A new study published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin suggests that public support for wealth redistribution is driven by beliefs about fairness rather than jealousy toward the rich. The findings indicate that people who favor taxing the wealthy are primarily motivated by the perception that extreme wealth is not strictly earned through hard work. This research provides evidence that the popular “politics of envy” narrative, which claims left-leaning individuals just want to punish the successful, is largely inaccurate.
Critics often dismiss support for economic redistribution as being fueled by malicious envy, which is a hostile and painful desire to see superior or wealthy individuals lose their advantages. This idea suggests that left-leaning individuals favor redistributive policies simply out of resentment for those who have achieved financial success.
However, previous empirical links between left-wing political views and envy have been inconsistent and weak. The scientists suspected that past discussions overlooked a major psychological mechanism known as meritocracy beliefs. Meritocracy is the belief that social systems are generally fair, providing equal opportunities to all, and that financial success is the direct result of individual talent and hard work.
“A popular argument against redistribution is that its supporters are driven by an immoral motive: envy. And indeed, some studies have found that envy predicts support for redistribution,” said study author Jasper Neerdaels, a postdoctoral researcher at KU Leuven in Belgium.
“However, in our studies, we observed that this effect largely disappears once we took meritocracy beliefs into account, that is, whether people believe wealth and success are truly deserved. Thus, it seemed that support for redistribution is driven not by envy, but by the belief that the rich often don’t deserve their advantage. This is what we tested and found across four studies.”
The researchers hypothesized that left-leaning people are not inherently more envious than conservative individuals. Instead, they proposed that left-leaning individuals are simply less likely to endorse meritocracy beliefs. Because they tend to view extreme wealth as the product of luck or structural privilege rather than hard work, they support redistributing that wealth to address perceived societal unfairness.
To test these ideas, the scientists conducted a series of four investigations involving a total of 4,171 participants. The first study involved an online survey of 400 adult residents of the United States. Participants completed standard questionnaires measuring their political ideology, their endorsement of meritocracy beliefs, their disposition toward malicious envy, and their support for economic redistribution policies.
The scientists found that left-leaning political views predicted a lower belief in a fair meritocracy, which in turn weakly predicted feelings of malicious envy. When looking at support for wealth redistribution, the belief that wealth is unearned was a strong, dominant predictor. Malicious envy did not significantly predict support for redistributive policies once these meritocracy beliefs were factored into the statistical models.
To ensure these patterns were reliable, the researchers conducted a second survey with a larger sample of 793 adults in the United States. The procedures, questionnaires, and demographic questions were nearly identical to the first survey. The results of this second, larger survey closely replicated the initial findings about ideology and fairness.
The data from the second survey confirmed that left-leaning ideology was only indirectly connected to envy through a reduced belief in a fair meritocracy. As before, a lack of belief in a meritocracy strongly predicted a person’s support for wealth redistribution. Envy entirely failed to predict support for redistribution in any meaningful way, challenging the traditional political narrative.
Next, Neerdaels and his colleagues designed an experiment to test these dynamics in a controlled setting with 794 adults in the United States. Participants read a hypothetical scenario about a villager named Alex, who was described as one of the wealthiest people in town. In a control group, participants received no additional information about how Alex acquired this immense wealth.
In the experimental group, participants were explicitly told that Alex had worked very hard and that the wealth was completely deserved. After reading the scenarios, participants rated their perceptions of Alex’s deservingness, their feelings of envy, and their support for taking some of Alex’s money to help poorer villagers. The experimental manipulation successfully altered how participants viewed the wealthy villager.
In the ambiguous control condition, left-leaning participants were highly likely to assume Alex’s wealth was unearned, which predicted higher support for redistribution. However, when explicitly told that Alex’s wealth was the clear result of hard work, left-leaning participants adjusted their views. Their perception of deservingness increased, their envy decreased, and their support for redistribution dropped to match the rest of the participants.
Finally, the researchers sought to confirm these patterns outside of the United States by analyzing data from a large German survey. This fourth study included representative responses from 2,183 German adults. The survey used time-lagged data, meaning the questions about political ideology, meritocracy beliefs, and general envy were asked at different times over a span of several years.
This time-lagged approach allowed the scientists to see if early ideological beliefs predicted later emotional attitudes. Just as in the American samples, the German data showed that left-leaning political views predicted lower meritocracy beliefs. These lower meritocracy beliefs, rather than feelings of envy, drove the participants’ support for government measures to reduce income disparities.
“Despite the popularity of the ‘politics of envy’ argument, people who support redistribution are less driven by envy and more by the perception that the rich do not deserve their wealth,” Neerdaels told PsyPost. “Getting those motives right matters because people may judge policies differently depending on whether support for them is seen as rooted in fairness concerns or in envy. We hope our findings contribute to a more informed discussion about redistribution. This is especially important given the high levels of inequality in the world today.”
But the study, like all research, has some limitations. Because the survey data relies on correlational observations, it is difficult to definitively prove cause and effect in every instance. It remains possible that feelings of envy could sometimes influence how fair a person thinks the system is, rather than the lack of fairness causing the envy.
Another limitation is that the studies relied on a simple left-right scale for measuring political ideology. People often have complex political views that differ wildly across social and economic issues. Future research should separate economic conservatism from social conservatism to see if these distinct dimensions relate differently to meritocracy beliefs and redistribution preferences.
The scientists also pointed out that their studies relied on self-reported support for hypothetical redistribution. To strengthen these conclusions, future experiments could use behavioral scenarios where participants have to redistribute real money. Finally, scientists might explore how other common arguments, such as concerns about personal freedom or economic growth, shape people’s attitudes toward taxation and wealth.
The study, “Politics of Envy? Meritocracy Beliefs, Not Envy, Drive Support for Redistribution”, was authored by Jasper Neerdaels, Lisa Blatz, and Jan Crusius.
