How the inequality around us shapes our perceptions of morality

The consequences are widespread. Wider gaps between rich and poor have a negative impact life expectancy, infant mortalityand even happiness for those at the lower end of the economic spectrum. On a social level, increased inequality hurts economic development and is associated with higher financial and violent crimes.

And according to a new study, inequality even changes the way we think about morality: when inequality is high, people are more accepting of unethical behavior.

“Inequality is closely related to the perception of control,” he says Mariam Kouhaki, Kellogg professor of management and organizations and co-author of the study. “Our study shows a causal effect of loss of control that makes you judge transgressions more leniently.”

The connection between control and ethical behavior

The connection between the control we feel in our lives and how we judge various moral gaps has been known for decades. Previous research has shown, for example, that those who lack a sense of control develop less extreme reactions to unethical behaviors such as stealing, cheating and lying.

But Koutsaki and co-authors Christopher To of Rutgers University and former Kellogg postdoc Dylan Wiwad wondered how this finding might extend to inequality. Inequality reduces social mobility (both objectively and subjectively), and creates feelings of kinship deprivation— all of which could lead people to feel less in control of their lives. So could high levels of inequality lead to a society where immoral behavior is more acceptable?

To find out, the researchers combined three massive datasets: a database measuring country-level inequality for 196 countries since 1960, a database of economic output and growth for 182 countries since 1950, and a survey of more from 125,000 people collected between 1981 and 2014. This survey included questions about participants’ feelings of control, whether they trust other people, whether they see the world as competitive, and whether they believe that people can only get rich at the expense of others. Survey participants were also asked to rate the justification of certain behaviours, such as avoiding fares on public transport, evading taxes and accepting bribes.

Analyzing the combined data set, the research team found that indeed those living in less equal societies felt less in control and more accepting of unethical behavior. (To the researchers’ surprise, there was no correlation between how competitive the participants perceived the world to be and their feelings about unethical behavior—suggesting that inequality, not just competitiveness, lends itself to this kind of justification. )

The research team then conducted some experiments themselves to extend these results. In the first, more than 800 participants were shown pictures of stairs. Each ladder had 10 steps, each representing a tenth of the population. The steps were then accompanied by different amounts of money bags, representing the amount of wealth held by that decile.

Participants saw five different scales that depicted different amounts of inequality in society. (In the most unequal example, for example, most bags of money were at the top of the ladder). Participants then chose the ladder they believed represented the distribution of wealth in their area and then rated their acceptance of unethical behaviors such as cheating on an exam, forging a friend’s signature, and illegally downloading software. They also rated their own sense of control, as well as how much they believed others had control over their unethical behaviors.

Once again, inequality—this time at the neighborhood level—mattered. The team found that people who rated their neighborhood as more unequal were more likely to report a lower sense of control and greater acceptance of unethical behavior.

When unethical behavior is more acceptable

But there are some drawbacks to relying on participants’ assessments of their own neighborhoods. So, for another set of experiments, the team turned to a fictional society of Bimboola (a paradigm used in other, similar experiments).

In Bimboola, participants were told that citizens had different income levels. participants belonged to the middle class. But some participants were told that Bimboola was a highly unequal society, while others were told that inequality was low. Then, to reinforce these descriptions, participants were asked to choose between key objects such as houses or means of transport available in Bimboola. In the highly unequal society, they chose between objects that varied greatly in cost or quality: both mansions and small houses, for example, and sports cars and junkers. In the more egalitarian society, the range of choices was much narrower: think a slightly larger house versus a slightly smaller house.

Participants then answered several questions about their perceptions and expectations. As predicted, in these studies the team found that people in a highly unequal society—even a fictional one—felt a lower sense of control and were more accepting of unethical behavior from others and themselves.

How inequality relates to social mobility

Finally, the team returned to the real world to investigate the effect of social mobility—that is, a person’s ability to change their socioeconomic status. They wondered: Could social mobility (or rather the lack of it) contribute to this feeling of powerlessness or lack of control?

In one study, for example, participants rated inequality in their neighborhood and rated their feelings of control and perceptions of unethical behavior. This time, however, they also answered questions such as: “There are many opportunities for me to move up in society.”

The researchers found that lower perceived social mobility among participants who reported living in more unequal areas helped explain why inequality reduces a sense of control.

“Social mobility is relevant to what’s happening here,” Kouhaki said. “If someone believes that society is unequal, but has the ability to move up, then they still feel a sense of control. But if you can’t go up, you lose that sense of control.”

How to make a more equal society

On a societal level, research could explain why crime rates may be higher in areas with significant economic inequality. It could also explain this interesting finding Student cheating is higher in states that have higher levels of inequality.

“It goes beyond crime and deception,” Koutsaki said. “Losing a sense of control is incredibly important to well-being.”

At a basic level, policymakers who want to restore that sense of control to their communities can adopt programs that reduce economic inequality, including creating more affordable housing, raising the minimum wage and creating a progressive tax system, he said. Koutsakis. They could also encourage training and education programs that enhance people’s perception of social mobility.

“By making society more equal, we can help people feel more secure and stable in their lives, which would give them a greater sense of control,” Koutsaki said.