![[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/2024/10/asian-executive-leader-discussion-with-colleague-in-meeting-in-business-office-750x375.jpg)
People who perceive themselves as holding a high socioeconomic status tend to be more politically engaged, a relationship that hinges on their belief in societal fairness and their personal attachment to wealth. Research published in the journal PLOS One indicates that a person’s sense of justice and materialistic values act as psychological bridges between their perceived class and their civic actions. These results help explain why some individuals turn away from the political process when they feel their economic status is lacking.
A person’s objective reality, such as their exact income or level of education, only tells part of the story regarding their place in the world. Psychologists often look at subjective socioeconomic status, which is how individuals personally rank themselves compared to others in their local community. This self-perceived ranking can sometimes differ from objective reality. Someone might have a modest bank account but still feel highly respected and comfortable in their daily social standing.
Researchers wanted to understand exactly how this self-perceived status shapes a person’s willingness to participate in local politics. Past studies have produced conflicting results on the topic. Some data suggests that people feeling left behind economically will engage in protests to demand change. Other evidence points in the opposite direction, indicating that wealthy individuals are far more likely to vote and advocate for their favored policies.
Academics rely on a few different theories to explain these contradictory patterns. One theory proposes that people with lower social standing simply lack the vital resources needed to participate in civic life, such as free time or community connections. Another framework, known as system justification theory, proposes that individuals generally prefer to view their existing social structures as reasonable and correct. People feeling comfortable at the top of the social ladder are heavily motivated to defend the system that currently rewards them.
To clarify how wealth perception influences political action, lead author Zhirui Zhao at the China University of Geosciences designed a study alongside colleagues Qi Zhao, Su Tao, and Wenchong Du. The academic team suspected that internal psychological steps mediate the relationship between feeling wealthy and participating in governance. They focused heavily on how strongly people value money, alongside how fair those individuals believe their society truly is.
The researchers surveyed 1,306 university students across China to gather relevant data. The participants reported their age, gender, and geographical background, and then completed a series of established psychological questionnaires. To measure subjective social standing, participants looked at a drawing of a ladder representing different levels of wealth and education, then picked the rung where they felt they most naturally belonged. The students also rated how often they engaged in civic activities, such as providing feedback to government institutions or visiting political websites.
The team also used questionnaires to assess two other critical layers of the participants’ personal mindsets. They measured perceived social justice by asking the students to rate statements about whether they felt their society distributed resources and opportunities equitably. Finally, they assessed materialistic tendencies by asking the participants how much they associated personal happiness and overarching life success with acquiring money and luxury possessions.
When the researchers analyzed the survey responses, they found a clear positive correlation between subjective social standing and political participation. Participants who placed themselves higher on the hypothetical social ladder reported engaging in more civic activities. The individuals feeling lower on the ladder reported much lower levels of generalized civic engagement. The data indicated that subjective wealth serves as a strong predictor of an individual’s willingness to be politically active.
The survey analysis revealed that perceived social justice acted as a mediator in this relationship. A high subjective social status was not linked to political action in a vacuum. Instead, individuals ranking themselves highly were much more likely to view their society as a fair and equitable place. This positive emotional belief in a fair system corresponded with higher participation in moderate political activities meant to uphold the current social order.
Materialism also played a measurable role in the findings, fundamentally altering how social status linked to a belief in fairness. For students who scored low in materialism, their position on the social ladder showed very little connection to whether they thought society was fair. Their judgments about societal fairness appeared largely disconnected from their own personal wealth. The relationship changed drastically for the students who placed a high value on acquiring money and possessions.
Highly materialistic people showed a very tight link between their personal social status and their entire worldview. When materialists felt successful and wealthy, they strictly believed the surrounding society was just and equitable. When materialists felt they occupied a lower social standing, they viewed their entire society as deeply flawed and unfair. For these individuals, the fairness of the world seemed entirely dependent on whether their own material desires were currently being met.
The researchers noted that people obsessed with wealth often neglect basic internal human needs, like a desire for personal autonomy or deep community relationships. When materialists fail to acquire money, they experience a deep emotional dissatisfaction that they quickly blame on external systems. They assume the surrounding society is organized directly against them. This perceived injustice often precedes cultural apathy and complete personal withdrawal from the political process.
The academic team looked closely at three distinct aspects of materialism to see which individual elements drove this psychological withdrawal. The three elements included material centrality, material happiness, and material success. Material centrality describes a person who makes acquiring possessions the absolute core purpose of their life. Material happiness describes someone who believes that buying things is the only valid route to joy and daily contentment.
Both material centrality and material happiness clearly modified how a person viewed society based on their wealth. For people scoring high in these two specific areas, financial insecurity corresponded heavily with a lack of belief in social justice, alongside minimal political participation. The third aspect, material success, was not statistically significant in modifying these associations. Material success involves using wealth simply as a metric to measure personal achievement, which appears to be less closely tied to civic disengagement than relying on possessions for basic daily happiness.
The study has a few limitations that require consideration when interpreting the broad conclusions. The survey responses were entirely self-reported, meaning participants may have evaluated their own beliefs and civic actions more generously than reality would show. The research team also relied on a single cross-sectional survey at one exact moment in time. This type of snapshot measurement can show mathematical correlations between survey answers, but it cannot definitively prove that one psychological state directly causes another to occur.
The specific cultural context of the participant pool also limits how broadly the results can be applied. The surveyed individuals were all university students living in China, a nation heavily influenced by collectivist ideals and traditional values promoting long-term social harmony. In this environment, educated individuals often view political participation as a structural duty to maintain stability. The dynamics of civic engagement might operate very differently in more fiercely individualistic cultures.
In many Western democracies, citizens facing economic hardship and a lack of required resources are often the ones who mobilize into highly visible protest movements. A lower perceived social status in those nations might be linked with more frequent confrontational forms of political engagement, rather than strictly corresponding with the kind of civic withdrawal seen in this study. The researchers point out that future investigations need to observe different cultural environments to see how these psychological theories hold up internationally.
Moving forward, academics hope to measure real-world political behaviors over a span of years rather than relying entirely on single survey sessions. Tracking the voting records, community meeting attendance, and structured activism habits of a diverse population could provide stronger evidence for the theories explored by the team. Understanding exactly how materialistic desires and economic anxieties push people away from governance could eventually help community leaders reengage citizens who feel entirely left behind.
The study, “Materialists perceive their high socioeconomic status as justice: Associations with increased political participation,” was authored by Zhirui Zhao, Qi Zhao, Su Tao, and Wenchong Du.
