Open AccessThe bright side of pessimism: Promoting wealth redistribution under (felt) economic hardship
Author(s) -
Silvia Galdi,
Anne Maass,
Annalisa Robbiani
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
plos one
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.99
H-Index - 332
ISSN - 1932-6203
DOI - 10.1371/journal.pone.0243486
Subject(s) - pessimism , redistribution (election) , disadvantaged , redistribution of income and wealth , optimism , personal income , inequality , economics , economic inequality , demographic economics , perception , public economics , development economics , psychology , social psychology , economic growth , political science , unemployment , politics , mathematical analysis , philosophy , mathematics , epistemology , neuroscience , law
Economic inequality is a collective issue that affects all citizens. However, people often fail to support redistribution strategies aimed at redressing inequality. In this work we investigated personal optimism and collective pessimism as psychological processes that contribute to hampering vs. promoting the demand for redistribution. Our prediction was that support for redistribution would require both a pessimistic economic outlook at the collective level and the perception of being economically disadvantaged. In two studies, one of which pre-registered, Italian participants (Study 1: N = 306; Study 2: N = 384) were led to feel relatively poor or rich, rated their perceived control over either their personal or the nation’s future and estimated either personal or national economic and general future risks. To measure support for redistribution, participants were invited to allocate their desired level of taxation to each of the five tax brackets included in the Italian personal income tax. Results showed that participants were optimistic about their personal future, but pessimistic about the fate of their nation. This difference was explained by respondents’ greater perceived control over personal future than over the nation’s future. Importantly, greater pessimism about national economic risks led to greater support for progressive taxation only for participants who felt relatively poor.