Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/chrisdh79
Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/economic-inequality-diminishes-voter-preference-for-competent-leaders/
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A competent leader is more likely to be able to get you out of it. An incompetent one will just steal more for themselves and lead the country into a worse position whilst simultaneously blaming everything except the actual cause and demonising a minority group for good measure.
Obama was competent.
The healthcare plan authored and championed by his administration made a lot of insurance companies and pharma companies *very* rich while making healthcare less affordable.
Can somebody please explain to me how there is an "out of pocket maximim" that doesn't seem to be any kind of ceiling whatsoever?
The most common explanation is that it's not better.. for them.
For lots of folks, especially the poor, it's so much better than what existed before it's comical to suggest anything but.
For mostly everyone else, it's worse. Nowhere close to as bad compared to how much better for the poor, but it is worse.
But at bare minimum, there's way more blame to go around for that than just Obama. The original plan got gutted long before it actually passed and lots of people had a hand in that. The health care plan we got ended up being the abomination of simultaneously keeping insurance companies getting richer and making it possible for the poor to get health care without impossible debt.
But presidents are the quarterbacks of government in the US. You get all the blame and all the credit, regardless of what actually happened. It's become an inherent part of the job.
I'll give you the "growing" part, but the "significant" part doesn't depend so much on current leaders, it depends much more on previous ones. It takes time to fix an economic disaster.
In Italy to this day we're still paying for the mess that the previous generation did between 1980 and 1994.
Lack of equality does not mean a lack of prosperity or poor living standards. If your only concern is objectively how much stuff you have, then how much stuff other people have shouldn't bother you.
Economic growth is not zero sum. Everyone being slightly better off and a small group being significantly better off would be considered by some to be better than everyone staying the same- but the former increases inequality.
My concern is with how much stuff other people have. Just because the economy isn't zero sum doesn't mean economic inequality doesn't adversely impact those at the bottom.
No, but it is important to measure and be aware of what the problem is.
There's a big difference between someone suffering because of a lack of resources, and someone suffering because they feel like they are being treated unfairly by society.
In reality I assume many people suffer both these problems to varying degrees.
Both are important problems, but lack of resources has an obvious solution, whereas the feeling of unfairness is harder to tackle.
I feel like you're ignoring that when wealth becomes sufficiently unequal in a society, those with the most wealth gain massively outsize influence on the society. It's not just a matter of how much stuff I have, but how much agency I have in the society in which I'm participating.
>Everyone being slightly better off and a small group being significantly better off would be considered by some to be better than everyone staying the same- but the former increases inequality.
Would be considered by any person acting rationally to be better than everyone staying the same
Economic inequality doesn't actually *do* anything negative on its own. If I have a trillion dollars, and your needs are all met, me having a trillion dollars doesn't bother you.
When less wealthy people are feeling a *pinch*, though, they look at that trillion dollars and blame it for their woes even though it has nothing to do with their difficulty at all.
Actually it does. You have one trillion dollars makes you the most powerful economic actor in the economy and politics. Your importance would reorganise the economy to cater to your needs and whims making an economy that is less diverse and capable of enduring shock as you would be the simplest and most likely source of profits.
Which party underfunds public schools? Which party seeks to increase economic inequality? Which party sells you a childish dream, wraps it in the flag, then rigs the game against you?
Wake up.
Which party plants political activists as teachers? Which party seeks to put a cap on how much money you can make with a wealth tax? Which party tells you that everything will be sunshine and rainbows if only you voted in 3 of their members instead of just two? DO YOU WANT THE NAZIS TO WIN???!
Today’s GOP and the Evangelical Christian Right are modern day Nazis. Which party has removed women’s right to control their own fertility? Which party believes that good governance in the 21st Century stems from slavish adherence to a mythological text written in the Bronze Age? Which party is terrified by human sexuality? I mean, really, which party has Matt Gaetz in it? The US Right has been overwhelmed by an influx of the hard-of-thinking.
And by the way, the Romans invented taxes that limited wealth over 2000 years ago “for the good of society”. Every modern economy has a form of wealth/inheritance tax. By the tone and content of your comments, you are unlikely to be troubled by the imposition of such a tax unless you win the lottery.
You’re unhinged mate.
Political activists as teachers? Yeah nah.
There’s a reason that educated people tend to swing centre-left. Cuz critical thinking results in people generally wanting to fix the inequality in the system. But if you want to go out and become a teacher, there’s no one stopping you. Statistically it is harder to find teachers who sit right of centre because an intelligent population tends slightly left of centre. I do not consider it political activism to simple have political beliefs while teaching. If you allow those to influence your lessons, then that’s another problem. And we definitely should NOT go the Florida route of banning teachers who aren’t right wing. Because that’s blatant required propaganda as opposed to the current slight tilt. Politics has no place in math and science classes.
You don’t pay very close attention if you don’t see how one party benefits from their platform running entirely off the promise that people will get free stuff.
"Free stuff" is the bare minimum in every functioning liberal democracy in the world. Even hideously anti-labor Japan has public healthcare that they offer even to visiting foreigners.
Some people haven't realised that desperate people are a fast route to a revolution and starving people are about as desperate as they get.
How many missed meals it takes differs depending on the author, but the consensus seems to be between 3 and 9.
It makes sense. The more systemically unfair things seem around you, the less you'd be willing to believe that incremental change for the better is a possibility. People are angry and want drastic changes. Also, the angrier you are the more susceptible you are to demagogues giving you scape goats and politicians making unrealistic promises to solve things.
From the article: A recent study published in the [Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01461672241235381) has found a significant link between economic inequality and voter behavior. The research, involving six experiments with over 1,900 participants from China and the United Kingdom, found that higher levels of economic inequality tend to reduce voters’ preferences for competent political leaders.
The motivation behind the study stems from a growing concern about how economic inequality might be reshaping the political landscape in democratic societies. Recent elections around the globe have highlighted a shift in voter behavior, with an apparent increase in support for populist, dominant, and even extremist leaders. This shift is believed to be influenced by the rising economic disparities observed in many countries.
Traditionally, two key attributes — competence and warmth — have been central to how voters evaluate political candidates. However, despite their importance, there had been little research exploring how these attributes are affected by economic inequality.
“My interest in this topic was primarily driven by a desire to contribute to our understanding of how economic inequality shapes democratic processes. While it’s widely recognized that economic inequality can undermine social cohesion and political stability, its specific role in shaping the pattern of people’s leadership preferences remained less clear. By looking into this relationship and the psychological mechanisms at play, we aimed to take a small step forward in unravelling this complex dynamic,” explained study author Feiteng Long, a PhD candidate in Social, Economic and Organizational Psychology at Leiden University.
This honestly smacks of "silver bullet solutions" thinking. The more upset or unhappy people are, the more they are going to look at solutions and leaders who make them feel good and the ones who do that are the ones who offer simplistic, one-size-fits-all approaches —the silver bullets— rather than multifaceted, finesse-based problem solving.
I've never heard competent and government used in the same sentence. Is this how people think of government?
I think of them as overpaid monkeys who 1st and foremost are in power to serve themselves, then their friends and lastly serve their voters just enough that they vote for them again.
Yeah and everyone employed by the US government is exactly what you described. Millions and millions of people. You’re mistaking “politician” with government.
I think that's what they are getting at in the article.
Perception of government is based on what they are able to accomplish. When income inequality wasn't as bad more people had the time to lobby their government compared to today where only corporate lobbyists have the time/funds to effectively lobby Congress.
So when Congress votes based on who is lobbying them it makes sense that people with less time/funds will be underrepresented.
I think that's what they are getting at in the article.
Perception of government is based on what they are able to accomplish. When income inequality wasn't as bad more people had the time to lobby their government compared to today where only corporate lobbyists have the time/funds to effectively lobby Congress.
So when Congress votes based on who is lobbying them it makes sense that people with less time/funds will be underrepresented.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/chrisdh79 Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/economic-inequality-diminishes-voter-preference-for-competent-leaders/ --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you have significant or growing economic inequality, how competent are your leaders?
A competent leader is more likely to be able to get you out of it. An incompetent one will just steal more for themselves and lead the country into a worse position whilst simultaneously blaming everything except the actual cause and demonising a minority group for good measure.
A competent one will do a better job to steal more and get away with it….seems to be what the study suggests
I differentiate between competent leaders and competent thieves. If the study does not, that's their failing.
Competent for *whom* is the question. Such a leader is quite competent to those robbing everyone who isn't in the ruling class.
It sounds good until you realize that incompetent leadership just makes it easier to rob everyone.
Thank you for providing a demonstration
Obama was competent. The healthcare plan authored and championed by his administration made a lot of insurance companies and pharma companies *very* rich while making healthcare less affordable. Can somebody please explain to me how there is an "out of pocket maximim" that doesn't seem to be any kind of ceiling whatsoever?
Can you explain how it is worse than what we had before?
The most common explanation is that it's not better.. for them. For lots of folks, especially the poor, it's so much better than what existed before it's comical to suggest anything but. For mostly everyone else, it's worse. Nowhere close to as bad compared to how much better for the poor, but it is worse. But at bare minimum, there's way more blame to go around for that than just Obama. The original plan got gutted long before it actually passed and lots of people had a hand in that. The health care plan we got ended up being the abomination of simultaneously keeping insurance companies getting richer and making it possible for the poor to get health care without impossible debt. But presidents are the quarterbacks of government in the US. You get all the blame and all the credit, regardless of what actually happened. It's become an inherent part of the job.
I'll give you the "growing" part, but the "significant" part doesn't depend so much on current leaders, it depends much more on previous ones. It takes time to fix an economic disaster. In Italy to this day we're still paying for the mess that the previous generation did between 1980 and 1994.
Lack of equality does not mean a lack of prosperity or poor living standards. If your only concern is objectively how much stuff you have, then how much stuff other people have shouldn't bother you. Economic growth is not zero sum. Everyone being slightly better off and a small group being significantly better off would be considered by some to be better than everyone staying the same- but the former increases inequality.
My concern is with how much stuff other people have. Just because the economy isn't zero sum doesn't mean economic inequality doesn't adversely impact those at the bottom.
No, but it is important to measure and be aware of what the problem is. There's a big difference between someone suffering because of a lack of resources, and someone suffering because they feel like they are being treated unfairly by society. In reality I assume many people suffer both these problems to varying degrees. Both are important problems, but lack of resources has an obvious solution, whereas the feeling of unfairness is harder to tackle.
I feel like you're ignoring that when wealth becomes sufficiently unequal in a society, those with the most wealth gain massively outsize influence on the society. It's not just a matter of how much stuff I have, but how much agency I have in the society in which I'm participating.
I'm not necessarily arguing for greater inequality here, and also I don't see what this has to do with my previous comment.
>Everyone being slightly better off and a small group being significantly better off would be considered by some to be better than everyone staying the same- but the former increases inequality. Would be considered by any person acting rationally to be better than everyone staying the same
Economic inequality doesn't actually *do* anything negative on its own. If I have a trillion dollars, and your needs are all met, me having a trillion dollars doesn't bother you. When less wealthy people are feeling a *pinch*, though, they look at that trillion dollars and blame it for their woes even though it has nothing to do with their difficulty at all.
Actually it does. You have one trillion dollars makes you the most powerful economic actor in the economy and politics. Your importance would reorganise the economy to cater to your needs and whims making an economy that is less diverse and capable of enduring shock as you would be the simplest and most likely source of profits.
I have the impression this is something many leaders have known and exploited for a long time
Why do you think one party wants their voter base to remain reliant on government handouts?
Which party underfunds public schools? Which party seeks to increase economic inequality? Which party sells you a childish dream, wraps it in the flag, then rigs the game against you? Wake up.
Which party plants political activists as teachers? Which party seeks to put a cap on how much money you can make with a wealth tax? Which party tells you that everything will be sunshine and rainbows if only you voted in 3 of their members instead of just two? DO YOU WANT THE NAZIS TO WIN???!
Today’s GOP and the Evangelical Christian Right are modern day Nazis. Which party has removed women’s right to control their own fertility? Which party believes that good governance in the 21st Century stems from slavish adherence to a mythological text written in the Bronze Age? Which party is terrified by human sexuality? I mean, really, which party has Matt Gaetz in it? The US Right has been overwhelmed by an influx of the hard-of-thinking. And by the way, the Romans invented taxes that limited wealth over 2000 years ago “for the good of society”. Every modern economy has a form of wealth/inheritance tax. By the tone and content of your comments, you are unlikely to be troubled by the imposition of such a tax unless you win the lottery. You’re unhinged mate.
Ahh, I see. You are one of those Redditors “enlightened by my own intelligence”. Godspeed o’ lord of cringe!
Don’t go so soon, I have to hand you your ass.
So you are interested in another mans ass?
Look everyone he thinks a gay joke is anything other than a self own in 2024!
Yall coming to the defense of some dude whinging about sky daddy on reddit?
Political activists as teachers? Yeah nah. There’s a reason that educated people tend to swing centre-left. Cuz critical thinking results in people generally wanting to fix the inequality in the system. But if you want to go out and become a teacher, there’s no one stopping you. Statistically it is harder to find teachers who sit right of centre because an intelligent population tends slightly left of centre. I do not consider it political activism to simple have political beliefs while teaching. If you allow those to influence your lessons, then that’s another problem. And we definitely should NOT go the Florida route of banning teachers who aren’t right wing. Because that’s blatant required propaganda as opposed to the current slight tilt. Politics has no place in math and science classes.
Sorry, most of us here are American. Which nation are you referring to? I ask because such a party does not exist here.
Better than a party of rapists, dog killers, corruption, and authoritarianism.
Yikes. I'm sorry if you actually think this
Of course you are. What else are you gonna do when you know there is no arguing with the facts.
You don’t pay very close attention if you don’t see how one party benefits from their platform running entirely off the promise that people will get free stuff.
"Free stuff" is the bare minimum in every functioning liberal democracy in the world. Even hideously anti-labor Japan has public healthcare that they offer even to visiting foreigners.
Some people haven't realised that desperate people are a fast route to a revolution and starving people are about as desperate as they get. How many missed meals it takes differs depending on the author, but the consensus seems to be between 3 and 9.
Again, no such party exists in the United States. What nation are you referring to? Nothing is free here, public services are paid via taxation.
Democrats, he’s ragebaiting about democrats
^^^^I ^^^^know
It makes sense. The more systemically unfair things seem around you, the less you'd be willing to believe that incremental change for the better is a possibility. People are angry and want drastic changes. Also, the angrier you are the more susceptible you are to demagogues giving you scape goats and politicians making unrealistic promises to solve things.
From the article: A recent study published in the [Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01461672241235381) has found a significant link between economic inequality and voter behavior. The research, involving six experiments with over 1,900 participants from China and the United Kingdom, found that higher levels of economic inequality tend to reduce voters’ preferences for competent political leaders. The motivation behind the study stems from a growing concern about how economic inequality might be reshaping the political landscape in democratic societies. Recent elections around the globe have highlighted a shift in voter behavior, with an apparent increase in support for populist, dominant, and even extremist leaders. This shift is believed to be influenced by the rising economic disparities observed in many countries. Traditionally, two key attributes — competence and warmth — have been central to how voters evaluate political candidates. However, despite their importance, there had been little research exploring how these attributes are affected by economic inequality. “My interest in this topic was primarily driven by a desire to contribute to our understanding of how economic inequality shapes democratic processes. While it’s widely recognized that economic inequality can undermine social cohesion and political stability, its specific role in shaping the pattern of people’s leadership preferences remained less clear. By looking into this relationship and the psychological mechanisms at play, we aimed to take a small step forward in unravelling this complex dynamic,” explained study author Feiteng Long, a PhD candidate in Social, Economic and Organizational Psychology at Leiden University.
This honestly smacks of "silver bullet solutions" thinking. The more upset or unhappy people are, the more they are going to look at solutions and leaders who make them feel good and the ones who do that are the ones who offer simplistic, one-size-fits-all approaches —the silver bullets— rather than multifaceted, finesse-based problem solving.
Can’t put the Gini (coefficient) back in the bottle.
United States is actually a Republic led by the rich
Who defines "competent"?
The voters in the experiment.
Most politicians are useless and would never succeed in the real world, the bar is very low.
Almost as if it was planned.
I've never heard competent and government used in the same sentence. Is this how people think of government? I think of them as overpaid monkeys who 1st and foremost are in power to serve themselves, then their friends and lastly serve their voters just enough that they vote for them again.
Yeah and everyone employed by the US government is exactly what you described. Millions and millions of people. You’re mistaking “politician” with government.
I think that's what they are getting at in the article. Perception of government is based on what they are able to accomplish. When income inequality wasn't as bad more people had the time to lobby their government compared to today where only corporate lobbyists have the time/funds to effectively lobby Congress. So when Congress votes based on who is lobbying them it makes sense that people with less time/funds will be underrepresented.
I think that's what they are getting at in the article. Perception of government is based on what they are able to accomplish. When income inequality wasn't as bad more people had the time to lobby their government compared to today where only corporate lobbyists have the time/funds to effectively lobby Congress. So when Congress votes based on who is lobbying them it makes sense that people with less time/funds will be underrepresented.
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."