In recent years, the conversation around income inequality and minimum wage policy has intensified, yet a perplexing societal dynamic continues to impede progress. Groundbreaking research published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General sheds light on a cognitive bias that may be undermining public support for raising minimum wages, despite escalating income disparities. This bias, called “is-to-ought” reasoning, prompts individuals to infer that current economic conditions—however inequitable—are inherently justified and should persist into the future. The implications of this psychological mechanism extend far beyond academic curiosity, touching on the core of economic policy debates and social justice movements.
The research team, led by M. Asher Lawson, PhD, an assistant professor of decision sciences at INSEAD in Fontainebleau, France, conducted a comprehensive analysis of over 130,000 protests across the United States between 2017 and 2023. Their meticulous archival study incorporated variables such as estimated protest crowd sizes, issues at hand, and localized economic inequality indices. Interestingly, they discovered an inverse relationship between the level of income inequality and public mobilization for economic reforms: in counties with pronounced inequality, protests demanding higher minimum wages were both fewer and smaller in scale. This counterintuitive finding suggests that heightened inequality might suppress collective action instead of galvanizing support.
Complementing the archival research, the team executed eight controlled experiments involving hypothetical societies to probe the cognitive underpinnings of this phenomenon. Participants were presented with simulated income distributions and asked to express their preferences for minimum wage levels and the purchasing power deserved by low-income earners. The consistent outcome was that as simulated inequality increased, participants endorsed lower minimum wages and rationalized that individuals with lower incomes deserved fewer goods and services. These results reveal a powerful psychological interplay between descriptive realities (“is”) and normative judgments (“ought”), where entrenched inequities become rationalized and perpetuated in public opinion.
The cognitive bias at play, “is-to-ought” reasoning, operates on the assumption that what exists naturally aligns with what is deserved or just. As Dr. Lawson explains, when observers witness that the wealthy earn disproportionately more than the poor, they often conclude that such disparities are appropriate and legitimate. This internalized normalization of inequality effectively erodes popular support for redistributive policies like minimum wage increases, which could otherwise serve as corrective mechanisms to bridge economic divides.
This embedded reasoning bias has profound policy consequences. Despite inflation eroding the real value of wages over the past decade, the federal minimum wage has languished at $7.25 per hour since 2009. This stagnant wage results in full-time minimum wage workers earning an annual income of just $15,080—substantially below the federal poverty level, thereby disqualifying many from essential social safety net programs such as Medicaid and food assistance. The disconnect between economic reality and public support for wage reforms may, therefore, be partially illuminated by the psychological findings of this study.
The research also delved into the role of political ideology in shaping responses to income inequality. Co-lead researcher Daniela Goya-Tocchetto, PhD, from the State University of New York at Buffalo, reports a nuanced dynamic: conservatives tend to consistently support lower minimum wages, unaffected by variations in income distribution they observe. Conversely, liberals, who might be presumed uniformly supportive of wage increases, exhibit greater sensitivity to inequality cues and paradoxically endorse lower minimum wages when they perceive inequality as elevated. This heightened susceptibility suggests that well-intentioned liberals may inadvertently fall victim to the same “is-to-ought” reasoning errors as others.
Such findings challenge conventional approaches to advocacy and public messaging around minimum wage policy. Simply highlighting the severity of income inequality could inadvertently legitimize it in the public eye. This paradox implies that emphasizing how widespread inequality is might normalize rather than delegitimize economic disparities. Dr. Lawson advocates for a strategic pivot in communication: rather than focusing solely on the prevalence of inequality, campaigns should spotlight attainable scenarios featuring lower inequality levels and emphasize the critical role minimum wage increases play in achieving these goals.
One of the study’s most promising revelations emerged from a novel experimental intervention involving over 1,900 participants. Researchers divided subjects into groups, with the control cohort receiving static information about hypothetical income distributions and the intervention group empowered to modify these distributions as they envisioned better alternatives. Empowering participants to actively reimagine a more equitable economic landscape reduced their vulnerability to “is-to-ought” reasoning and resulted in stronger support for higher minimum wages. This finding underscores the potential for cognitive engagement and agency in overcoming entrenched biases.
At a deeper theoretical level, the study connects to long-standing philosophical and psychological debates regarding how people derive moral and normative judgments from empirical observations. The “is-ought” problem, articulated by philosopher David Hume, posits that normative claims cannot be logically inferred from descriptive statements alone. Yet, in practice, lay reasoning often conflates these distinctions, leading to the justification of existing social hierarchies. The researchers’ empirical demonstration that this conflation diminishes advocacy for economic reforms offers critical insight into designing interventions that can break cycles of inequality.
Moreover, the findings illuminate a paradox where economic inequality is self-perpetuating not only through institutional and structural means but also through psychological acceptance. The legitimization of income gaps in societal consciousness may dampen collective will for redistributive change, creating a feedback loop that entrenches disparities. Understanding and mitigating this cognitive mechanism thus becomes crucial for policymakers, activists, and social scientists aiming to foster equitable economic conditions.
From a methodological perspective, the research is notable for its interdisciplinary integration of large-scale naturalistic data and controlled laboratory experiments exploring causality and psychology. The blending of observational protest data with experimental manipulations enhances the robustness and ecological validity of the conclusions. Additionally, the study’s focus on the United States provides a culturally specific context, although the underlying cognitive processes likely bear relevance across diverse societies grappling with inequality.
In sum, this body of work collectively paints a sobering but actionable picture: public support for policies that might reduce economic inequality is not merely a matter of economic interests or political ideology. Underlying cognitive biases shape perceptions of fairness and entitlement, often in ways that perpetuate status quo disparities. However, by creatively engaging people’s capacity to envision better economic realities, advocates and policymakers could circumvent the “is-to-ought” trap and foster more inclusive support for reforms like minimum wage increases.
With minimum wage debates increasingly central to political discourse, understanding the psychological factors that hinder or help such policy initiatives is vital. This research offers a crucial lens to reframe how socioeconomic inequality is communicated and contested in public arenas. By moving beyond mere statistics and poverty-level data to emphasize potential improvements and achievable reductions in inequality, society stands a better chance of breaking free from cognitive legacies that sustain economic injustice.
Ultimately, the study’s findings call for a sophisticated approach to economic justice campaigning—one that does not simply spotlight harsh realities but enlists the human imagination and normative reasoning towards more equitable possibilities. Aligning empirical evidence with effective psychological framing could mark a transformative step in combating one of the defining challenges of our era: persistent income inequality.
Subject of Research: People
Article Title: Income Inequality Depresses Support for Higher Minimum Wages
News Publication Date: 29-May-2025
Web References:
References:
Goya-Tocchetto, D., Lawson, M. A., Davidai, S., Larrick, R. P., & Payne, B. K. (2025). Income inequality depresses support for higher minimum wages. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001772
Keywords:
Psychological science, Economics, Economics research, Microeconomics, Financial management
