Economic segregation is associated with reduced concerns about economic inequality

The research question addresses why people are not as concerned about economic inequality as expected. Existing research explores ideological differences, lay beliefs, misperceptions, and situational factors like exposure to inequality. However, highly unequal regions tend to be economically segregated, raising questions about whether exposure alone is sufficient to increase concern about inequality. This paper proposes that economic segregation, the spatial separation of people with different economic means, is a critical factor influencing attitudes towards inequality, specifically predicting that economic segregation reduces such concerns. Economic segregation shapes various aspects of daily life, impacting where we live, work, and interact, thereby affecting our social circles and the salience of economic disparities. The authors argue that just as visual perception relies on juxtaposition for contrast, the economic contrast between different wealth levels is more psychologically salient when individuals of varying means are in close proximity. Economic segregation, by dampening cross-class interactions, reduces this salience, making comparisons more difficult, even if awareness of inequality exists. Therefore, the dampening effect of segregation on economic comparisons is posited to reduce concerns about inequality. Unlike previous research that primarily examined distorted perceptions resulting from a lack of cues in segregated areas, this study proposes an independent pathway: the reduction of economic comparisons as a direct result of segregation. The same level of inequality is experienced differently based on the degree of economic segregation. In a highly segregated area, a wealthy person's encounter with a homeless person may not evoke the same degree of concern as a similar encounter in an integrated area where the contrast is more immediate and apparent. Thus, even with identical levels of inequality, segregation is hypothesized to reduce concerns due to its obscuring effect on the juxtaposition of wealth and poverty.

The paper reviews existing literature focusing on several factors that influence people's concerns about economic inequality. These include ideological differences, individuals' beliefs about inequality, and misperceptions of the extent of inequality. The literature also highlights the situational aspect, emphasizing how exposure to inequality shapes concerns about it. However, this paper argues that the existing literature neglects the role of economic segregation, the geographical separation of individuals with different economic means. Previous studies show that exposure to inequality does not necessarily translate into greater concern about it, especially in highly segregated societies. The paper draws upon research in visual perception (Mach Bands illusion) to explain that juxtaposing different levels of wealth is crucial to making economic disparities psychologically salient. Research on social and cognitive processes supports the argument that salient economic reference groups facilitate comparison, influencing support for redistributive policies. Studies show that people are more supportive of such policies when they know someone facing economic hardship. Making sense of ambiguous terms like 'financial success' requires comparison, and less frequent comparison due to segregation can affect attitudes toward inequality. The authors highlight that their study goes beyond prior research by considering the psychological effects of economic segregation even when exposure to inequality remains constant.

The study employs both archival and experimental methods. Study 1 uses archival data from the World Values Survey, combining it with data on economic segregation across US commuter zones. This analysis uses multiple measures of segregation and inequality, exploring various model specifications (a total of 918) to ensure robustness. Studies 2-5 use experimental designs. Studies 2a-2d focus on hypothetical scenarios involving company organizational structures, manipulating the degree of economic segregation while keeping the overall inequality constant. Participants' concerns about inequality, perceptions of fairness, and the perceived need for intervention are measured. A manipulation check ensures that the level of perceived inequality within the offices aligns with the experimental condition. Study 2a uses a between-subjects design, while Studies 2b and 2c employ within-subjects designs. Study 2d examines whether the effect of segregation is moderated by the overall level of organizational inequality. Study 3 uses real-life data on Amazon job positions and salaries from Glassdoor to replicate the findings in a real-world context. The study manipulates the presentation of salary information to reflect economic segregation or integration. Study 4 examines the effect of economic segregation in South Africa using aerial photos of high and low-income neighborhoods. Photos are manipulated to depict either integrated or segregated neighborhoods. Participants' concerns about inequality, fairness perceptions, and tolerance levels are measured. Study 5a and 5b investigate the role of social comparison as a mechanism mediating the effect of segregation. The study utilizes hypothetical cityscapes with income data for residents to examine how changes in the distribution of income, while keeping overall inequality constant, affects comparison and, subsequently, concerns about inequality.

Study 1, using archival data from the US, revealed a significant negative relationship between economic segregation and concern about inequality, even after controlling for economic inequality levels and other relevant factors. This negative association held robust across 98.1% of 918 model specifications. Studies 2a-2d, employing hypothetical company scenarios, consistently showed that participants were less concerned about inequality when it mainly occurred between (segregated) rather than within (integrated) offices, irrespective of the overall inequality level. Study 3, using Amazon job data, replicated the findings in a real-world context. Participants were less concerned about inequality when job locations were presented as economically segregated. Study 4, using photos of South African neighborhoods, demonstrated that visually separating high and low-income neighborhoods reduced concerns about inequality, even when presenting the same neighborhoods in both conditions. Studies 5a and 5b provided experimental evidence supporting the mediating role of economic comparisons in the effect of segregation on concerns about inequality. Participants in segregated conditions anticipated less frequent comparisons between their and others' incomes and, consequently, reported lower concern about inequality. This effect was replicated across both studies. Importantly, an examination of economic attribution showed that segregation did not increase, but rather decreased the tendency to attribute economic outcomes to internal factors.

The findings consistently demonstrate that both real and hypothetical economic segregation reduce concerns about inequality, even when controlling for the actual level of inequality. This suggests that segregation's impact is independent of mere misperceptions about inequality's extent. Segregation likely operates through two distinct pathways: shaping perceptions of inequality and impeding economic comparisons. While the study focuses on economic segregation, it suggests implications for other forms of segregation, especially since socioeconomic status frequently intersects with racial and ethnic identities. The limitations of specific studies (e.g., the correlational nature of Study 1, limitations of hypothetical scenarios) are addressed by the variety of methods used. The robust findings across multiple studies suggest that segregation's impact on concerns about inequality is not merely due to individuals' choices of residential areas but a more fundamental psychological effect. Future research directions include exploring other factors that might reduce the juxtaposition of wealth and poverty and examining the effect of segregation across different income levels and cultural contexts.

This research provides robust evidence that economic segregation independently diminishes concerns about economic inequality, even when the level of inequality itself remains constant. This effect operates through the reduction of economic comparisons, a key factor influencing attitudes toward inequality. Future research should explore the interaction of these factors with other forms of segregation and investigate how these effects vary across different income brackets and cultural contexts.

Study 1's correlational design might not establish causality; while experimental studies address this, their reliance on hypothetical scenarios could limit the generalizability of findings to real-world contexts. The cross-sectional nature of the data may limit understanding of how experiences of segregation and changes in inequality interact over time. Future research needs to explore the interplay of multiple types of segregation. Despite this, the robustness of the findings across diverse methodologies suggests that the described effects are likely to occur in real-world settings.