Inequality in socially permissible consumption

Abstract

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.

Clouded Motives and Pharmacological Calvinism: How Recreational Use of a Drug Affects Moral Judgments of Its Medical Use

“…For example, aggression motivated by revenge, rather than personal gain, is seen as relatively more moral (Reeder et al 2002). Of most relevance to the current investigation, existing work also shows that observers judge purchases by low-income consumers as less morally permissible when they are perceived to be motived by “want” versus by “need” or necessity (Hagerty and Barasz 2020). Drawing on this work, I predict that using a drug for a medical purpose will be seen as less morally acceptable if others use the drug for recreational enjoyment because the presence of recreational use reduces the perception that medical users are motivated by medical need.…”

A Behavioral Perspective on the Decision to Seek Formal and Informal Financial Help

“…A potential helper's actual willingness to help will be affected by a wide range of variables, such as the helper's beliefs about why the person needs help 74 and what kind of help it is. 75 To the extent that the person in need recognizes the roles of these variables, they may affect their beliefs about the likelihood that a potential helper would agree to help.…”

Economic Inequality Shapes Judgments of Consumption

“…Even if Adam and Bill ultimately chose the same car, their decision would likely be met with different judgments by third‐party observers. As recent research has shown, a consumer’s wealth and income level shapes observers’ judgments about what is acceptable (or not) for them to purchase (Hagerty & Barasz, 2020; Olson et al., 2016), resulting in a problematic double standard: what is perceived to be an ordinary or reasonable purchase for Adam might be deemed irresponsible or impulsive for Bill. For example, even if Adam and Bill pay extra to add rearview cameras to their new cars—explicitly framed as a safety‐oriented purchase that is far from frivolous—Bill’s decision will be seen as significantly less necessary and acceptable than Adam’s.…”

“…For example, even if Adam and Bill pay extra to add rearview cameras to their new cars—explicitly framed as a safety‐oriented purchase that is far from frivolous—Bill’s decision will be seen as significantly less necessary and acceptable than Adam’s. This pattern holds across any number of categories; lower‐income individuals who purchase organic produce, television sets, or even a car seat for a new baby are judged more negatively than a higher‐income individual making the identical purchase, creating a gap in what is socially permissible (or not) for these consumers to own (Hagerty & Barasz, 2020; Olson et al., 2016).…”