Why people object to inequality: Justice and social harmony as predictors of redistribution support

Distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness of how resources, wealth, and opportunities are shared within a society. People evaluate whether outcomes are equitable based on need, effort, or merit.

Social harmony involves the sense of peace, cooperation, and cohesion within a community. It reflects concerns about reducing conflict, promoting mutual respect, and maintaining positive relationships among social groups.

Both influence how people respond to inequality.

Petkanopoulou, K., Griva, M., García-Sánchez, E., Vlastou-Dimopoulou, F., Daoultzis, C., Willis, G. B., & Rodríguez-Bailón, R. (2025). Why do people object to economic inequality? The role of distributive justice and social harmony concerns as predictors of support for redistribution and collective action. British Journal of Social Psychology, 64(2), e12877. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12877

Key Points:

• Focus: This research investigates how concerns about distributive justice and social harmony influence people’s reactions to economic inequality and support for redistribution and collective action.
• Method: The paper reports four studies using mixed methods (qualitative coding and network analysis in Study 1; surveys, correlational analyses, regressions, and experimental designs in Studies 2–4) with participants from Greece, Spain, and the UK (N = 358, 260, 1536, 214 respectively).
• Findings: Across studies, distributive justice concerns consistently predicted support for redistribution and collective action, while social harmony concerns had a weaker and inconsistent effect.
• Implications: Framing economic inequality as a moral injustice is more effective in promoting social change than focusing on its threat to social harmony.

Rationale

Economic inequality poses threats not only to individuals’ well-being but also to societal cohesion and democratic governance. Yet, not all individuals who perceive inequality oppose it or act to reduce it.

Previous studies have shown inconsistent links between perceived inequality and support for redistribution.

This study aimed to clarify which specific concerns about inequality—moral (justice-based) or instrumental (threat-based)—motivate social and political engagement.

The researchers addressed a gap in the literature by systematically identifying and testing these concerns across contexts.

Prior work often used general measures of fairness or threat, without unpacking which aspects of inequality people object to.

By isolating justice and harmony concerns, this study provides a more nuanced understanding of motivational pathways to social change.

Method

The research comprises four studies:

• Study 1: Qualitative coding and network analysis to identify key concerns.
• Study 2: Survey assessing whether the concerns predict redistribution and action.
• Study 3: Large-scale mediation analysis to test if concerns explain the link between perceived inequality and support for change.
• Study 4: Experimental manipulation of concern framing (justice vs. harmony vs. control) to test causality.

Procedure

Study 1 (Qualitative)

• Participants listed reasons why inequality is unfair or threatening.
• Responses were coded using grounded theory and network analysis to identify clusters of concern.

Study 2 (Correlational)

• Participants read vignettes based on the concerns from Study 1.
• Measured support for redistribution and collective action.

Study 3 (Survey with Mediation)

• Participants completed validated scales of perceived inequality, concerns, redistribution, and action.
• Mediation analysis tested indirect effects.

Study 4 (Experimental)

• Participants were randomly assigned to read vignettes that emphasized either justice, harmony, or neutral consequences of inequality.
• Measured attitudes toward redistribution, action, and equality.

Sample

• Study 1: N = 358 (Greek citizens, M age = 42.91; 232 women, 118 men).
• Study 2: N = 260 (Greek adults, M age = 35.82; 180 women, 80 men).
• Study 3: N = 1536 (Spanish citizens, stratified by demographics, M age = 48.41; 790 women).
• Study 4: N = 214 (UK adults from Prolific; M age = 42.17; 94 men, 120 women).

Measures

• Perceived Economic Inequality: Two-item scale on (un)equal distribution of resources.
• Distributive Justice Concerns: Items measuring moral concerns about unfairness and justice violations.
• Social Harmony Concerns: Items on societal consequences such as conflict and unrest.
• Support for Redistribution:
  • Taxing the Rich (e.g., support for inheritance taxes).
  • Assisting the Poor (e.g., subsidies and financial aid).
• Collective Action Intentions: Willingness to protest, boycott, or support movements.
• Attitudes toward Inequality: Agreement with statements about the severity or acceptability of inequality.
• Demographics: Age, gender, political orientation, socioeconomic status.

Statistical Measures

• Study 1: Grounded theory content analysis and network analysis using Gephi.
• Studies 2–3: Pearson’s correlations, hierarchical regression, mediation analysis using PROCESS (Hayes), with bootstrapping (5000 samples).
• Study 4: ANOVAs and pairwise comparisons for experimental effects.

Results

• Study 1 identified four clusters: distributive justice, social harmony, inequality of opportunities, and economic threat.
• Study 2 found that distributive justice concerns predicted support for taxing the rich and collective action; social harmony concerns did not.
• Study 3 showed that distributive justice concerns mediated the relationship between perceived inequality and both action and policy support; social harmony concerns mediated only support for assisting the poor.
• Study 4 demonstrated that only justice framing (not harmony) increased support for taxing the rich, assisting the poor, and collective action, compared to a control group.

Insight

This research clarifies that moral concerns—specifically, beliefs about unfairness and justice violations—are more powerful motivators of social action than instrumental concerns about societal threat.

People may recognize inequality’s dangers but still resist change unless it violates core fairness principles.

The study extends prior work by pinpointing which concerns drive opposition to inequality and testing them across cultures (Greece, Spain, UK).

For future research, exploring how to activate justice concerns across political ideologies—especially among conservatives—could advance understanding of inequality mobilization.

Clinical Implications

• Practitioners and policymakers aiming to reduce inequality should frame inequality as a justice issue, emphasizing fairness and rights.
• Social campaigns may be more effective if they focus on violations of distributive justice, not just consequences like unrest or instability.
• Educational interventions should highlight moral principles to build support for redistributive policies.
• However, messages appealing to harmony may be less effective in sparking action, especially in individualistic cultures.

Strengths

This study had several methodological strengths, including:

• The use of mixed methods (qualitative and quantitative) provides rich, triangulated insights.
• Large, cross-cultural sample enhances generalizability across national contexts.
• Four complementary studies test both correlational and causal relationships.
• Theory-driven coding and mediation improve construct validity.
• Clear distinction between types of concerns allows more targeted conclusions.

Limitations

This study also had several limitations, including:

• Study 1’s coding relied on researcher interpretation, potentially introducing bias.
• Single-item measures in Study 2 may have limited reliability.
• Overlap between justice and harmony concerns may have confounded results, despite statistical controls.
• Vignette manipulations in Study 4 may not generalize to real-world activism or policy discourse.
• The study focused on distributive justice and harmony but omitted other relevant concerns (e.g., identity, trust, self-interest).

Socratic Questions

1. Why might moral concerns (justice) be more effective than instrumental concerns (harmony) in motivating collective action?
2. Could social harmony concerns promote change in different cultural contexts or under different political conditions?
3. How might researchers better distinguish between closely related constructs like justice and harmony concerns?
4. What alternative explanations might account for the weak effects of social harmony framing in Study 4?
5. How can campaigns effectively frame inequality to appeal to both progressive and conservative audiences?
6. To what extent do self-reported intentions (e.g., to protest) predict actual behavior in addressing inequality?
7. What role might emotions (e.g., anger, fear, empathy) play in mediating the relationship between concern types and action?
8. How might these findings apply to other types of inequality (e.g., racial, gender, or health inequality)?
9. Should practitioners always emphasize fairness, or are there scenarios where harmony-based appeals are preferable?
10. What methodological steps could future researchers take to build more comprehensive tools for measuring concern types?