PL EN


2014 | 23 | 5-34
Article title

Popular Perceptions of Actual and Just Earnings: A Questionnaire Experiment

Selected contents from this journal
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
In social surveys, questions are often asked as to what subjects think people in various occupations actually earn and what they think these people should earn. Responses to these questions figure prominently in sociological studies on legitimacy of inequality and perceptions of justice. In the present study, responses to these questions are employed as well, but the major focus is on investigating the effects, if any, the way these questions are asked affects estimates of actual and just earnings provided by the subjects. More specifically, two hypotheses are proposed, the first of which concerns the association between actual and just earnings, as perceived by subjects, as a measure of legitimacy. It is argued that changing the order in which questions about the earnings are asked affects the strength of this association. A substantive justification for this hypothesis borrows from reward expectation theory and its concept of referential structures. The second hypothesis deals with between-subject agreement in the evaluations of just earnings and it proposes that the agreement may appear weaker or stronger depending on how the occupations to be evaluated by subjects have been selected. This hypothesis builds on expectations states theory, in particular, on status-processing principles in status-inconsistent situations.
Year
Volume
23
Pages
5-34
Physical description
Contributors
  • Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences, ul. Nowy Świat 72, 00-330 Warszawa
References
  • Amiel, Yoram and Frank A. Cowell. 1992. ‘Measurement of Income Inequality: Experimental Test by Questionnaire’. Journal of Public Economics, 47: 3-26.
  • ———. 1999. Thinking about Inequality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Arts, Wil, Piet Hermkens, and Peter van Wijck. 1995. ‘Justice Evaluation of Income Distribution in East and West.’ In: Social Justice and Political Change: Public Opinion in Capitalist and Post-Communist States edited by James R. Kluegel, David S. Mason, and Bernd Wegener. New York: Aldine De Gruyter, pp. 131-149.
  • Balkwell, James W., Frederick L. Bates, and Albeno P. Garbin. 1980. ‘On the Intersubjectivity of Occupational Status Evaluations: A Test of a Key Assumption Underlying the ‘Wisconsin Model’ of Status Attainment.’ Social Forces 58: 865-881.
  • ———. 1981. ‘Critical and Not-So-Critical Assumption of the Status Attainment Research Tradition: Rejoinder to Horan.’ Social Forces 59: 810-814.
  • ———. 1982. ‘Does the Degree of Consensus on Occupational Status Evaluations Differ by Socioeconomic Stratum? Response to Guppy.’ Social Forces 60: 1183-1189.
  • Balkwell, James W. et al. 1992. ‘Processing Status Information: Some Tests of Competing Theoretical Arguments.’ Advances in Group Processes 9: 1-20.
  • Berger, Joseph et al. 1972. ‘Structural Aspects of Distributive Justice: A Status-Value Formulation.’ In: Sociological Theories in Progress edited by Joseph Berger, Morris Zelditch, and Bo Anderson. Volume 2. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, pp. 119-146.
  • Berger, Joseph et al. 1985. ‘Formation of Reward Expectations in Status Situations.’ In: Status, Rewards, and Influence edited by Joseph Berger and Morris Zelditch. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 215-261.
  • Berger, Joseph et al. 1992. ‘Status Inconsistency in Task Situations: A Test of Four Status Processing Principles.’ American Sociological Review 57: 843-855.
  • Cowell, Frank A. 2008. ‘Inequality (measurement).’ In: The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics edited by Steven N. Durlauf and Lawrence E. Blume. Second edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • ———. 2011. Measuring Inequality. Third edition. Oxford University Press.
  • Domański, Henryk, Zbigniew Sawiński, and Kazimierz M. Słomczyński. 2009. Sociological Tools Measuring Occupations: New Classification and Scales. Warsaw: IFiS Publishers.
  • Eriksson, Kimmo and Brent Simpson. 2012. ‘What Do Americans Know about Inequality? It Depends on how You Ask Them.’ Judgment and Decision Making 7: 741-745.
  • Gijsberts, Merove. 2002. ‘The Legitimation of Income Inequality in State-socialist and Market Societies.’ Acta Sociologica 45: 269-284.
  • Haller, Max, Roger, and Tom W. Smith, eds. 2009. Charting the Globe: The International Social Survey Programme 1984-2009. London: Routledge.
  • Headey, Bruce. 1991. ‘Distributive Justice and Occupational Incomes: Perceptions of Justice Determine Perceptions of Fact.’ British Journal of Sociology 42: 581-596.
  • Hegtvedt, Karen A. 1994. ‘Justice.’ In: Group Processes: Sociological Analyses edited by Martha Foschi and Edward J. Lawler. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, pp. 177-204.
  • Hegtvedt, Karen A. and Barry Markovsky. 1995. ‘Justice and Injustice.’ In: Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology edited by Karen S. Cook, Garry A. Fine, and James House. Boston: Allyn Bacon, pp. 257-280.
  • Hegtvedt, Karen. 2006. ‘Justice Frameworks.’ In: Contemporary Social Psychological Theories edited by Peter J. Burke. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 46-69.
  • Jasso, Guillermina. 2001. ‘Studying Status: An Integrated Framework.’ American Journal of Sociology 66: 96-124.
  • ———. 2006. ‘Factorial Survey Methods for Studying Beliefs and Judgments.’ Sociological Methods and Research 58: 334-423.
  • Kahneman, Daniel, Paul Slovic, and Amos Tversky. 1982. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Karpiński, Zbigniew. 2012. ‘Popular Assessments of Earnings in Various Occupations.’ International Journal of Sociology 42: 87-107.
  • Kelley, Jonathan and M. D. R. Evans. 1993. ‘The Legitimation of Inequality: Norms on Inequality in Nine Nations.’ American Journal of Sociology 99: 75-125.
  • Kelley, Jonathan and Krzysztof Zagórski. 2004. ‘Economic Change and the Legitimation of Inequality: The Transition from Socialism to the Free Market in Poland and Hungary, 1987-1994.’ Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 22: 321-366.
  • Kluegel, James R., David S. Mason, and Bernd Wegener, eds. 1995. Social Justice and Political Change: Public Opinion in Capitalist and Post-Communist States. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
  • Markovsky, Barry. 1988. ‘Anchoring Justice.’ Social Psychology Quarterly 51: 213-224.
  • Markovsky, Barry and Kimmo Eriksson. 2012. ‘Comparing Direct and Indirect Measures of Just Rewards.’ Sociological Methods and Research 41: 199-216.
  • Osberg, Lars and Timothy Smeeding. 2006. ‘‘Fair’ Inequality? Attitudes Toward Pay Differentials: The United States in Comparative Perspective.’ American Sociological Review 71: 450-473.
  • Pinheiro, Jose et al. 2013. nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R packane version 3.1-108.
  • R Development Core Team. 2012. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. url: http://www.R-project.org/.
  • Słomczyński, Kazimierz M. and Włodzimierz Wesołowski. 2001. ‘Distributive Justice and Status (In)consistency: A Theoretical Debate and Empirical Evidence.’ Polish Sociological Review 135: 299-312.
  • Sudman, Seymour, Norman M. Bradburn, and Norbert Schwarz. 1996. Thinking about Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology. Jossey Bass Social and Behavioral Science Series. Michigan: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
  • Sutphin, Suzanne Taylor and Brent Simpson. 2009. ‘The Role of Self-Evaluations In Legitimizing Social Inequality.’ Social Science Research 38: 609-621.
  • Zelditch, Morris. 2006. ‘Legitimacy theory.’ In: Contemporary Social Psychological Theories edited by Peter J. Burke. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 324-352.
  • Zelditch, Morris and Henry A. Walker. 1984. ‘Legitimacy and the Stability of Authority.’ Advances in Group Processes 1: 1-25.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.desklight-013d5f55-3d20-492c-9b49-ce8dbf2f0519
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.