People think the everyday effects of the COVID-19 pandemic are not as bad for people in poverty.

Abstract

Many of the everyday restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., lockdowns, being apart from loved ones) are even worse for those with fewer financial and material resources, but a series of experiments (total N = 1,452) suggests that people think the opposite. Indeed, participants consistently displayed a “thick skin bias,” whereby they perceived effects of the pandemic such as sheltering at home or remaining apart from loved ones as less harmful for people in poverty. Directly providing information that contradicted this misguided stereotype reduced, but did not completely reverse, the thick skin bias. A failure to understand the full impact of the pandemic for those with the fewest resources may perpetuate and exacerbate inequalities during and after this unprecedented global crisis, making the identification of strategies to counteract biased understandings of poverty a pressing priority for future research.

From Stigma to Scarcity: On Interpersonal and Cognitive Sources of Vulnerability for Consumers in Poverty

“…People believe that even five-year-olds would be less harmed by negative events if they have grown up in poverty (Cheek & Shafir, 2020), that sexual harassment and domestic abuse are less harmful for lower-SES women , and that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, restrictions such as being isolated at home and separated from loved ones were less upsetting for low-SES individuals (Cheek, 2023). The thick skin bias extends to situations where it would appear obvious that low-income consumers are more vulnerable, such as having a flooded apartment, or the heating stop working in mid-winter, and it extends to judgments of physical pain as well (see also Barnardes et al, 2021;Summers et al, 2021).…”