Social and Economic Inequality

Although many factors may cause social and economic inequality in a society, one of notable importance is the discrimination faced by minority groups. This is seen in income disparities across racial, ethnic and gender group boundaries. According to United States census data (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0685.pdf), the median income of white males in 2007 was $35,141 compared to $25,822 and $24,451 for African American and Hispanic males, respectively. This differential is even greater than that for females because of large pay differentials between men and women that reduce ethnic disparities. Comparable figures for women were $21,069, $19,752, and $16,748, respectively. Moreover, these differences are not due to different levels of educational attainment. Pay differentials exist across all educational levels.

Differences in income are also reflected in the number of people living under poverty thresholds (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0695.pdf). In 2007, 10.5% of whites lived in poverty compared to 24.5% of African Americans and 21.5% of Hispanics. Household wealth reflects similar differences. Median net worth of whites in 2007 was $170,400 compared to $27,800 for non-whites and Hispanics (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0705.pdf).

It would be reasonable to expect that such disparities primarily harm those at the low end of the economic ladder, and indeed the poor show disadvantages not only economically but along a host of other measures of social inequality and general wellbeing. But according to Wilkinson and Pickett (2009), as conveyed in their book The Spirit Level, income inequality does not only affect the poor; it adversely affects people at all levels of income within a society. They gathered data from a large array of government, non-government organizational, and scientific sources in studying the relationship of income inequality to a variety of measures of wellbeing within democratic, modern industrialized countries, including more than a dozen European countries, the United States, Canada, Japan, Singapore, Australia, new Zealand and Israel. Additionally, they looked at these relationships across the fifty states in the U.S.

Wilkinson and Pickett (2009) showed that across the different measures of wellbeing, poorer outcomes were seen as the degree of economic inequality increased. Comparing the ratio of the richest 20% of the population to the poorest 20% in terms of annual income, the most unequal countries were Singapore, the United States and Portugal whereas the most equal were Japan and the Scandinavian countries. Among the findings were that greater economic inequality was associated with a greater incidence and severity of health and social problems, including (1) lower life expectancy, (2) greater infant mortality, (3) increased obesity, (4) higher levels of teen pregnancy, (5) lower levels of literacy, mathematical achievement, and overall educational attainment, (6) greater incidence of homicide, (7) increased imprisonment, (8) lower social mobility, (9) increased mental illness, (10) more illegal drug use, (11) lower status of women in society, (12) lower levels of trust among the population, and (13) less willingness to help other countries through foreign aid. These effects impact all members of society and the authors show that they are present across all income brackets. The authors argue that a prime mediator of these outcomes is the increased stress and social anxiety (i.e., evaluation anxiety, reduced self-esteem, feelings of social exclusion) that accompanies inequality as well as an undermining of the compensatory effects of social support and sense of community found in more equal societies.

If reducing inequality would help to alleviate social problems and bring greater welfare to society overall, why is there such resistance to movement in this direction? And why do disadvantaged groups buy into a system that offers them so little while rewarding others?

One explanation comes from social dominance theory (Sidanius, Pratto, van Laar & Levin, 2004). It posits that people have an inherent tendency to form and maintain group-based hierarchical social structures in which a privileged group or class in society has power to dominate other subordinate groups. Those with greater power exploit the relatively powerless members of society for social and economic advantage, claiming a greater share of desired goods while directing less desired goods and costs onto the disadvantaged. Institutional discrimination is thereby "one of the major forces creating, maintaining and recreating systems of group-based hierarchy" (pg. 847). According to this view, "race, gender, and class stereotypes are not just cognitive simplifications or negative expectations of other groups... [they] give moral and intellectual legitimacy to the hierarchical relations among these groups" (g. 869).

Based in evolutionary history and the environmental expression of underling genetic predispositions, social dominance is thought to be a characteristic of human beings that underlies the inequality, discrimination, group competition, and violence seen throughout history. Nevertheless, this theory does not offer a completely hopeless expectation for a better society. The authors argue that while there are legitimizing ideologies that arise to justify social dominance and inequality, there are also delegitimizing ideologies that work against hierarchical, and more in favor of egalitarian, social structures. An emphasis with this theoretical orientation is understanding differences in social dominance orientation among individuals and the interaction between forces that facilitate and inhibit the formation and support for group hierarchies.

Like social dominance theory, system justification theory (Jost, Banaji & Nosek, 2004) explains the perpetuation of social and economic inequality as the result of disadvantaged groups' acceptance of the status quo. Rather than simply complying with the rules of those who hold power in society out of fear of reprisals for social activism or protest, the relatively powerless are seen as actively supporting and buying into the system that places them at a disadvantage.

One possible etiology for this phenomenon is offered by Jost, Pelham, Sheldon and Sullivan (2003). They suggest that the cognitive dissonance resulting from a person's acquiescence and support of a system that puts him or her at a disadvantage would lead to dissonance reduction responses. One such response would be to rationalize this disadvantaged status by providing consonant beliefs that justify the system. Hence, the authors predicted that one might actually observe greatest support of an unequal system among those who are the most disadvantaged by it. The more dissonance aroused, the greater need for justification to eliminate the dissonant state.

In a series studies, using large sample surveys, support was found for this hypothesis (Jost et al. (2003). Those participants with the lowest incomes were found to offer the greatest level of system justification and support. In one study, they were most likely to support laws to limit criticism of the government by the press and limit the rights of citizens to speak out against the government. In a second, they were most likely to believe the government is run for the benefit of all citizens and that government officials can be trusted to do what is right. Other studies found greater support for income inequality among the poorest participants through their endorsement of large pay differences as a means of motivating people to work, and in their belief that anyone can succeed by working hard. Thus, overall the most economically disadvantage were the strongest supporters of the current system. Moreover, these findings often persisted even when controlling for significant effects of race and education on these measures.

Jost, Banaji and Nosek (2004) surveyed a large body of additional research supporting system justification theory. One particularly interesting finding that differentiates the theory from other alternatives (e.g., social identity theory) is that it predicts outgroup favoritism among minority groups. Rather than showing a consistent preference for one's own ingroup, lower-status group members have been found to show more positive attitudes towards higher-status groups to which they do not belong. And although this effect is not always found on explicit measures of group preference, the effect is robust using implicit measures, such as the Implicit Association Test (Greenwald, McGhee & Schwartz, 1998). Implicit measures are thought to measure unconscious attitudes and associations in memory that are relatively free of conscious self-presentation, social desirability, or other contextual effects. The finding that higher-status group members show consistent ingroup favoritism whereas lower-status group members do so less consistently, and in some cases actually display a preference for the outgroup instead, supports the theory. Jost et al. also found that favoritism towards higher-status groups among both the ingroup and outgroup was especially pronounced among the more politically conservative.

Another way in which inequality is maintained by those who are dominant in a society is through the creation and application of stereotypes that limit the freedom and opportunities of subordinate group members (Fiske, 1993). If a group is viewed as relatively unintelligent, for example, then it is easier to justify the denial of access to higher education and more rewarding careers. The stereotype serves as a means of rationalizing income differentials and perpetuating status and power differentials. In many cases, a stereotype will not be entirely negative in nature but will contain other compensatory positive attributes that, although more favorable, are not relevant to levels of income or access to other valued resources. These compensatory stereotypes may help foster acceptance by lower-status groups (Kay & Jost, 2003).

With respect to gender stereotyping, Glick and Fiske (2001) view complementary aspects of female stereotypes as reflecting hostile and benevolent forms of sexism, both of which work towards preserving inequality and the status quo, but in a manner that provides justification and greater acceptance by women. Social dominance theorists (Sidanius & Veniegas, 2000) view this form of patriarchal dominance of women by men as distinct from the "arbitrary set" hierarchies that develop along racial, ethnic, or other lines. They argue that discrimination towards the male members of a subordinate group is typically more severe and qualitatively different (e.g., more likely to result in death) than that towards its female members. They also demonstrate that men have stronger social dominance tendencies than women. These differences are thought to be rooted in the biological drive of men to gain reproductive rights over women and eliminate competition by other men.

Although stereotyping may arise as a deliberate and biased means of exerting control over those with less power, they also play a role in basic information processing functions (see Goodwin, Gubin, Fiske & Yzerbyt, 2000). Stereotypes enable a form of heuristic processing that requires little attention and cognitive resources and which may obviate the need for conscious thought. Fiske (1993) has argued that this characteristic of stereotypic thought suggests an asymmetry among individuals with different levels of power in a relationship. Dominant individuals are more likely to stereotype subordinates whereas subordinates are more likely to use individuation strategies in which the unique aspects of the person are recognized. This argument hinges on the assumption that those in power have a minimal need to understand their subordinates at a more personal level. In contrast, their greater dependency in the relationship causes subordinates to strive for a better understanding of those individuals who ultimately control their outcomes. Greater knowledge of those in power potentially enables a greater degree of prediction and control in the relationship despite the power differential. How typical such asymmetries are in modern intergroup settings may be disputed (Overbeck & Park, 2001) , but this argument raises interesting questions about how power asymmetries in relationships may affect stereotyping and information processing.

Social and economic inequality are unlikely to be eliminated entirely and may be an inevitable consequence of human nature. And while inequality appears to foster a wide range of social and health problems, it is also the case that there is significant variation in its manifestation and its extent across societies and regions within a society. As such, efforts to reduce inequality may be effective in fostering better outcomes within society overall.