People in the United States judge the success of individuals from higher- versus lower-income families as less deserving

Being born into a wealthy family can have many advantages and is a major predictor of future socioeconomic success. Media coverage often highlights unequal chances of success stemming from family background. While prior research shows individuals from higher-income families are more likely to become successful than those from lower-income families, less is known about how people judge individuals from different family income backgrounds once they are successful. This research therefore aims to (1) investigate how deserving people judge the same socioeconomic success when achieved by individuals from higher- versus lower-income families, and (2) examine behavioral downstream consequences of those judgments. Motivated by growing prejudice toward higher-income individuals and literature showing people draw different inferences based on socioeconomic status, seven preregistered studies test whether deservingness judgments of identical successes vary by family background and why such discrepancies exist, focusing on perceived self-reliance as a key driver.

Prior work documents predominantly negative judgments toward the poor and predominantly positive judgments toward the wealthy, with the wealthy seen as competent and hardworking and the poor as lazier or more violent. Attribution theory suggests people deem success deserving to the extent it is attributed to internal, controllable factors like ability and effort (self-reliance), rather than to luck or external resources. Americans, who strongly value social mobility and autonomy, often attribute economic success to individual capabilities. However, identical behaviors can be judged differently depending on the actor’s socioeconomic status, suggesting potential double standards. The present research contributes by showing that what counts as self-reliance varies systematically with family background: individuals from higher-income families are judged as less self-reliant in achieving the same success, which reduces perceived deservingness.

Seven preregistered, between-subjects vignette experiments with U.S. participants recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk and Prolific Academic examined judgments of success deservingness, perceived self-reliance, and support decisions as a function of a target’s family income background. Contexts included business ownership, elite sports, medicine, art, higher education, and workplace promotion. Measures included a three-item success deservingness scale (e.g., deserves, earned, merit; alphas ≈ 0.88–0.91), a three-item perceived self-reliance scale (e.g., relied on himself/herself; alphas ≈ 0.89–0.95), and binary support choices (yes/no). Key sample sizes and designs: - Study 1 (N=202, MTurk): One-factor, two conditions (higher- vs lower-income family). Target “Tom,” successful business owner (sales $500,000). DV: success deservingness (α=0.89). - Study 2 (N=300, MTurk): One-factor, three conditions (higher-income vs lower-income vs no background). Target “Sarah,” national-level swimmer (2 championships). DV: success deservingness (α=0.88). - Study 3 (N=200, Prolific): One-factor, two conditions (higher- vs lower-income). Target “Bill,” chief surgeon. DV: perceived self-reliance (α=0.89). - Study 4 (N=402, MTurk): 2×2 between-subjects manipulating family background (higher vs lower) and success attribution (external: lottery windfall vs internal: earned savings through part-time jobs). Target “Joe,” business owner (sales $500,000). DVs: success deservingness (α=0.91) and perceived self-reliance (α=0.95). Also tested mediation via perceived self-reliance using PROCESS (5,000 bootstraps), and moderated mediation (Model 7). - Study 5A (N=201, MTurk): Support decision for an artist “Alex” whose gallery suffered COVID-related sales drops; free consulting support capacity limited. IV: family background. DV: support yes/no. - Study 5B (N=202, MTurk): Support decision for student “Julia,” top 10% of class, applying for federal startup grant. IV: family background. DV: grant yes/no. - Study 5C (N=200, MTurk): Promotion decision for manager “Alex,” top performer, to senior manager. IV: family background. DV: promotion yes/no. Demographics across studies: Mean ages ~34–40; gender roughly balanced. All procedures were preregistered; participants provided demographics (age, gender); analyses included t-tests, ANOVAs, chi-squared tests, and mediation models.

- Study 1 (business owner): Identical success judged less deserving for higher-income-family target versus lower-income-family target, t(200) = −6.62, p < 0.001, d = −0.93, 95% CI [−1.22, −0.64]. - Study 2 (athlete): Deservingness differed across conditions, F(2,297) = 10.61, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.07. Higher-income < lower-income, t(197) = −4.05, p < 0.001, d = −0.58; higher-income < control (no background), mean control = 6.22, SD = 0.76, t(198) = −3.47, p = 0.001, d = −0.49; lower-income ≈ control, t(199) = 0.89, p = 0.38. - Study 3 (surgeon): Higher-income-family target judged less self-reliant than lower-income, t(198) = −6.48, p < 0.001, d = −0.92, 95% CI [−1.21, −0.62]. - Study 4 (business owner, attribution × family background): • Self-reliance: External < internal attribution, F(1,398) = 32.48, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.08. Higher-income < lower-income, F(1,398) = 31.94, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.07. No interaction, F(1,398) = 0.005, p = 0.95. Pairwise: under external attribution, t(199) = −3.74, p < 0.001, d = −0.53; under internal attribution, t(199) = −4.34, p < 0.001, d = −0.61. Lower-income/external ≈ higher-income/internal, t(208) = −0.04, p = 0.97. • Deservingness: External < internal, F(1,398) = 55.68, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.12. Higher-income < lower-income, F(1,398) = 26.68, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.06. No interaction, F(1,398) = 1.30, p = 0.26. Pairwise: external, t(199) = −3.90, p < 0.001, d = −0.55; internal, t(199) = −3.42, p < 0.001, d = −0.48. Lower-income/external ≈ higher-income/internal, t(208) = −1.79, p = 0.08. • Mediation: Family background → self-reliance (b = −0.71, SE = 0.13, p < 0.001), self-reliance → deservingness (b = 0.60, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001). Indirect effect b = −0.43, SE = 0.09, 95% CI [−0.61, −0.26]. No moderated mediation by attribution (index b = 0.01, 95% CI [−0.30, 0.34]). Indirect effect significant under both external (b = −0.46) and internal (b = −0.45) conditions. - Studies 5A–5C (support/provision decisions): • 5A (free consulting for artist): Support less often for higher-income (62.4%) vs lower-income (88.0%), χ²(1) = 17.66, p < 0.001, V = 0.30. • 5B (federal startup grant for top student): Higher-income 84.2% vs lower-income 97.0%, χ²(1) = 9.82, p = 0.002, V = 0.22. • 5C (promotion of top-performing manager): Higher-income 88.1% vs lower-income 100%, χ²(1) = 12.51, p < 0.001, V = 0.25. Overall: Across multiple domains, identical success is judged less deserving for individuals from higher-income families due to lower perceived self-reliance, producing a consistent double standard with measurable behavioral consequences in support allocations.

The studies directly address the research question by showing that family background systematically shapes deservingness judgments of identical successes. Individuals from higher-income families are perceived as less self-reliant, which mediates lower deservingness ratings, even when success is explicitly attributable to personal effort. This reveals a double standard in how self-reliance is construed: the same objective inputs and outcomes are evaluated through different lenses depending on the target’s family background. The results are relevant for theories of attribution and social class stereotypes, as well as for debates about merit, desert, and responsibility. Practically, such biased deservingness judgments may distort resource allocation in education, entrepreneurship funding, and workplace promotions, leading to potentially inefficient or inequitable support decisions that depend on factors beyond individuals’ control.

This research contributes evidence that identical achievements are judged less deserving for individuals from higher- versus lower-income families because they are perceived as less self-reliant, establishing a robust double standard across domains and demonstrating downstream impacts on support decisions. Contributions include: (1) extending work on social class stereotypes and prejudice against the wealthy by identifying a context—judgments of successful individuals—in which higher-income family background elicits more negative evaluations; (2) clarifying the role of perceived responsibility/self-reliance in deservingness; and (3) highlighting policy and managerial implications for fair support allocation. Future research should examine cross-cultural generalizability in contexts with weaker autonomy norms; explore domains where success requires minimal skill (e.g., gambling) to test boundary conditions; and investigate judgments when similarly positioned individuals fail rather than succeed (e.g., bankruptcy), to assess whether responsibility attributions and deservingness reverse for negative outcomes.

- Cultural specificity: All studies sampled U.S. participants, a context valuing autonomy and individual responsibility; effects may attenuate in cultures with weaker autonomy norms (e.g., some African or Southeast Asian contexts). - Contextual boundaries: The mechanism hinges on self-reliance as a criterion of deservingness; in domains requiring little skill/resource input (e.g., lotteries), the link between self-reliance and deservingness may not operate similarly. - Outcome valence: The work focuses on successful targets; it remains unknown whether failures (e.g., bankruptcy) would yield reverse patterns of deservingness for higher- vs lower-income family backgrounds. - Vignette-based designs: Although preregistered and diverse in domains, studies rely on brief scenarios; field studies and consequential decisions could further establish external validity.