High Hopes or Hard Truths?
Expectations, Merit Beliefs, and Redistribution Preferences
Download PDF
Background and Motivation
In my research, I investigate the psychological mechanisms underlying redistribution preferences, focusing specifically on how beliefs about merit and luck influence these preferences. People generally accept inequality if they believe it arises from merit; however, they tend to support redistribution when they view inequality as stemming from luck. My study builds on this dynamic, examining the "winner's bias," where high earners tend to lower their redistribution preferences, and explores how self-image and expectations shape these merit-based beliefs.
Experimental Design
The experiment includes a control group and two treatments that introduce varying levels of “noise” affecting participants' incomes. In the Profitable Noise treatment, random positive noise tends to increase incomes, often benefiting participants, while the Neutral Noise treatment introduces neutral noise, which doesn’t favor anyone. In the control group, incomes directly reflect performance without added noise.
Participants begin by setting performance expectations for a cognitive test, establishing a baseline for their self-assessment. After the test, they vote on a redistribution rate that affects others but not themselves, allowing me to isolate self-image influences without financial incentives. I also incorporate a Bayesian weighting procedure in this design to analyze belief updates.
Key Findings
- Merit-Based Redistribution Preferences: I find that participants’ redistribution preferences vary significantly depending on their treatment condition and outcomes. In the Profitable Noise treatment, where participants received a boost to their performance, they tended to vote for lower redistribution rates, suggesting an alignment between positive feedback and reduced support for redistribution. In contrast, participants in the Neutral Noise treatment, who did not receive performance boosts and often performed below expectations, demonstrated an increased preference for redistribution. These results highlight how favorable or unfavorable conditions affect individuals' redistribution preferences, likely influenced by a desire to maintain or protect self-image.
- Expectations and Cognitive Bias: The study shows that initial expectations strongly influence redistribution preferences, especially among those with high expectations. When participants with high initial expectations performed well, they demonstrated a stronger "winner's bias," reducing their support for redistribution and reinforcing a sense of merit. Overconfident participants, in particular, showed a reluctance to adjust their preferences according to their ideological beliefs, suggesting that self-image concerns can override cognitive sophistication and prevent participants from aligning their redistribution preferences with broader ideological views.
- Personal vs. Group-Level Redistribution Preferences: My findings reveal a notable difference between personal redistribution preferences and perceptions of group-level merit. Many participants adjusted their redistribution preferences to reflect their self-assessment but held different views when considering group outcomes. This selective application of merit-based reasoning suggests that participants may separate personal outcomes from group dynamics, adapting their preferences in ways that preserve their self-image while applying different standards for others. Such selective reasoning likely influences broader redistribution attitudes and personal views on fairness.
- Bayesian Weighting and Motivated Reasoning: Using a novel Bayesian weighting procedure, I examine how reasoning styles—optimistic versus pessimistic—impact redistribution preferences. Optimistic participants, who tended to see higher incomes as reflective of ability, showed lower preferences for redistribution, reinforcing a merit-based interpretation. Pessimistic participants, in contrast, often responded cautiously to feedback, favoring higher redistribution and attributing outcomes more readily to luck. This variation suggests that individuals' cognitive styles influence how they interpret income and fairness, which in turn shapes their redistribution preferences. The study indicates that motivated reasoning is not uniform but varies based on cognitive approach and self-image maintenance.
Figures and Insights
Figure A demonstrates that overconfident participants in the Neutral Noise group tended to favor higher redistribution, attributing outcomes to luck. In contrast, those in the Profitable Noise treatment, benefitting from positive noise, showed lower redistribution preferences, consistent with maintaining self-image through merit attributions.
Figure B highlights how ideological preferences are influenced by overconfidence, with overconfident participants showing deviations from their ideological stance in redistribution preferences. In contrast, modest participants aligned their redistribution votes with their ideology, suggesting that overconfidence disrupts ideological consistency, favoring self-serving interpretations of outcomes.
Implications and Conclusion
This research underscores the impact of self-image maintenance on beliefs about merit and redistribution preferences. The findings reveal that the winner's bias persists largely due to self-image concerns, with individuals often adjusting their redistribution preferences based on personal and psychological motivations rather than objective assessments. Expectations play a crucial role, especially for those whose outcomes deviate from their initial beliefs, highlighting the importance of motivated thinking in shaping economic preferences.
These insights suggest that policies aimed at promoting redistribution could benefit from acknowledging the psychological underpinnings of merit beliefs. Emphasizing external, systemic factors in economic outcomes may help counteract winner's bias, fostering broader public support for equitable policies. Additionally, educational interventions that encourage accurate belief updating could mitigate overconfidence, leading individuals to adopt a more balanced understanding of inequality. Considering how ideology and motivated thinking interact could provide further insights into designing policies that resonate across ideological lines.
Ultimately, this research highlights that redistribution preferences are influenced not solely by fairness concerns but also by cognitive mechanisms supporting self-image. Addressing these psychological factors is crucial for designing policies that foster social equity and effectively tackle inequality.
Other projects:
