker’s experience of personal responsibility (Study 3C). However, because not all decisions warrant avoidance, not all decisions will elicit a preference for worse news; fewer people hope for worse news when facing subjectively easier (versus harder) choices (Studies 4A¬–B). Finally, this preference for worse news is not without consequence and may create perverse incentives for decision-makers, such as the tendency to forgo opportunities for improvement (Studies 5A–B). The work contributes to the literature on decision avoidance and elucidates another strategy people use to circumvent difficult decisions: a propensity to hope for the worst.