Inequality in Socially Permissible Consumption

Lower-income individuals are frequently criticized for their consumption decisions; this research examines why. Eleven preregistered studies document systematic differences in permissible consumption—interpersonal judgments about what is acceptable (or not) for others to consume—such that lower-income individuals’ decisions are subject to more negative and restrictive evaluations. Indeed, the same consumption decisions may be deemed less permissible for a lower-income individual than for an individual with higher or unknown income (Studies 1A & 1B)—even when purchased with windfall funds. This gap persists among participants from a large, nationally representative sample (Study 2) and when testing a broad array of “everyday” consumption items (Study 3). Additional studies investigate why: the same items are often perceived as less necessary for lower- (versus higher-) income individuals (Studies 4 & 5). Combining both permissibility and perceived necessity, further studies (Studies 6 & 7) demonstrate a causal link between the two constructs: a purchase decision will be deemed permissible (or not) to the extent that it is perceived as necessary (or not). However, because—for lower-income individuals—fewer items are perceived as necessary, fewer are therefore socially permissible to consume. This finding not only exposes a fraught double standard, but also portends consequential behavioral implications: people prefer to allocate strictly “necessary” items to lower-income recipients (Study 8)—even if such items are objectively and subjectively less valuable (Studies 9A & 9B)—which may result in an imbalanced and inefficient provision of resources to the poor.