IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/cexwps/297972.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Individual ideology and biased perceptions of income

Author

Listed:
  • Busemeyer, Marius R.
  • Giger, Nathalie
  • Wehl, Nadja

Abstract

In this paper, we focus on individuals' perceptions of their own position within the income distribution and argue that ideological biases influence these perceptions. In particular, we take into account the two-dimensional ideological space of European party systems and develop arguments about social class mis-identification (economic dimension) and cultural threat and privilege (cultural dimension) leading to either over- or underestimation. We use novel survey data from the Konstanz Inequality Barometer (2020 and 2022) and find that socially conservative individuals are more likely to underestimate their relative income position, i.e. they perceive themselves to be worse off than they are. By contrast, individuals with a rightist position on the economic ideology are more likely to overestimate their relative position. These biases have downstream consequences for electoral behavior as well. Our findings have important consequences for our understanding of individuals' perceptions of inequality but also, more broadly, for the politics of redistribution.

Suggested Citation

  • Busemeyer, Marius R. & Giger, Nathalie & Wehl, Nadja, 2024. "Individual ideology and biased perceptions of income," Working Papers 21, University of Konstanz, Cluster of Excellence "The Politics of Inequality. Perceptions, Participation and Policies".
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:cexwps:297972
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/297972/1/1890222054.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ansolabehere, Stephen & Meredith, Marc & Snowberg, Erik, 2013. "Asking About Numbers: Why and How," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(1), pages 48-69, January.
    2. Vladimir Gimpelson & Daniel Treisman, 2018. "Misperceiving inequality," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 27-54, March.
    3. Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge, 2006. "Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 755-769, July.
    4. Kurer, Thomas & Van Staalduinen, Briitta, 2022. "Disappointed Expectations: Downward Mobility and Electoral Change," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 116(4), pages 1340-1356, November.
    5. Kris‐Stella Trump, 2023. "Income inequality is unrelated to perceived inequality and support for redistribution," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 104(2), pages 180-188, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sonja Settele & Cortnie Shupe, 2020. "Lives or Livelihoods? Perceived Tradeoffs and Public Demand for Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions," CEBI working paper series 20-17, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. The Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality (CEBI).
    2. Cong Minh Huynh & Nam Hoai Tran, 2023. "Financial development, income inequality, and institutional quality: A multi-dimensional analysis," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 2242128-224, June.
    3. Barrera, Oscar & Guriev, Sergei & Henry, Emeric & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2020. "Facts, alternative facts, and fact checking in times of post-truth politics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    4. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2023. "Designing Information Provision Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 3-40, March.
    5. Mark K. McBeth & Donna L. Lybecker & James W. Stoutenborough, 2016. "Do stakeholders analyze their audience? The communication switch and stakeholder personal versus public communication choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 421-444, December.
    6. Ronja Sczepanski, 2023. "European by action: How voting reshapes nested identities," European Union Politics, , vol. 24(4), pages 751-770, December.
    7. Tomi Rajala, 2019. "Mind the Information Expectation Gap," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(1), pages 104-125, March.
    8. Jensen, Carsten & Naumann, Elias, 2016. "Increasing pressures and support for public healthcare in Europe," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(6), pages 698-705.
    9. Byungdoo Kim & David L. Kay & Jonathon P. Schuldt, 2021. "Will I have to move because of climate change? Perceived likelihood of weather- or climate-related relocation among the US public," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-8, March.
    10. Barton, Jared & Pan, Xiaofei, 2022. "Movin’ on up? A survey experiment on mobility enhancing policies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    11. Peter Mihalyi & Iván Szelenyi, 2016. "Two different sources of inequalities: profits and rents in advanced market economies," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 1630, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    12. Støstad, Morten Nyborg, 2023. "Fairness Beliefs Affect Perceived Economic Inequality," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 22/2023, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    13. Marino, Maria & Iacono, Roberto & Mollerstrom, Johanna, 2023. "(Mis-)perceptions, information, and political polarization," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 119268, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Caroline Le Pennec & Vincent Pons, 2023. "How do Campaigns Shape Vote Choice? Multicountry Evidence from 62 Elections and 56 TV Debates," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 138(2), pages 703-767.
    15. Windsteiger, Lisa, 2022. "The redistributive consequences of segregation and misperceptions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    16. Díez-Alonso, Daniel, 2020. "Taxpayer Bias in Perceived Income Distributions," MPRA Paper 116775, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 10 Jan 2021.
    17. Ahlquist, John S. & Ichino, Nahomi & Wittenberg, Jason & Ziblatt, Daniel, 2018. "How do voters perceive changes to the rules of the game? Evidence from the 2014 Hungarian elections," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 906-919.
    18. Christopher Roth & Sonja Settele & Johannes Wohlfart, 2022. "Risk Exposure and Acquisition of Macroeconomic Information," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 4(1), pages 34-53, March.
    19. Gründler, Klaus & Köllner, Sebastian, 2017. "Determinants of governmental redistribution: Income distribution, development levels, and the role of perceptions," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 930-962.
    20. David L. Dickinson, 2020. "Deliberation enhances the confirmation bias. An examination of politics and religion," Working Papers 20-06, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:cexwps:297972. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.exc.uni-konstanz.de/en/inequality/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.