Who deserves what? How beliefs about fairness and inequality influence social judgment

Abstract

In a time of rising inequality—when the “haves” have even more, and everyone else even less—consumption is increasingly viewed through a moral lens. Questions, rife with judgment, are directed toward those at both ends of the income spectrum. Should lower-income consumers be allowed to buy “frivolous” or “unnecessary” products? Should firms offer premium services (e.g., express lanes) to wealthy customers? Even one’s own consumption is subject to moral inspection; is it acceptable to buy from a firm that pays its CEO hundreds of times more than it pays its employees? In my dissertation, I investigate these negative social judgments and the moral scrutiny of consumers and firms alike. Three essays explore the social consequences of economic inequality that determine what is permissible to buy or sell at either end of the wealth distribution. Essay one examines double standards in socially permissible consumption, demonstrating that lower-income individuals are systematically judged more negatively for the same ‘everyday’ consumption decisions because the same items are perceived as less necessary for lower- (versus higher-) income individuals. The next two essays investigate when and why consumers scrutinize firms for perpetuating inequality among their employees or customers. Essay two demonstrates that consumers are less likely to purchase from firms that prioritize CEO pay while either cutting employee pay or furloughing employees during economic crises. The final essay examines consumer backlash when firms introduce premium services, which are assumed to prioritize wealthier customers at the expense of other consumers, thus perpetuating inequality in consumer experiences.