The illusory superiority bias is well known and describes our tendency to over-inflate our own abilities. While this general overconfidence in our abilities may also prompt us to think that we should be doing better than we are, and that perhaps the fact we aren’t, means society is unfair, research from Princeton University suggests the opposite is actually the case.

The researchers wanted to test how our preferences change regarding income inequality when we better understand the gap between our economic status and the (inflated) self-evaluation we have of our ability.

“There is a large variation in the level of inequality in countries with similar levels of income redistribution, in terms of the degree to which people support or oppose income redistribution,” the researchers explain. “We are interested in understanding why those who benefit economically from the implementation of income redistribution policies oppose such policies, and have focused on the nature of the ‘self-confidence overload’.”

Misguided thinking

The researchers quizzed nearly 4,500 volunteers from across the United States to understand their self-perceived income-ability gap. The questions were designed in such a way as to reinforce any such gap randomly across the sample.

The results show that people who said that their income was less than they would expect for their ability would often have lower confidence in meritocracy and that society was fair, with this inherent unfairness preventing them from reaching their potential. Indeed, it was this unfairness that was holding them back rather than any personal characteristics or behaviors.

Interestingly, however, participants from across the political spectrum generally fell short of advocating government intervention to reduce income inequality. Indeed, it didn’t even gain much support from left-wing participants who had a high level of trust in the government.

“Scholars have previously argued that characteristics such as party ideology or family and personal values are major determinants of preferences for redistribution and changing a belief about social and economic environments may have a limited role,” the researchers suggest. “Their limited effect on preferences for reducing income inequality may stem from a similar mechanism.”

Instead, there seemed to be a stronger preference for people to be paid more fairly than for government intervention. The researchers hope that their work will help policymakers gain a greater understanding of inequality and the perceptions people have of efforts to influence it.

“We believe that identifying who is for and who is against reducing inequality will help to alleviate social conflicts in a society where inequality is growing and polarization is increasing,” they conclude.