![[Adobe Stock]](https://sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_glossy,ret_img,w_750,h_375/https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Hand-giving-and-receiving-money-750x375.jpg)
Recent psychological research suggests that political views on wealth redistribution are driven by deep-seated evolutionary motives rather than just economic logic. New evidence indicates that the fear of conflict and a desire for equal outcomes are powerful predictors of support for government transfer payments. These findings imply that social policies are often supported as a way to appease potential aggressors or to enforce group conformity.
The Role of Egalitarianism and Coercion
Researchers Chien-An Lin and Timothy C. Bates of the University of Edinburgh sought to expand the understanding of why individuals support economic redistribution. Their work builds upon the “three-person two-situation” model. This evolutionary framework previously identified three primary motives: self-interest, compassion for the needy, and malicious envy toward the wealthy.
In a study published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences in 2024, they aimed to determine if a specific preference for equal outcomes could explain support for redistribution better than existing models. They also investigated whether the willingness to use force to achieve these outcomes played a role.
Lin and Bates conducted two separate investigations to test their hypotheses. In Study 1, they recruited 403 participants from the United Kingdom using the Prolific Academic platform. The sample was representative of the UK population regarding ethnicity and gender.
The researchers measured attitudes using several established psychological scales. They assessed support for economic redistribution and the three traditional motives of self-interest, compassion, and envy. They also introduced measures for “Egalitarian Fairness” and “Instrumental Harm.”
Egalitarian Fairness was defined as a motive to divide resources so that no individual wishes to switch their share with another. Instrumental Harm assessed the belief that the ends justify the means, even if it requires harming innocent people. Additionally, the researchers developed a new scale to measure “Support for Coercive Redistribution.”
This new scale included items assessing willingness to punish those who question redistribution. It also asked about using force to reveal hidden wealth. The results of Study 1 provided evidence that Egalitarian Fairness predicts support for redistribution independently of other motives.
The data indicated that this fairness motive accounts for unique variance in political views. It operates alongside self-interest, compassion, and envy.
The study also revealed a connection between Instrumental Harm and the willingness to use coercion. Individuals who scored high on Instrumental Harm were more likely to support forcible redistribution. Malicious envy also predicted this support for coercion. The researchers found that compassion did not reduce the support for coercive measures.
To validate these findings, Lin and Bates conducted Study 2 with a fresh sample of 402 UK participants. This replication aimed to confirm the initial results and test for discriminant validity against other forms of fairness. They measured “Procedural Fairness” and “Distributional Fairness” to see if they yielded different results.
The second study confirmed the findings of the first. Egalitarian Fairness reliably increased support for redistribution. The motive for coercion was again predicted by Instrumental Harm, envy, and self-interest.
The study showed that Procedural Fairness had no significant link to redistribution support. This suggests that the desire for redistribution is specifically about outcomes rather than the rules of the game. The final motivational model accounted for over 40% of the variance in support for redistribution.
Fear of Violent Dispossession
Following this line of inquiry, Bates and Daniel Sznycer of Oklahoma State University investigated a different evolutionary driver: fear. They proposed that support for redistribution might stem from a “Bismarckian” strategy of appeasement. This theory suggests people give up resources to avoid the greater cost of being attacked or robbed.
Otto von Bismarck is a 19th-century German Chancellor credited with establishing the first modern welfare state. Bismarck was a conservative leader who implemented social protections such as health insurance and pensions, yet his primary motivation was not compassion. He intended these reforms to undermine the appeal of radical socialist movements.
Their paper, titled “Bismarckian welfare revisited,” was published in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior. The researchers argued that the human mind evolved to navigate asymmetric conflicts. In this view, appeasement is a biological adaptation to avoid injury when facing a desperate or formidable opponent.
They hypothesized that a “Fear of Violent Dispossession” would predict support for progressive taxation. This fear arises when individuals perceive that others value their resources more highly than they do. It leads to a strategy of ceding resources to preempt violence.
Sznycer and Bates conducted three studies to test this hypothesis. Study 1 involved 303 participants from the UK. They developed a “Fear of Violent Dispossession” scale with items such as “I worry that economic hardship could lead to violence directed at people like me.”
The results showed a strong positive association between this specific fear and support for redistribution. The effect remained significant even when controlling for compassion, envy, and self-interest. This suggests that fear acts as a distinct pathway to political support for welfare.
Study 2 sought to replicate these findings in a different cultural context. The researchers recruited a nationally representative sample of 804 participants from the United States. This study included controls for political orientation and party support.
The data from the US sample mirrored the UK findings. Fear of Violent Dispossession was a strong predictor of support for redistribution. This association held true regardless of whether the participant identified as liberal or conservative.
Study 3 was a pre-registered replication using another representative US sample of 804 participants. This study included a measure of “Coercive Egalitarianism” to see if the fear motive remained robust. The results confirmed the previous patterns.
The analysis indicated that fear of dispossession predicts redistribution support over and above coercive egalitarianism. It also outperformed the motive of proportionality. The researchers concluded that appeasement is a key psychological mechanism underlying modern welfare views.
Fear and Broader Progressive Policies
In a related single-author paper published in Personality and Individual Differences, Bates extended this framework. He investigated whether this fear of dispossession explains support for broader progressive policies beyond taxation. These policies included affirmative action, diversity quotas, and support for social justice movements.
Bates theorized that “progressive policy” acts as a broad mechanism for transferring power and control. He hypothesized that the same fear driving economic redistribution would drive support for these social regulations. He also looked at the motive of self-interest in relation to these policies.
Study 1 in this paper involved 502 US participants. The sample was representative regarding age, sex, and political party. Bates developed a “Support for Progressive Policy” scale covering issues like DEI training, decolonization, and boardroom diversity.
The results demonstrated that these diverse policy preferences form a single, coherent psychological construct. As predicted, Fear of Violent Dispossession predicted support for these progressive policies. Individuals who feared losing what they have were more likely to support regulations that transfer influence to others.
The study also found a strong link between self-interest and progressive policy support. Participants who expected their own economic situation to improve under these policies were much more likely to support them. This suggests a dual motivation of fear and personal gain.
Bates also tested a hypothesis regarding appeasement of powerful groups. He asked participants about their willingness to yield to strong adversaries, such as foreign powers or cartels. The data showed that Fear of Violent Dispossession predicted a general tendency to appease strong groups.
Study 2 was a pre-registered replication with 500 US participants. It aimed to confirm the findings while controlling for socioeconomic status. The results were consistent with the first study.
Fear of Violent Dispossession remained a robust predictor of support for progressive policy. The study found that this fear motivates individuals to cede resources to both the needy and the powerful. It challenges the idea that progressive views are solely driven by compassion or moral ideals.
Limitations and Future Directions
These three papers provide a new perspective on political psychology, but they have limitations. The data in all studies were correlational. This means researchers cannot definitively claim that fear causes the policy support, only that they are linked.
The measures relied on self-reports. Participants might answer in ways they believe are socially acceptable. Future research should use experimental designs to induce fear or compassion to see if policy views change in real-time.
Another limitation is the reliance on Western samples from the UK and US. It is unknown if these motives operate identically in non-Western cultures. Cultural norms regarding fear and sharing might influence these biological drives.
Future studies could investigate how these motives interact with dark personality traits. Research could look at whether individuals high in Machiavellianism exploit this fear in others to advance their own interests. Additionally, further work is needed to distinguish this specific fear of dispossession from general anxiety.
The findings suggest that political debates are shaped by ancient mechanisms of survival. Recognizing the roles of fear, envy, and coercion may help explain why political polarization is so persistent. It appears that economic and social policies are often viewed through the lens of potential conflict.
The study, “Support for redistribution is shaped by motives of egalitarian division and coercive redistribution,” was authored by Chien-An Lin and Timothy C. Bates.
The study, “Fear of violent dispossession motivates support for progressive policy,” was authored by Timothy C. Bates.
The study, “Bismarckian welfare revisited: Fear of being violently dispossessed motivates support for redistribution,” was authored by Daniel Sznycer and Timothy C. Bates.
