Egalitarians and anti-egalitarians share the same negative mental image of the poor

People who support social equality often express far more positive attitudes toward the poor than those who favor social hierarchy. A new study reveals that despite these differing opinions, both groups hold remarkably similar—and negative—mental images of what a poor person looks like. Published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, these findings suggest that deep-seated cultural stereotypes about poverty may persist even among those who consciously oppose inequality.

Inequality is a persistent feature of human history, from ancient religious stratifications to modern economic divides. At the heart of these hierarchies lies a tension over who possesses resources and who does not. Those at the top generally have access to capital and comfort, while those at the bottom face deprivation.

Psychologists use a framework called Social Dominance Theory to understand how people navigate these group-based hierarchies. The theory categorizes individuals based on their preference for group-based dominance. Some people, termed “anti-egalitarians,” prefer a stratified society and are motivated to justify the unequal distribution of resources.

On the other side of the spectrum are “egalitarians.” These individuals are motivated to challenge and dismantle these hierarchies. Past research shows that anti-egalitarians often use stereotypes to blame the poor for their own poverty, labeling them as lazy or undeserving. Egalitarians typically reject these labels and argue that systemic issues cause poverty.

Researchers Wilson N. Merrell and Lei Fan, along with their colleagues, wanted to investigate whether these ideological differences extend beyond spoken attitudes. They sought to understand if a person’s political leaning influences the actual mental picture they conjure up when thinking of a poor person. The research team is associated with Aarhus University in Denmark and the University of Oslo in Norway.

The investigators tested two competing hypotheses regarding how we visualize others. The “Divergence Hypothesis” suggests that our motivations shape our perception. If this were true, egalitarians would visualize the poor in a more positive light than anti-egalitarians, matching their stated beliefs.

Conversely, the “Convergence Hypothesis” suggests that stereotypes about the poor are so fundamental that they are shared across the political spectrum. This view posits that everyone is exposed to the same cultural cues linking poverty to certain negative traits. If this were true, everyone would generate similar mental images regardless of their personal ideology.

To test these ideas, the researchers employed a technique called visual reverse correlation. This method functions somewhat like a police sketch artist session but relies on data rather than verbal descriptions. It allows scientists to visualize the internal mental templates people hold for specific social groups.

In the first study, the researchers recruited 625 participants from the United Kingdom. These participants, referred to as “generators,” completed a task involving 300 trials. In each trial, they viewed two side-by-side images of a face.

The images were created by superimposing random visual noise—fuzzy, static-like patterns—over a base image of a neutral White male face. One image had a specific pattern of noise added, while the other had that same pattern subtracted. This created subtle distortions that the brain interprets as facial features.

Participants were asked to select which of the two faces looked “poor” or “rich.” By averaging the noise patterns from the selected images, the researchers created a composite face. This composite represented the participant’s visual prototype of that social category.

After generating the images, the participants reported their explicit attitudes. They answered questions about whether they viewed the poor as lazy or hardworking, and how warm or cold they felt toward them. They also completed a standard scale to measure their level of support for social hierarchy.

The results regarding explicit attitudes were expected. Egalitarians reported feeling much warmer toward the poor. They described the poor as less lazy and more socially connected than the anti-egalitarians did.

However, the visual data told a different story. The researchers analyzed the “pixel luminance” of the composite images. This objective measure looks at the patterns of light and dark in the created faces to see how mathematically similar they are.

The analysis showed a high correlation between the images generated by egalitarians and those generated by anti-egalitarians. The structural features of the faces were nearly identical. This provided the first evidence for the Convergence Hypothesis.

To verify what these images actually looked like to a neutral observer, the researchers conducted a second study. They recruited a new group of 394 participants to act as “raters.” These individuals were shown the composite faces generated in the first study.

The raters were not told how the images were created or who created them. They simply evaluated the faces on basic personality traits. They rated the faces on characteristics such as warmth, competence, dominance, aggression, and intelligence.

The findings confirmed the objective pixel analysis. The faces generated by the egalitarians were rated just as negatively as the faces generated by the anti-egalitarians. Both sets of images depicting “poor” people were seen as less competent, less warm, and less healthy than the images depicting “rich” people.

The researchers conducted a third study to dig deeper into social attitudes. They wanted to see if the images conveyed specific information about how a person might act in a group. A new sample of 348 raters evaluated the faces on traits like “solidarity” and “laziness.”

Once again, the ideology of the original image creator made no difference. The faces generated by egalitarians appeared just as “lazy” and lacking in solidarity as those generated by their ideological opposites. The visual template for a poor person appeared to be universally negative.

This third study did uncover one area where ideology mattered. While the images themselves were static, the raters’ own political leanings influenced how they judged them. Egalitarian raters tended to be less harsh in their evaluations of the poor faces than anti-egalitarian raters.

This suggests a “nuanced interplay” in how we process social hierarchy. We all seem to share the same negative visual stereotype of poverty, likely learned from culture or media. However, egalitarians appear to consciously override this visual signal when making explicit judgments.

The authors posit that these mental representations might be “cognitive building blocks.” They are automatic visualizations that pop into our minds before we have a chance to apply our political or moral filters. The fact that they are shared suggests that resource-based stereotypes are deeply ingrained in our collective psychology.

The study has some limitations that the authors acknowledge. The base face used in the reverse correlation task was a White male. This was done to isolate the variable of social class, but it means the results might not apply to mental representations of poor women or people of color.

Additionally, the study cannot pinpoint the origin of these images. It is unclear whether these visual templates come from personal interactions with the poor or from media depictions. Movies and news reports often rely on visual shorthands for poverty that could reinforce these stereotypes.

Future research could explore these origins by looking at different cultures. If the same visual patterns appear in societies with different media environments, it might suggest a more evolutionary basis for these perceptions. Conversely, differences across cultures would point to learned stereotypes.

Another avenue for investigation is behavior. This study looked at mental images and reported attitudes, but not actions. It remains to be seen whether these negative mental images predict discriminatory behavior, such as refusing to hire someone or opposing welfare policies.

The authors also suggest investigating “rater” effects more closely. Since egalitarians judged the negative faces more leniently, it is possible that they are engaging in a form of correction. They may see the same negative cues but choose to interpret them with more empathy.

Ultimately, this research highlights a disconnection between what we believe and what we see. We may genuinely desire a more equal society and hold positive views of the disadvantaged. Yet, our brains may still harbor negative visual associations that contradict those conscious beliefs.

Understanding this discrepancy is vital for addressing prejudice. It suggests that simply changing explicit attitudes may not be enough to erase bias. If the visual template of poverty remains negative, it may continue to exert a subtle influence on how we perceive and treat others.

The study, “Resource Possession in the Mind’s Eye: Ideological Convergence and Divergence in the Perceptions of Poor People,” was authored by Wilson N. Merrell, Lei Fan, Jennifer Sheehy-Skeffington, and Lotte Thomsen.