Many previous studies have found that
rich people are more conservative, but this is subject to different
interpretations. Higher income could cause conservatism,
conservatism could cause higher income, or they could both be jointly
caused by some other variable, i.e., having wealthy parents.
Studying lottery winners is an interesting idea because a lottery is a truly
random assignment of people to the condition of being “rich.” Since the
authors had data from before and after the win, they could look at its effect on political attitudes while holding
individual differences constant.
The data came from the British Household Panel Survey, an ongoing study in which the same people are
contacted every year. Between 1996 and 2009, 4277 different people
reported winning the British National Lottery 9003 times. 94.65% of
these were small wins of less than £500 (as of this writing, $820).
The remaining 5.35% were over £500 and were considered big wins. (The biggest win was £185,000. Unfortunately, they do not report an average.) Winners were compared to people who had no lottery winnings,
either because they did not play or played and lost.
All respondents were asked which political party they favored. Only supporters of the Conservative and Labour parties were included in the analysis, since these parties are clearly right and left leaning. (The authors classify the Liberal Democrats as a centrist party.) Participants were also asked to locate themselves on a 7-point scale, from a strong supporter of the Labour Party to a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. The scale measured changes in attitude strength regardless of whether the participant changed parties. These data were statistically corrected for prior household income and 12 other control variables.
All respondents were asked which political party they favored. Only supporters of the Conservative and Labour parties were included in the analysis, since these parties are clearly right and left leaning. (The authors classify the Liberal Democrats as a centrist party.) Participants were also asked to locate themselves on a 7-point scale, from a strong supporter of the Labour Party to a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. The scale measured changes in attitude strength regardless of whether the participant changed parties. These data were statistically corrected for prior household income and 12 other control variables.
By comparing the participants' answers
to those of the year before, it was possible to identify people who
had switched from favoring some other party (or none at all) to favoring either the
Labour or Conservative parties in the year of the win.
Approximately 13% of the non-winners
switched to the Conservative Party that year, along with 14% of the
small winners and 18% of the big winners. The data from the 7-point
scale were consistent with these findings, showing that the greater
the winnings, the greater the conservative shift. For unknown
reasons, the conservative shift among winners was greater for men
than for women.
Since each lottery winner's political
leanings were measured before and after their windfall, this design
goes a long way toward controlling alternative explanations.
However, there is a problem. It's possible that people who play the
lottery are not representative of the population. For example, in the US, the lottery functions as a regressive tax, since low income people spend more per capita. In addition, men, middle-aged (45-64) people, and people with less education play more. In defense of
the representativeness of their sample, the authors note that 57% of UK citizens play the lottery at least once in a
given year. However, they had no measure of how often each person
played. Since the more often you play, the greater your chance of
winning, the big winners were probably people who played regularly.
My guess is that winning the lottery sensitizes people to the tax consequences of winning. The British income tax is more progressive than ours, and Conservative Party propaganda emphasizes keeping taxes low. People who play the lottery often may differ from non-players in a way that makes them more susceptible to a conservative change. Maybe they are particularly sensitive to variations in their income.
This is not the first study to look at
the relationship between wealth and self-interest. Several American
studies have found that higher income people are less helpful and
more likely to cheat or engage in unethical behavior.
You may also be interested in reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are always welcome.