Building a Better America—One Wealth Quintile at a Time

Michael I. Norton; Dan  Ariely

Article | Perspectives on Psychological Science | January 2011

Building a Better America—One Wealth Quintile at a Time

Abstract

Disagreements about the optimal level of wealth inequality underlie policy debates ranging from taxation to welfare. We attempt to insert the desires of "regular" Americans into these debates, by asking a nationally representative online panel to estimate the current distribution of wealth in the United States and to "build a better America" by constructing distributions with their ideal level of inequality. First, respondents dramatically underestimated the current level of wealth inequality. Second, respondents constructed ideal wealth distributions that were far more equitable than even their erroneously low estimates of the actual distribution. Most important from a policy perspective, we observed a surprising level of consensus: All demographic groups—even those not usually associated with wealth redistribution such as Republicans and the wealthy—desired a more equal distribution of wealth than the status quo.

Keywords: Taxation; Policy; Perspective; Wealth; Equality and Inequality; Income; Demography; Debates; Welfare or Wellbeing; Diversity; Philanthropy and Charitable Giving; United States;

Format: Print

4 pages

Find at Harvard Read Now

Citation:

Norton, Michael I., and Dan Ariely. "Building a Better America—One Wealth Quintile at a Time." Perspectives on Psychological Science 6, no. 1 (January 2011): 9–12.

While global wealth has risen over the past few decades, this has not translated into a less stressful life for most people. In fact, stress has risen for people worldwide. Across six studies— including large-scale survey data from over 150 countries—we show that the typically observed negative association between stress and unhappiness depends critically on the value that people place on work. Using various measures of work values—including individual and area-level historical Protestantism, peer-group working hours, and self-reported measures—we show that the strength of the negative impact of stress on subjective well-being depends upon the extent to which individuals, societies, and cultures more broadly value productive work as a good in itself. These findings emphasize the importance of the “psychological fit” between actions and values in shaping subjective well-being. Using large-scale time-use data, we show that the moderating role of work values can be largely explained by the extent to which these values shape how enjoyable leisure activities are, rather than how they affect people’s experience of work-related activities themselves.

Two experiments, including one incentive compatible study, examine the impact of cutting pay for executives versus employees in response to COVID-19 on consumer behavior. Study 1 explores the effect of announcing cuts or no cuts to CEO and employee pay, and shows that firms’ commitment to paying employees their full wages leads to the most positive consumer reactions. Study 2 further examines the effects of announcing employee and CEO pay cuts: though announcing CEO pay cuts in tandem with employee pay cuts can help mitigate the negative effects of employee pay cuts, consumers respond most positively to firms which prioritize paying employees regardless of their strategy for CEO pay. These positive perceptions are mediated by perceptions of financial pain to employees. We discuss the implications of our results for firms and policy-makers during economic crises.

Article | Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | August 2020

Does Spending Money on Others Promote Happiness? A Registered Replication Report

Lara B. Aknin, Elizabeth W. Dunn, Jason Proulx, Iris Lok and Michael I. Norton

Research indicates that spending money on others—prosocial spending—leads to greater happiness than spending money on oneself (e.g., Dunn, Aknin, & Norton, 2008, 2014). These findings have received widespread attention because they offer insight into why people engage in costly prosocial behavior, and what constitutes happier spending more broadly. However, most studies on prosocial spending (like most research on the emotional benefits of generosity) utilized small sample sizes (n < 100/cell). In light of new, improved standards for evidentiary value, we conducted high-powered registered replications of the central paradigms used in prosocial spending research. In Experiment 1, 712 students were randomly assigned to make a purchase for themselves or a stranger in need and then reported their happiness. As predicted, participants assigned to engage in prosocial (vs. personal) spending reported greater momentary happiness. In Experiment 2, 1950 adults recalled a time they spent money on themselves or someone else and then reported their current happiness; contrary to predictions, participants in the prosocial spending condition did not report greater happiness than those in the personal spending condition. Because low levels of task engagement may have produced these null results, we conducted a replication with minor changes designed to increase engagement; in this Experiment 3 (N = 5,199), participants who recalled a prosocial (vs. personal) spending memory reported greater happiness but differences were small. Taken together, these studies support the hypothesis that spending money on others does promote happiness, but demonstrate that the magnitude of the effect depends on several methodological features.

Keywords: prosocial spending; Generosity; well-being; replication; Happiness; Behavior; Spending;

Citation:

Aknin, Lara B., Elizabeth W. Dunn, Jason Proulx, Iris Lok, and Michael I. Norton. "Does Spending Money on Others Promote Happiness? A Registered Replication Report." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 119, no. 2 (August 2020). View Details

Cite View Details Find at Harvard Read Now

Faculty & Research

Building a Better America—One Wealth Quintile at a Time

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author