Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Social psychology research consistently highlights the significant psychological impact of economic inequality on individuals and society. This effect may stem from individuals using their perceptions of inequality as cues to infer their social context's normative climate, frequently associating high economic inequality with increased competition and distrust. Furthermore, economic inequality has been linked to gender-specific processes, such as the prevalence of intimate partner violence against women across countries. This research investigates whether economic inequality shapes the perceived normative climate between women and men and influences perceived competition and trust between and among these gender groups. We employed a multi-method approach, which included a correlational study with a representative Spanish sample (Study 1, N = 1,373) and two experimental studies (Study 2, N = 409; Study 3, N = 253) in which we manipulated perceived economic inequality using a fictional society paradigm. In Study 1, we found a correlation between perceived (though not objective) economic inequality and heightened perceptions of competition between women and men. This finding was consistently replicated in Studies 2 and 3, where experimentally induced high perceived inequality led to increased perceived intergender competition. Study 3 provided further insights, showing that perceiving high inequality reduced perceived cooperation between gender groups, increased competitiveness within genders, and resulted in men being seen as less cooperative. Our results yielded no significant effect of perceived economic inequality on trust between or within the examined gender groups. Overall, these findings underscore that perceptions of economic inequality shape how individuals perceive gender relations, highlighting their potential impact on interactions between women and men.

Keywords

economic inequality normative climate gender competition trust intergroup processes

Introduction

Economic inequality in society impacts not only individuals’ physical and mental health (e.g., increased rates of depression, anxiety, and health problems; Jetten et al., 2021), but also affects intergroup relations. High economic inequality exacerbates social class divisions and reinforces class-based stereotypes, leading to more negative perceptions of both wealthy and poor individuals (Moya & Fiske, 2017; Tanjitpiyanond et al., 2022). Authors suggest that people use their perceptions of economic inequality as cues to infer the normative climate of their social context, which in turn helps explain its psychological and societal effects (Sánchez-Rodríguez et al., 2022). In this way, when economic inequality is high, the perceived normative climate is characterized by competition (Sommet & Elliot, 2023) and higher levels of distrust (Buttrick & Oishi, 2017). But, competition against whom? And less trust in whom?

Although research has primarily focused on the intergroup consequences of economic inequality within wealth-based social categories (e.g., Tanjitpiyanond et al., 2022), other social groups may also be affected (Lisnek et al., 2024). In line with this, we propose that gender-based groups may also experience the effects of economic inequality. Building on this idea, the aim of the present studies was to explore the following questions: Does economic inequality influence the perceived normative climate between women and men? Does it lead individuals to perceive greater competition and less trust between these gender groups?

To address these questions, we conducted three studies. The first aimed to explore the relation between both objective and perceived economic inequality (PEI), and the perception of competition between women and men (Study 1, correlational design). Given that Study 1 only provided evidence of the relation between PEI and perceived gender-based competition, we then conducted two experimental studies focusing on the causal nature of this relation (Studies 2 and 3). Additionally, in Study 3, we also included perceptions of intergroup cooperation, intragroup competitive and cooperative dynamics, and trust both within and between gender groups. In summary, our research investigates how economic inequality—particularly perceived economic inequality—influences perceptions of competition and trust between and within gender groups. In this way, we seek to shed light on how this form of inequality shapes the normative climate within a specific context, and how it might impact relations between women and men.

Economic Inequality as Contextual Normative Information

Economic inequality has broad and significant consequences for both individuals and society (Buttrick & Oishi, 2017). Authors have proposed that economic inequality may serve as a crucial source of normative information, significantly shaping individuals’ perceptions of acceptable behavior and social dynamics within a given context. According to the Economic Inequality as Normative Information Model (EINIM, Sánchez-Rodríguez et al., 2022), individuals use their perceptions of economic inequality to gauge the normative climate, which in turn influences their thoughts, emotions, expectations, and behaviors. When economic inequality is high, the normative climate tends to be characterized by competition, dominance, and individualism (Du et al., 2024; Sánchez-Rodríguez, Willis, Jetten, et al., 2019; Sánchez-Rodríguez, Willis, & Rodríguez-Bailón, 2019; Sommet et al., 2019). This mix of social norms leads individuals, in their attempt to survive in this context, to adapt their thoughts and behaviors to align with these prevailing norms.

Wilkinson and Pickett (2017) further argue that the social and psychological costs of inequality extend beyond individual attitudes, affecting broader societal interactions. At the intergroup level, it has been linked to the deepening of social class divides, affecting trust, identity, and group behaviors (Moya & Fiske, 2017). Higher levels of inequality can foster distrust among individuals, diminish social cohesion, and lead to increased competition between social groups (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2017). In this context, individuals may feel pressured to prioritize self-interest over collective well-being (e.g., less interdependent self-construal, Sánchez-Rodríguez, Willis, & Rodríguez-Bailón, 2019 ), further entrenching disparities and perpetuating cycles of disadvantage (Gobel & Carvacho, 2024).

A crucial aspect when analyzing the effects of economic inequality is specifying the exact variable under analysis (along with other considerations such as the level of analysis or the groups being compared; see Jachimowicz et al., 2023). Actual, or objective, economic inequality does not always correspond with the inequality that people perceive (Schmalor & Heine, 2022). From a psychosocial perspective, it has been highlighted that the most relevant factor for understanding the psychological and social effects of economic inequality is PEI (Willis et al., 2022). Nevertheless, even in cases where individuals do not perceive economic inequality, they will still be impacted by its consequences. Economic inequality, on the one hand, affects structural factors that shape people's lives; on the other hand, it generates a normative climate in which all individuals (even those who do not perceive the inequality) will be immersed. Thus, it is essential to examine how both objective and perceived inequality impact its outcomes (Schmalor & Heine, 2022).

Therefore, the implications of economic inequality as normative information are profound, affecting not only personal well-being but also the fabric of society itself. Thus, understanding the normative implications of economic inequality is essential, as it plays a pivotal role in shaping interpersonal and intergroup relations and, ultimately, the overall health of society. In this process, it would be highly interesting to analyze the effect that both objective and perceived economic inequality have on the creation of the normative climate.

Economic Inequality, Competitiveness Perceptions and Distrust

One of the features that has been demonstrated to be perceived as normative in contexts of economic inequality (both objective, Sommet et al., 2019; and perceived inequality, Sánchez-Rodríguez, Willis, Jetten, et al., 2019) is competition. Higher levels of income inequality are associated with increased perceptions of competitiveness (Cheng et al., 2021; Melita et al., 2021), which in turn influences personal goals and motivations of the individuals (Sommet et al., 2019). Economic inequality drives individuals to pay greater attention to economic categories as well as their status relative to others (Peters et al., 2022). In this context, people exhibit heightened concerns for personal achievement, prestige, and power (Du et al., 2024; Velandia-Morales et al., 2022). Economic inequality has been shown to influence the self-concept and the values that citizens prioritize, promoting greater independence, individualism, and self-enhancement values (Du et al., 2024; Sánchez-Rodríguez, Willis, & Rodríguez-Bailón, 2019). The interplay of these effects creates a context where competition becomes the norm.

Distrust is another characteristic frequently perceived in contexts of economic inequality (see also Kim et al., 2022). The Spirit Level Model (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009) argues that greater inequality fosters perceptions of unfairness and reduced social cohesion. This, combined with individuals in economically unequal societies being more likely to see others as competitors for limited resources, can erode interpersonal trust. The link between economic inequality and trust has been demonstrated with both perceived inequality (Lin et al., 2024) and objective economic inequality (Barone & Mocetti, 2016), affecting trust in others (Delhey & Dragolov, 2013), politics (García-Sánchez et al., 2024), and institutions (Bienstman, 2023). However, when focusing on interpersonal trust, previous research suggests the effect of context can vary by target. For instance, Navarro-Carrillo, Valor-Segura, Lozano, & Moya, 2018, found that during an economic crisis, generalized trust decreased while interpersonal and ingroup depersonalized trust increased. Another study also showed that social class membership predicted these trust dynamics (Navarro-Carrillo, Valor-Segura and Moya, 2018).

In sum, as inequality rises, perceived competitiveness grows, shaping values and relationships, while unfairness and scarcity weaken social and institutional trust.

Economic Inequality as Normative Information of Competition and Distrust Between Women and Men

While some authors suggest that the intergroup consequences of economic inequality will impact wealth-related groups (Peters et al., 2022), existing research demonstrates that other social categories may also be influenced (e.g., White and Black individuals when inequality refers to the gap between them; Gordils et al., 2020). Lisnek et al. (2024) conducted a series of studies in which they found that perceiving high economic inequality fostered zero-sum beliefs and perceived competition across social groups. This occurred not only toward wealth-related groups (i.e., SES groups), but also toward other groups perceived to be resource-relevant, such as religious and racial groups. In this sense, gender-based groups may also be considered resource-relevant. On the one hand, because gender consistently emerges as a salient social category, even in contexts where it might not appear prominent (Ellemers, 2018). On the other hand, because economic inequality highlights differences not only in wealth but also in status and power (Rodríguez-Bailón et al., 2020). Historical power imbalances between women and men (UN Women, 2023) suggest that gender-based groups may be subject to similar dynamics of competition and perceived inequality.

These ideas highlight that research on intergroup effects should extend to social categories other than those directly associated with wealth. This is particularly relevant for understanding outcomes in intergroup relations, as the increased sense of intergroup competition has been linked, for instance, to greater prejudice (Lisnek et al., 2024) and poorer intergroup relations across social categories (Gordils et al., 2023; Tanjitpiyanond et al., 2022). Some studies have established a connection between economic inequality—often measured using the Gini index—and various gender-related issues with significant social consequences, such as gender inequality (Shah & Krishnan, 2023) and the sexualization of women (Blake et al., 2018). It has also been linked to higher levels of violence against women (Dyer et al., 2023; Munguía & Martínez-Zarzoso, 2022; Sanz-Barbero et al., 2015).

In the discussion of their work, Sanz-Barbero et al. (2015) suggested that macro-social factors, such as lack of social cohesion, distrust, and the stress from awareness of one's social position in a context of high inequality, may help explain this connection. Similarly, Spencer et al. (2019) argue that economic inequality, by fostering social disorganization and weakening social cohesion, might exacerbate risk factors for intimate partner violence, particularly those related to social support, relationships, and community. These proposals consistently highlight that social environment, normative aspects, such as distrust and cohesion, can be used to explain why economic inequality influences gender-related processes.

The Present Research

Economic inequality is related to the perception of normative competition and distrust between individuals and groups. However, as some authors have pointed out, it remains necessary to thoroughly disentangle who is perceived as the target of that competition and lack of trust (Buttrick & Oishi, 2017; Jetten et al., 2021). Our objective is to analyze whether economic inequality is related to a normative climate of competition and a lack of trust between women and men. Although our main focus is on the intergroup level, we will also explore some intragroup processes: intragroup competition and cooperation, and ingroup trust.

The studies presented in this manuscript were preregistered. All information, materials and databases can be found at https://osf.io/nwkpa/overview¹,² In all three studies, gender,³ age, and subjective socioeconomic status (SSS)⁴ were used as covariates, as they could significantly influence outcomes related to economic inequality (e.g., SSS, Schmalor & Heine, 2022) or with gender (e.g., gender and age, Lopez-Zafra & Garcia-Retamero, 2012).

Study 1

According to previous evidence, economic inequality serves as a cue for individuals to infer which characteristics are normative in a specific social context. In this vein, high inequality has been associated with the perception of a normative climate of competition (Sánchez-Rodríguez et al., 2022; Sommet & Elliot, 2023). The aim of this first study was to analyze whether this competition is perceived between men and women. We hypothesized that both PEI (Hypothesis 1) and objective inequality (Hypothesis 2) in a given context would be positively associated with the perception of competition between men and women.

Method

Participants

The expected sample size for this project was determined based on the available budget (N = 1,500). The sample was stratified using quotas based on gender, age, social class, and region of residence (as established by the Nielsen standards) to mirror the distribution of the Spanish population. The distribution of these quota variables was based on data from the Instituto Nacional de Estadística (National Institute of Statistics) of Spain, public offices, and the survey company (NETQUEST). The intended quotas for the sample are available elsewhere (https://osf.io/hq796/overview) and the data were collected using the Qualtrics platform. Three attention checks were used in the survey, besides the quality checks implemented by the survey company, such as acquiescence response and irregular response patterns.

The collected sample consisted of 1,536 people. After excluding participants who had failed any attention check, the final sample size was 1,373 participants (51.4% women, 48.6% men; M_age = 48.25, SD = 17.05). There was representation from all 17 autonomous communities of the country, as well as from one of the two autonomous cities (Ceuta, with no representation from Melilla), corresponding to 50 provinces plus the autonomous city of Ceuta.

Procedure and Measures

This study is part of a bigger project, so other variables than those described in this study were included in the same survey. To address the hypotheses related to the work presented in this paper, the scales used were:⁵

Objective Economic Inequality. The Gini Index from 2020 was used at the provincial level (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, 2020). This index measures the degree of inequality in the distribution of household income within a specific area. Its values range from 0, indicating perfect equality where all households share income equally, to 100, representing perfect inequality where a single household holds all the income.

Perceived Economic Inequality (PEI). Measured by two items: “To what extent do you think that the distribution of the resources in Spain is equal?” (inverted), and “To what extent do you think that the distribution of the resources in Spain is unequal?” from 1 (Not at all [equal/unequal]) to 7 (Completely [equal/unequal]) (r = −.531, p < .01). The inverted item was recoded, and the mean of both items was calculated. Higher scores indicate greater perceived inequality.

Perceived Normative Climate of Competition between Women and Men. Assessed using the following item: “To what extent do you think there is competition between women and men in Spain?”, scored on a scale from 1 (Not competition) to 7 (A lot of competition) (adapted from Sánchez-Rodríguez, Willis, Jetten, et al., 2019 ).

Sociodemographic Data. Information about gender, age, subjective socioeconomic status (from 1 = With fewer resources to 10 = With high resources, MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status, SSS, Adler et al., 2000) and political ideology (from 0 = Left-wing to 10 = Right-wing), was also collected.

Results and Discussion

Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix of study variables are presented in Table S1 (Supplementary Material, https://osf.io/nwkpa/files/4mdcp). Age was positively correlated with SSS (r = .11, p < .01). Notably, PEI did not correlate with objective inequality at the provincial level (r = −.01, p = .83).

Hypothesis Testing

Given that objective and perceived economic inequality were not correlated, and we could not use a multilevel approach⁶ to analyze the effect of the Gini index on competition, we included both variables in the same model. We ran a multiple linear regression to analyze the effect of PEI and Gini index on the perception of a normative climate of competition between women and men (Table 1). Among covariates, gender of the participant predicted the perception of competition between women and men, with women perceiving more competition. This result is in line with previous studies suggesting that disadvantaged groups are more likely to perceive inequality-related dynamics, as they are more negatively impacted by them (e.g., Black participants perceiving intergroup competition in a context of racial income inequality, Gordils et al., 2020; or women perceiving gender inequality, García-González et al., 2019).

Table 1.

Multiple Regression Model for the Prediction of Perception of Competition Between Women and Men.

	Perceived Competition Between Women and Men
	F(4, 1366)	R²	β	t
Const.	7.50***	.02		4.94***
Gender¹			.15	5.29***
Age			.03	1.09
SSS			.03	1.04
PEI			.08	2.81**
EI (Gini index)			−.02	.89

Note. SSS = Subjective Socioeconomic Status; PEI = Perceived Economic Inequality; EI = Economic Inequality.

Men = 1, women = 2.

**p < .01; ***p < .001.

Perceived Economic Inequality and Perceived Competition between Women and Men. PEI positively predicted perceived competition between women and men.

Objective Economic Inequality and Perceived Competition between Women and Men. We combined the collected database with the 2020 Gini index database, assigning each participant the corresponding Gini value based on their province of residence. The results showed that the Gini index did not emerge as a significant predictor of perceived competition.

The results of this first study provided evidence supporting our first hypothesis (H1): PEI in a specific social context predicted competition between women and men within that context. However, Hypothesis 2 was not supported, as objective inequality (in this case, at the provincial level) did not predict perceived competition between women and men. In this study, objective inequality was measured as income inequality, whereas perceived inequality was assessed more broadly asking participants about their estimation of resource inequality. Specifying the type and level of inequality about which participants are asked can be highly beneficial for both the research process and the generalization of the findings (Jachimowicz et al., 2023). In Studies 2 and 3, we focused on perceived income inequality.

Study 2

After finding in Study 1 that PEI is related to the perception of competition between women and men, our goal was to analyze the potential causal relation between these variables. To do this, using an experimental design, we tested Hypothesis 3: the experimental manipulation of high economic inequality (vs. low) will increase the perception of a normative climate of competition between gender groups.

Methods

Participants

Sample size was calculated a priori using G*Power (Faul et al., 2009). It was determined that 311 was the minimum sample required to capture a small effect size (α = 0.05, 80% power). We preregistered our intention to collect data from approximately 350 participants. Data from around 100 additional participants were collected to account for exclusions (e.g., based on failing the attention checks). The sample was obtained through a Southern Spanish university's mailing list, to which both students and administrative staff have access. A total of 440 individuals completed the survey. Data from participants under 18 years of age (n = 7) and those who failed any attention check (n = 24) were excluded. The final sample consisted of 409 individuals: 78.0% women, 19.3% men, 1.0% identifying as other genders, and 1.7% who chose not to disclose their gender (M_age = 23.67, SD = 8.95).

Procedure and Measures

Participants were informed about the study, data protection, and their voluntary participation. They were also notified of a €50 raffle for completing all questionnaires. After providing consent, they proceeded to the measures, answered in the following order⁵:

Experimental Manipulation of Perceived Economic Inequality. We used the Bimboola paradigm (Sánchez-Rodríguez, Willis, Jetten, et al., 2019), in which participants read information about a fictional society where they were supposedly going to live. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: high- or low-income inequality. In Bimboola, society is divided into three income groups: richest, middle, and poorest. In the high-inequality condition, the income gap between the richest and poorest groups was large, with the richest earning 13,500 Bimbolean Coins (BC) and the poorest earning 500 BC. In the low-inequality condition, this gap was smaller: the richest earned 8,000 BC, while the poorest earned 6,000 BC. Regardless of the assigned condition, all participants were placed in the middle-income group, earning 7,000 BC per month.

Manipulation Check. Participants answered two questions: “To what extent is Bimboola economically [equal/unequal]?” from 1 = Not [equal/unequal] at all, 9 = Very [equal/unequal] (r = −.87, p < .001). The item related to ‘equality’ was recoded, and both items were averaged.

Perceived Normative Climate of Competition between Women and Men. Measured using the same item as in Study 1, but contextualized in Bimboola (“To what extent do you think there is competition between women and men in Bimboola?”).

Demographics and Attention Checks. With the aim of describing the sample, participants also provided sociodemographic information, such as gender, age, level of education (from 1 = Without studies to 6 = University studies), sexual orientation, political orientation (from 1 = Extreme left-wing to 7 = Extreme right-wing) and SSS (indicating whether the participant belongs to a family from 1 = With fewer resources to 10 = With high resources). Two attention checks were included in the survey.

Results and Discussion

Preliminary Analysis

Table S5 (Supplementary Materials) shows the descriptive statistics and the correlations between variables. SSS was negatively correlated with PEI (r = −.12, p < .05) and with perceived competition between women and men (r = −.12, p < .05).

Manipulation Check. Participants in the high inequality condition perceived Bimboola as more economically unequal (M = 8.22, SD = 1.17) than those in the low-inequality condition (M = 5.01, SD = 1.82), t(321.5) = -21.01, p < .001, d = 1.51). Therefore, the PEI manipulation was successful.

Hypothesis Testing

Perceived Normative Climate of Competition between Women and Men. We used an ANOVA test with the PEI condition as the independent variable and the perception of competition as the dependent variable. Results (Table 2) showed that SSS predicted the perception of competition between the gender groups. As expected, participants in the high PEI condition perceived more competition in Bimboola (M = 4.42, SD = 1.50) than participants in the low inequality condition (M = 3.74, SD = 1.63), F(1, 391) = 18.53 p < .001, ηp² = .05.

Table 2.

ANOVA Results for the Effects of Gender, Age, SSS and Perceived Economic Inequality Condition on the Perception of Competitive Climate Between Women and Men.

	SS	F(1, 391)	p	η_p²
Gender¹	2.31	.93	.337	.00
Age	2.85	1.18	.277	.00
SSS	10.43	4.33	.038	.01
PEI Condition	44.64	18.53	< .001	.05

Note. SS = Sum of Squares; SSS = Subjective Socioeconomic Status; PEI = Perceived Economic Inequality

Men = 1, women = 2.

Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was confirmed, and the result of Study 1 regarding the relation between PEI and perceived competition between women and men was supported using an experimental manipulation. This allows us to assume a causal relation between these two variables, which remains even when controlling for gender of the participant, age, and SSS.

Study 3

In Studies 1 and 2, the relation between PEI and the perception of competition between women and men (intergroup competition) was evidenced. In this third study, besides replicating the results of these two previous studies (Hypothesis 3a), we wanted to analyze the effect that perceived inequality could have on the perception of cooperation. We expected that experimentally induced high PEI would reduce perceived cooperation between women and men (Hypothesis 3b: intergroup cooperation).

We aimed to take a step further by exploring the perception of intragroup competition and cooperation. We based our hypotheses on traditional gender stereotypes. On the one hand, we drew from the idea that men are more likely to exhibit traits associated with power-seeking and competition (Ellemers, 2018), and that threatening contextual factors—such as perceived economic inequality—often activate what is referred to as ‘precarious manhood’ (Vandello et al., 2008). When masculinity is threatened, a man may engage in behaviors to demonstrate and reinforce it, frequently exhibiting traits associated with more traditional forms of masculinity (Vescio et al., 2010). On the other hand, regarding women, they are more commonly associated with sociability and cooperation (Ellemers, 2018). Thus, we hypothesized that in the high perceived inequality condition, women would be perceived as competing less (Hypothesis 4a) and cooperating more (Hypothesis 4b) with other women, whereas men would be perceived as competing more and cooperating less with other men (Hypotheses 5a and 5b, respectively).

Finally, considering theories and previous empirical evidence suggesting that a normative feature of contexts of inequality is also a lack of trust in others (e.g., Delhey & Dragolov, 2013; Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009), we also analyzed this relation specifically with gender. As mentioned above, trust can be affected in different ways depending on various factors (e.g., context, target of trust; Navarro-Carrillo, Valor-Segura & Moya, 2018; Navarro-Carrillo, Valor-Segura, Lozano, et al., 2018). Therefore, we investigated the impact of PEI on trust toward individuals of different gender (i.e., outgroup trust) and toward individuals of the same gender (i.e., ingroup trust). In line with the hypotheses proposed regarding competition and cooperation, we hypothesized that the outgroup trust would be lower in the high versus low PEI condition (Hypothesis 6). Regarding ingroup trust, we hypothesized that in the high perceived inequality condition, women would exhibit higher ingroup trust (Hypothesis 7a), whereas men would exhibit lower ingroup trust, compared to the low perceived inequality condition (Hypothesis 7b).

Method

Participants

Sample size was calculated a priori using G*Power (Faul et al., 2009). It was determined that 234 was the minimum sample required (α = 0.05, 95% power). We aimed to collect data from approximately 280 participants. Given the low exclusion rate in Study 1, we did not oversample in the current study. The sample was obtained by distributing links on social media and printed flyers. The flyers were distributed in person to members of the general public at various locations in a Southern Spanish city. A total of 278 participants completed the questionnaire. People under 18 years old (n = 1) and those who failed any of the attention checks (n = 24) were removed. The final sample was composed of 253 people (57.5% women, 42.1% men, 0.4% prefer not to answer; M_age = 28.25, SD = 11.90).

Procedure and Measures

The procedure for accessing the questionnaire link in Qualtrics was the same as in Study 2.

Experimental Manipulation of Perceived Economic Inequality and Manipulation Check. As in Study 2, we used the Bimboola paradigm and included the two items (r = −.83, p < .001) as manipulation check.

Perceived Normative Climate between Women and Men (Competitive / Cooperative). The measure included two items: perceived competition (as in Study 2) and perceived cooperation, assessed with the question: “To what extent do you think there is cooperation between women and men in Bimboola?” from 1 (No cooperation) to 7 (A lot of cooperation).

Perceived Normative Climate among Bimboolean Men and among Bimboolean Women (Competitive / Cooperative). We adapted the items about perceived normative climate between gender groups aiming to capture the perception of competition and cooperation among men and among women (“To what extent do you think there is [competition/cooperation] among [men/women] in Bimboola?”).

Ingroup Gender Trust. Measured using an adapted version of the Ingroup Trust in social classes (Navarro-Carrillo, Valor-Segura, Lozano, et al., 2018). This scale included 4 items (e.g., “For me, all people of the same gender as me in Bimboola deserve the same trust”), scored on a scale from 1 (Totally disagree) to 5 (Totally agree) (α_total = .82; α_men = .85, α_women = .79).

Outgroup Gender Trust. Using the same items as in the ingroup trust but asking about the other-gender-people (α = .80).

Demographics and Attention Checks. Participants provided the same sociodemographic information as in Study 2. Two attention checks were included in the survey.

Results and Discussion

Preliminary Analysis

Means, standard deviations, and the correlation matrix between variables can be found in Table S7 (Supplementary Materials). Age showed a negative correlation with the perception of competition among men (r = −.15, p < .05) and with the perception of cooperation among women (r = −.16, p < .01). SSS positively correlated with the perception of cooperation between women and men (r = .17, p < .01) and among men (r = .13, p < .05).

Manipulation Check. Participants assigned to the high inequality condition perceived more economic inequality in Bimboola (M = 8.19, SD = 1.09) than those assigned to the low-inequality condition (M = 4.53, SD = 1.68), t(223.5) = -20.67, p < .001, d = 1.43. Thus, the PEI manipulation was again effective.

Hypothesis Testing

Perceived Competition and Cooperation

We used a MANOVA test to analyze the effect of the manipulation on multiple related dependent variables. We included the experimental condition as the independent variable, and the perception of competition and cooperation between women and men, among women, and among men as dependent variables. The results showed a significant effect of the experimental condition on the combined dependent variables, Wilks’ λ = 0.84, F(6, 240) = 7.81, p < .001, ηp² = .16. Next, we will discuss the results individually for each dependent variable.

Perceived Normative Climate between Women and Men (Competitive / Cooperative). Regarding the covariates, none were significant when analyzing perceived competition. For perceived cooperation, being a woman, F(1, 245) = 4.61, p = .033, ηp2 = .02, and reporting higher SSS, F(1, 245) = 7.97, p = .005, ηp2 = .03, positively predicted it. As expected in Hypothesis 3a, participants in the high PEI condition (M = 4.75, SD = 1.56) perceived higher levels of competition between women and men in Bimboola than participants in the low PEI condition (M = 3.93, SD = 1.58), F(1, 245) = 16.31, p < .001, ηp² = .06. Additionally, participants in the high PEI condition (M = 3.91, SD = 1.42) perceived significantly less cooperation than those assigned to the low inequality condition (M = 4.56, SD = 1.31), F(1, 245) = 17.23, p < .001, ηp² = .07. Hypothesis 3b was also supported.

Perceived Normative Climate among Bimboolean Women (Competitive / Cooperative). Regarding the covariates, only age predicted the perception of cooperation among them, F(1, 245) = 4.90, p = .028, ηp² = .02. Contrary to Hypothesis 4a, participants assigned to the high PEI condition perceived more competition among women (M = 4.74, SD = 1.50) than those allocated to the low one (M = 4.05, SD = 1.68), F(1, 245) = 10.82, p = .001, ηp² = .04. No differences were found in the perception of cooperation among Bimboolean women (M_HighEI = 4.52, SD = 1.22; M_LowEI = 4.84, SD = 1.36), F(1, 245) = 3.36, p = .068, ηp² = .01. Hypothesis 4b was not supported by our results.

Perceived Normative Climate among Bimboolean Men (Competitive / Cooperative). Regarding the covariates, age significantly predicted the perceived competition among men in Bimboola, F(1, 245) = 18.39, p = .005, ηp² = .03, but not cooperation. More importantly, participants in the high PEI group perceived more competition among Bimboolean men (M = 5.27, SD = 1.43) than the individuals in the low PEI group (M = 4.20, SD = 1.62), F(1, 245) = 29.96, p < .001, ηp² = .11. They also perceived less cooperation among them (M_HighEI = 3.87, SD = 1.33; M_LowEI = 4.52, SD = 1.36), F(1, 245) = 14.29, p < .001, ηp² = .06. Hypotheses 5a and 5b were supported.

Perceived Trust

Outgroup Gender Trust. We conducted an ANOVA including the experimental condition as the independent variable and outgroup trust as the dependent variable. The covariates were not significant predictors, and neither was the experimental condition. Contrary to what was expected in Hypothesis 6, participants in the high PEI condition (M = 2.60, SD = 0.90) did not report lower levels of trust toward individuals of other genders compared to those in the low PEI condition (M = 2.67, SD = 0.91), F(1, 245) = 0.75, p = .39, ηp² = .00.

Ingroup Gender Trust. In this case, given our hypothesis that the effect of the experimental condition on ingroup trust would differ by participant gender, we tested for an interaction using a two-way ANOVA. The interaction between gender and experimental condition was not statistically significant, F(1, 244) = 0.005, p = .94, ηp² = .00, and there was no significant main effect of the experimental condition on ingroup trust, F(1, 244) = 0.88, p = .35, ηp² = .00. Therefore, Hypotheses 7a and 7b were not supported, as the results did not confirm that the impact of perceived inequality on ingroup trust differs by gender.

Non-Preregistered Analysis

We expected to find that the manipulation of perceived economic inequality would have opposing effects on the perception of competition among women (H4a: in a context of high PEI, Bimboolean women would be perceived as competing less with other women) and among men (H5a: in a high PEI context, Bimboolean men would be perceived as competing more with other men). The results did not confirm H4a: in contexts of high perceived inequality, both Bimboolean women and men were perceived as engaging in greater competition within their own gender group. However, we wanted to check whether there was an interaction effect between the experimental condition and the gender of the target group. We conducted a repeated-measures ANOVA, with the experimental condition (high vs. low PEI) as a between-subjects measure and the gender of the target group (women vs. men) as a within-subjects measure. Gender of the participants, age, and SSS were included as covariates. The results showed that there was an interaction between the experimental condition and the gender of the target group, F(1, 245) = 6.96, p = 0.01, ηp² = .03. Specifically, the effect of the high PEI condition was greater for the perception of competition when the target group was the men (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Perceived competition as a function of experimental condition (Low / High PEI) and gender of the target group (Women / Men).

Compiling the results of this study, we found that the manipulation of perceived economic inequality was associated with the perception of greater competition and less cooperation between women and men (intergroup normative climate). Regarding perceived intragroup normative climate, the high PEI condition was associated with a greater perception of competition among women in Bimboola. With respect to perceived cooperation among Bimboolean women, we did not find a significant effect of PEI. In the case of Bimboolean men, in the high PEI context, both greater competition and reduced cooperation were perceived among them. Furthermore, a mixed ANOVA revealed that the effect of perceived inequality on perceived competition was moderated by the gender of the target group, with greater competition being perceived among Bimboolean men than among Bimboolean women.

Finally, our results did not show a significant effect of the PEI manipulation on either ingroup or outgroup trust. Some evidence suggests that (mis)trust may not be a direct consequence of economic inequality (e.g., Gordils et al., 2021), but of perceived competition (Sommet & Elliot, 2023). Since in our data there is a mismatch in the level of specificity between measures—perceived competition refers to intergroup competition specifically between women and men, whereas trust was measured in more general terms without specifying gender—we were not able to examine this relationship in an exploratory way. However, this mechanism could be taken into account in future research.

General Discussion

The current research aimed to contribute to understanding how economic inequality influences perceptions of competition and distrust. Many studies have linked these variables, but there is still a need to delve deeper into identifying the specific targets of such perceived competition and distrust (Buttrick & Oishi, 2017; Jetten et al., 2021). We sought to integrate this line of research with findings suggesting that economic inequality leads to gender-related effects. Therefore, our studies focused on examining whether inequality—and especially perceived inequality—is associated with the perception of a normative climate of competition between gender groups. While this study does not directly address specific gender outcomes of economic inequality, such as violence against women, our results can serve as an initial step in understanding the existing evidence regarding how economic inequality influences these outcomes.

In Study 1, we analyzed the relationship between objective and perceived economic inequality and the perception of competition between women and men. Our results showed that the Gini Index at the provincial level was not a predictor of perceived competition at the individual level. However, some studies have found that objective inequality does predict perceived competition (e.g., Sommet et al., 2019). This effect has even been replicated in school contexts (Sommet et al., 2022), where it has been observed that students living in countries with higher economic inequality perceive greater competition and less cooperation among their peers. A significant issue in our study is that the objective inequality index was used at the provincial level, while both perceived inequality and perceived competition were assessed at the country level. Previous studies have emphasized the necessity for all analyzed variables to target the same area (Gordils et al., 2020; Sommet et al., 2019). This methodological inconsistency, together with the limitations regarding how perceived inequality is operationalized and measured (Jachimowicz et al., 2023), could also explain the lack of correlation between objective and perceived inequality in our findings. In any case, the low correlation between real and perceived inequality has been reported in previous research (e.g., Schmalor & Heine, 2022).

Regarding PEI, our research consistently shows it predicts a normative climate of competition between women and men. This finding was robustly replicated across Studies 1, 2, and 3, with the latter two using an experimental paradigm. In Study 3, we additionally observed that high perceived inequality fostered a lack of cooperation between these gender groups. These results align with extensive empirical studies indicating that when people perceive high economic inequality, they also perceive increased competition and decreased cooperation within that social context (e.g., Melita et al., 2021; Sánchez-Rodríguez, Willis, Jetten, et al., 2019). When perceived inequality is high, individuals’ status and social position become more salient, and they tend to be more concerned with their power and self-enhancement (Du et al., 2024; Rodríguez-Bailón et al., 2020). People may perceive competition with outgroups over limited resources, even when inequality is not explicitly described as occurring between social groups (Lisnek et al., 2024). In such contexts, cooperation also tends to be lower, as individuals aim to maximize their personal access to resources (Nishi et al., 2015)—unless cooperation with others is perceived as instrumental to achieving personal benefits (Sommet et al., 2022).

Focusing on gender groups, in their dichotomous conception (woman and man) they have traditionally been associated with different statuses. Men are normatively liked to greater competitiveness (Ellemers, 2018) and, in general, with the most desirable traits in society (Cuddy et al., 2015). They have historically been the group associated with higher power, whereas women are often ascribed characteristics related to communality and sociability, and distanced from power (Ellemers, 2018). Our results provide preliminary evidence that, in contexts of perceived economic inequality, social groups engaged in struggles for power or resources—beyond social class groups—may become salient, potentially fostering such competition (Lisnek et al., 2024).

In Study 3, we also explored the differential impact of perceived economic inequality on the perception of intragroup competition and cooperation. Given gender stereotypes and their role in shaping and defining expectations regarding men and women (Ellemers, 2018), we expected to find a differential impact of perceived economic inequality depending on the gender of the target group. Specifically, we hypothesized that in the high perceived inequality condition, greater competition and less cooperation would be perceived among Bimboolean men, and the opposite among Bimboolean women. However, our findings did not support the expected result for women, as participants assigned to the high perceived economic inequality condition perceived more competition among both women and men in Bimboola.

Nevertheless, when analyzing the interaction between the experimental condition (high vs. low perceived economic inequality) and the gender of the target group (women vs. men), we observed an effect that aligned with our reasoning. Specifically, participants assigned to the high perceived inequality condition perceived more competition in both gender groups, but especially among men. We know that men are stereotypically seen as—and are expected to be—more competitive (Ellemers, 2018) and, moreover, a context of inequality could make them feel threatened or challenged, activating ‘precarious masculinity’. This precariousness is related to men's perception that their masculine status can be easily lost. In challenging contexts, this precariousness may encourage them to exhibit more stereotypically masculine behaviors to reinforce or reclaim their masculinity (Vandello et al., 2008; Vescio et al., 2010). Regarding men, it was also perceived that they cooperated less with each other under conditions of high perceived inequality compared to low, a result likewise consistent with the rationale previously discussed.

Finally, in Study 3, we analyzed the effect of perceived economic inequality on perceived trust, both toward other gender groups (outgroup) and toward one's own group (ingroup). The results did not show a significant impact of perceived inequality on trust in either case. While some studies find greater economic inequality associated with lower levels of trust (e.g., Delhey & Dragolov, 2013; Lin et al., 2024), and several theoretical frameworks support this idea (e.g., Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009), other findings suggest a more complex relationship (e.g., Hastings, 2018). For example, Kim et al. (2022) addressed methodological inconsistencies in previous research and found that it was social class, rather than economic inequality per se, that predicted levels of trust. Other theoretical (e.g., Sánchez-Rodríguez et al., 2022; Sommet & Elliot, 2023) and empirical studies (e.g., Gordils et al., 2021) have also highlighted the role of perceived competition as a mediating mechanism linking perceived inequality and trust. Although in the current research we conceptualized (mis)trust as a direct outcome of perceived economic inequality, future research could explore its indirect relationship through perceived competition.

Limitations and Future Directions

Although the results of these three studies are relevant for advancing knowledge on the relationship between economic inequality and normative perceived competition/cooperation and trust between and among women and men, some limitations can also be highlighted. First, there were some issues at the measurement level. On one hand, as we stated above, there was a mismatch in the levels of analysis between objective inequality (measured using the Gini index at the provincial level), and both perceived inequality and competition (assessed at the country level). Replicating this study with all variables measured at the same level would be necessary to better delineate the relations among them.

On the other hand, perceived competition and cooperation were each measured with only a single item. This decision stemmed from the design constraints of Study 1, where the number of measures and items that could be included was limited. To maintain homogeneity across all studies in this work, the same single-item measures were used throughout. While these items have been employed in previous research (e.g., Sánchez-Rodríguez, Willis, Jetten, et al., 2019), and were considered adequate, we acknowledge that this decision can lead to measurement limitations. Therefore, future studies should consider to use measures with more items.

Second, only the sample from the first study is nationally representative—of a Southern European country. Although we attempted to use different populations (the sample from Study 3 was drawn from the general population, not just students as in Study 2), the results of Studies 2 and 3 should be generalized with caution. Finally, we acknowledge that the current reality regarding gender identity is far more complex than the woman-man dichotomy presented here. We focused on this dichotomy because our primary objective was to investigate relationships and inequalities between women and men. However, we are aware that many individuals do not identify with either of these categories, and studying the effect of economic inequality from a more inclusive perspective would undoubtedly be desirable for future research.

Conclusion

Our research highlights the significant role that perceptions of economic inequality play in shaping the normative climate surrounding gender dynamics. Perceiving high economic inequality was associated with an increased perception of competition between men and women, as well as decreased cooperation between them. Additionally, in these contexts, both women and men were perceived as more competitive within their own gender groups, with men also viewed as less cooperative among themselves. While no significant effect of the manipulation on trust was found, these results underscore the importance of perceived inequality in influencing gender-based dynamics. These studies contribute to the growing body of research on how perceived economic inequality impacts gender-related processes, with implications for understanding and addressing issues such as gender relationships and violent dynamics. Future research should further explore more inclusive impacts of perceived economic inequality on various social groups.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-pac-10.1177_18344909251410760 - Supplemental material for Perceived Economic Inequality as a Driver of a Competitive Normative Climate Between Women and Men

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-pac-10.1177_18344909251410760 for Perceived Economic Inequality as a Driver of a Competitive Normative Climate Between Women and Men by Sabina de-León-de-León, Rosa Rodríguez-Bailón, Pilar Pérez-Álvarez and Jesús Megías in Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Sabina de-León-de-León

Rosa Rodríguez-Bailón

Jesús L. Megías

Ethics Approval

The projects were reviewed and approved by Ethics Committee on Human Research from the University of Granada.

Informed Consent Statements

The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Funding

The present research was financially supported by the Grant FPU/03711 funded by MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by ESF Investing in your future. And is part of the I + D + i projects PID2022-138665NB-I00 and PID2022-140252NB-I00 funded by MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033/ and by FEDER/EU.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Availability of Data and Material

Data and supplementary material (pre-registrations,materials and code) for this article can be found online at [not anonymized]:

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Adler

N. E.

Epel

E. S.

Castellazzo

Ickovics

J. R.

(2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy white women. Health Psychology: Official Journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association, 19(6), 586–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.19.6.586

Barone

Mocetti

(2016). Inequality and trust: New evidence from panel data. Economic Inquiry, 54(2), 794–809. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12309

Bienstman

(2023). Does inequality erode political trust? Frontiers in Political, 5: 1197317. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2023.1197317

Blake

K. R.

Bastian

Denson

T. F.

Grosjean

Brooks

R. C.

(2018). Income inequality not gender inequality positively covaries with female sexualization on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(35), 8722–8727. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1717959115

Buttrick

N. R.

Oishi

(2017). The psychological consequences of income inequality. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(3), e12304. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12304

Cheng

Hao

Wang

(2021). Beware of the ‘bad guys’: Economic inequality, perceived competition, and social vigilance. International Review of Social Psychology, 34(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.497

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Wolf

E. B.

Glick

Crotty

Chong

Norton

M. I.

(2015). Men as cultural ideals: Cultural values moderate gender stereotype content. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(4), 622–635. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000027

Delhey

Dragolov

(2013). Why inequality makes Europeans less happy: The role of distrust, Status anxiety, and perceived conflict. European Sociological Review, 30(2), 151–165. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jct033

Götz

F. M.

King

R. B.

Rentfrow

P. J.

(2024). The psychological imprint of inequality: Economic inequality shapes achievement and power values in human life. Journal of Personality, 92(1), 222–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12758

10.

Dyer

Vilda

Harville

Theall

Wallace

(2023). Income inequality and pregnancy-associated homicide in the US: A longitudinal, state-level analysis. Violence Against Women, 29(9), 1567–1581. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012221120446

11.

Ellemers

(2018). Gender stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology, 69(1), 275–298. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011719

12.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A. G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G*power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

13.

García-González

Forcén

Jimenez-Sanchez

(2019). Men and women differ in their perception of gender bias in research institutions. PLoS ONE, 14(12), e0225763. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763

14.

García-Sánchez

García-Castro

J. D.

Willis

G. B.

Rodríguez-Bailón

(2024). Economic inequality and unfairness evaluations of income distribution negatively predict political and social trust: Evidence from Latin America over 23 years. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 16(4), 347–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506231221310

15.

Gobel

M. S.

Carvacho

(2024). The dynamic socioecological model of economic inequality and psychological tendencies: A cycle of mutual constitution. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 18(1), e12875. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12875

16.

Gordils

Elliot

A. J.

Jamieson

J. P.

(2021). The effect of perceived interracial competition on psychological outcomes. PloS one, 16(1), e0245671. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245671

17.

Gordils

Jamieson

Elliot

(2023). The effect of black–white income inequality on perceived interracial psychological outcomes via perceived interracial competition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(9), 2479–2503. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001418

18.

Gordils

Sommet

Elliot

A. J.

Jamieson

J. P.

(2020). Racial income inequality, perceptions of competition, and negative interracial outcomes. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(1), 74–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619837003. Original work published 2020

19.

Hastings

O. P.

(2018). Less equal, less trusting? Longitudinal and cross-sectional effects of income inequality on trust in U.S. States, 1973-2012. Social Science Research, 74, 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2018.04.005

20.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística. (2020). https://www.ine.es/ .

21.

Jachimowicz

J. M.

Davidai

Goya-Tocchetto

Szaszi

Day

M. V.

Tepper

S. J.

Hauser

O. P.

(2023). Inequality in researchers’ minds: Four guiding questions for studying subjective perceptions of economic inequality. Journal of Economic Surveys, 37(5), 1534–1561. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12507

22.

Jetten

Peters

Álvarez

Casara

B. G. S.

Dare

Kirkland

Sánchez-Rodríguez

Selvanathan

H. P.

Sprong

Tanjitpiyanond

Wang

Mols

(2021). Consequences of economic inequality for the social and political vitality of society: A social identity analysis. Political Psychology, 42(S1), 241–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12800

23.

Kim

Sommet

Spini

(2022). Social class—not income inequality—predicts social and institutional trust. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(1), 186–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550621999272

24.

Lin

Guo

Kou

(2024). When and why does economic inequality predict prosocial behaviour? Examining the role of interpersonal trust among different targets. European Journal of Social Psychology, 54(1), 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.3007

25.

Lisnek

J. A.

Caluori

Brown-Iannuzzi

J. L.

Oishi

(2024). Investigating how high perceived economic inequality exacerbates intergroup competition, zero-sum beliefs, and perceived intergroup prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 51(10), 1942–1961. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241234787

26.

Lopez-Zafra

Garcia-Retamero

(2012). Do gender stereotypes change? The dynamic of gender stereotypes in Spain. Journal of Gender Studies, 21(2), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2012.661580

27.

Melita

Willis

G. B.

Rodríguez-Bailón

(2021). Economic Inequality Increases Status Anxiety Through Perceived Contextual Competitiveness. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.637365

28.

Moya

Fiske

S. T.

(2017). The social psychology of the great recession and social class divides. Journal of Social Issues, 73(1), 8–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12201

29.

Munguía

J. A. T.

Martínez-Zarzoso

(2022). Determinants of Emotional Intimate Partner Violence against Women and Girls with Children in Mexican Households: An Ecological Framework. CrimRxiv. https://doi.org/10.21428/cb6ab371.b9ea1937

30.

Navarro-Carrillo

Valor-Segura

Lozano

L. M.

Moya

(2018). Do economic crises always undermine trust in others? The case of generalized, interpersonal, and ingroup trust. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1955. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01955

31.

Navarro-Carrillo

Valor-Segura

Moya

(2018). Do you trust strangers, close acquaintances, and members of your ingroup? Differences in trust based on social class in Spain. Social Indicators Research, 135(2), 585–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1527-7

32.

Nishi

Shirado

Rand

D. G.

Christakis

N. A.

(2015). Inequality and visibility of wealth in experimental social networks. Nature, 526(7573), 426–429. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15392

33.

Peters

Jetten

Tanjitpiyanond

Wang

Mols

Verkuyten

(2022). The language of inequality: Evidence economic inequality increases wealth category salience. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(8), 1204–1219. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211036627

34.

Rodríguez-Bailón

Sánchez-Rodríguez

García-Sánchez

Petkanopoulou

Willis

G. B.

(2020). Inequality is in the air: Contextual psychosocial effects of power and social class. Current Opinion in Psychology, 33, 120–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.07.004

35.

Sánchez-Rodríguez

Rodríguez-Bailón

Willis

(2022). The economic inequality as normative information model (EINIM). European Review of Social Psychology, 34(2), 346–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2022.2160555

36.

Sánchez-Rodríguez

Á.

Willis

G. B.

Jetten

Rodríguez-Bailón

(2019). Economic inequality enhances inferences that the normative climate is individualistic and competitive. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(6), 1114–1127. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2557

37.

Sánchez-Rodríguez

Á.

Willis

G. B.

Rodríguez-Bailón

(2019). Economic and social distance: Perceived income inequality negatively predicts an interdependent self-construal. International Journal of Psychology, 54(1), 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12437

38.

Sanz-Barbero

Vives-Cases

Otero-García

Muntaner

Torrubiano-Domínguez

O’Campo

Y. P.

(2015). Intimate partner violence among women in Spain: The impact of regional-level male unemployment and income inequality. The European Journal of Public Health, 25(6), 1105–1111. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckv048

39.

Schmalor

Heine

S. J.

(2022). The construct of subjective economic inequality. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(1), 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550621996867

40.

Shah

C. S.

Krishnan

(2023). ICT, gender inequality, and income inequality: A panel data analysis across countries. Information Systems Frontiers, 26(2), 709–727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-023-10396-4

41.

Sommet

Elliot

A. J.

(2023). A competitiveness-based theoretical framework on the psychology of income inequality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 32(4), 318–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214231159563

42.

Sommet

Elliot

A. J.

Jamieson

J. P.

Butera

(2019). Income inequality, perceived competitiveness, and approach-avoidance motivation. Journal of Personality, 87(4), 767–784. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12432

43.

Sommet

Weissman

D. L.

Elliot

A. J.

(2022). Income Inequality Predicts Competitiveness and Cooperativeness at School. Journal of Educational Psychology, 115(1), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000731

44.

Spencer

C. M.

Mendez

Stith

S. M.

(2019). The role of income inequality on factors associated with male physical intimate partner violence perpetration: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 48, 116–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.08.010

45.

Tanjitpiyanond

Jetten

Peters

(2022). How economic inequality shapes social class stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 98, 104248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104248

46.

UN Women. (2023, September). The world is failing girls and women, according to new UN report. UN Women. https://www.unwomen.org/en/news-stories/press-release/2023/09/press-release-the-world-is-failing-girls-and-women-according-to-new-un-report?utm_source=PANTHEON_STRIPPED.

47.

Vandello

J. A.

Bosson

J. K.

Cohen

Burnaford

R. M.

Weaver

J. R.

(2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1325–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012453

48.

Velandia-Morales

Rodríguez-Bailón

Martínez

(2022). Economic Inequality Increases the Preference for Status Consumption. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 809101. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.809101

49.

Vescio

T. K.

Schlenker

K. A.

Lenes

J. G.

(2010). Power and sexism. In Guinote

Vescio

T. K.

(Eds.), The social psychology of power (pp. 363–380). The Guilford Press.

50.

Wilkinson

Pickett

(2009). The spirit level: Why more equal societies almost always do better. London: Allen Lane.

51.

Wilkinson

R. G.

Pickett

K. E.

(2017). The enemy between us: The psychological and social costs of inequality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47(1), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2275

52.

Willis

G. B.

García-Sánchez

Sánchez-Rodríguez

García-Castro

J. D.

Rodríguez-Bailón

(2022). The psychosocial effects of economic inequality depend on its perception. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(5), 301–309. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00044-0

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

9.36 MB