People who perceive themselves to have a high socio-economic status tend to be more politically engaged, and the relationship hinges on beliefs in social equity and personal attachment to wealth. Research published in journals pro swan This shows that a person’s sense of justice and materialistic values function as a psychological bridge between a person’s perceived class and civic activities. These results help explain why some people distance themselves from the political process when they feel their economic status is lacking.
A person’s objective reality, such as their exact income or level of education, is only part of the story about their place in the world. Psychologists often focus on subjective socioeconomic status, which is how individuals personally rank themselves compared to others in their community. This self-perceived ranking may differ from objective reality. Some people may have a modest bank account and still feel valued and comfortable in their everyday social status.
The researchers wanted to understand exactly how this self-perceived status shapes people’s willingness to participate in local politics. Past studies have yielded conflicting results on this topic. Some data suggests that people who feel economically marginalized are joining protests to demand change. Other evidence points in the opposite direction, showing that wealthy people are much more likely to vote for and support policies they like.
Scholars rely on several different theories to explain these contradictory patterns. One theory holds that people with low social status simply lack important resources needed to participate in civic life, such as free time and connections to their communities. Another framework, known as system justification theory, proposes that individuals generally prefer to view existing social structures as rational and correct. People who feel comfortable at the top of the social ladder have a strong incentive to protect the system that currently rewards them.
To find out how perceptions of wealth influence political behavior, lead author Zhirui Zhao of the China University of Geosciences designed the study with colleagues Qi Zhao, Su Tao, and Wenchong Du. The academic team suspected that internal psychological stages mediated the relationship between feelings of wealth and participation in governance. They focused on how strongly people value money and whether those people believe their society is truly fair.
The researchers surveyed 1,306 university students across China to collect relevant data. Participants reported their age, gender, and geographic background and completed a series of established psychological questionnaires. To measure subjective social status, participants looked at a diagram of a ladder representing different levels of wealth and education and chose the rung to which they felt they most naturally belonged. Students also rated how often they participated in civic activities, such as providing feedback to government agencies and visiting political websites.
The team also used surveys to assess two other important layers of participants’ personal thinking. They measured perceived social justice by asking students to rate statements about whether they felt society distributes resources and opportunities fairly. Finally, they assessed materialistic tendencies by asking participants to what extent they associated acquiring money and luxury possessions with personal happiness and overall success in life.
When researchers analyzed the survey responses, they found a clear positive correlation between subjective social status and political participation. Participants who positioned themselves higher up the hypothetical social ladder reported participating in more civic activities. Those who felt they were lower on the ladder reported much lower levels of general civic engagement. The data showed that subjective wealth acts as a strong predictor of an individual’s willingness to engage in political activity.
Survey analysis reveals that perceived social justice acts as a mediator of this relationship. High subjective social status did not alone lead to political action. In fact, people who thought highly of themselves were far more likely to view their society as a fair and just place. This positive affective belief in fair institutions was matched by higher participation in moderate political activities aimed at maintaining the current social order.
Materialism also played a measurable role in this finding, fundamentally changing the way social status and beliefs in fairness are linked. For students who scored low on materialism, their position on the social ladder had little to do with whether they thought society was fair. Their judgments about social fairness seemed largely separate from their own personal wealth. Relationships among students have changed dramatically as they place more emphasis on acquiring money and possessions.
Highly materialistic people showed a very close connection between an individual’s social status and their overall worldview. When materialists were successful and felt wealthy, they strictly believed that the society around them was fair and just. When materialists felt their social status was low, they viewed their entire society as deeply flawed and unfair. For these people, the fairness of the world seemed to depend entirely on whether their own material needs were currently met.
The researchers noted that people obsessed with wealth often ignore basic inner human needs, such as personal autonomy and a deep connection to one’s community. If materialists are unable to obtain money, they experience deep emotional dissatisfaction and are quick to blame external systems. They assume that the society around them is an organization directly opposed to them. This recognition of injustice often precedes cultural apathy or a complete personal withdrawal from the political process.
The academic team took a closer look at three different aspects of materialism to see which individual factors are causing this psychological withdrawal. The three elements include material centrality, material well-being, and material success. Material centrality refers to a person who makes the acquisition of possessions the absolute central purpose of life. Material well-being refers to a person who believes that buying things is the only effective means to joy and daily satisfaction.
Both materiality and material well-being have clearly changed the way people view society based on wealth. For those who scored high in these two specific areas, economic insecurity was highly consistent with a lack of belief in social justice, along with minimal political participation. The third dimension, material success, was not statistically significant in modifying these associations. Material success involves using wealth simply as an indicator to measure personal accomplishment, but this appears to be less closely tied to civic apathy than dependence on possessions for basic daily well-being.
This study has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the broad conclusions. Because survey responses were entirely self-reported, participants may have evaluated their beliefs and civic activities more generously than they actually were. The research team also relied on a single cross-sectional survey at a precise moment in time. Although this type of snapshot measurement can show mathematical correlations between survey responses, it cannot conclusively prove that one psychological state directly causes another.
The particular cultural background of the participant population also limits how broadly the results can be applied. The study participants were all university students living in China, which is strongly influenced by collectivist ideals and traditional values that promote long-term social harmony. In such environments, educated people often view political participation as a structural obligation to maintain stability. In more intensely individualistic cultures, the dynamics of civic engagement may work very differently.
In many Western democracies, citizens facing economic hardship and lack of necessary resources often mobilize in high-visibility protests. The perceived lower social status in these countries may be associated with more frequent forms of conflictual political engagement, rather than strictly corresponding to the type of citizen withdrawal seen in this study. The researchers note that future research should look at different cultural settings to see how these psychological theories hold up internationally.
Going forward, scholars hope to measure real-world political behavior over several years, rather than relying entirely on a single survey session. Tracking a diverse population’s voting records, attendance at community meetings, and structured activity habits could provide stronger evidence for the theories the team investigated. Understanding exactly how material desires and economic insecurities drive people away from governance could ultimately help re-engage community leaders who feel left behind.
The study, “Materialists Perceive Their High Socioeconomic Status as Justice: Groups with Increased Political Participation,” was authored by Zhirui Zhao, Qi Zhao, Su Tao, and Wenchong Du.
