The Broken Ladder

The Broken Ladder Plot Summary

Introduction

Inequality is more than a mere economic metric—it fundamentally shapes how we think, feel, and behave. When we board an airplane, the physical stratification between first class and economy becomes a microcosm of society's hierarchy. This stratification affects everyone: those in economy feel diminished when they see the comfort of first class, while those in premium cabins can become more entitled and demanding. This pattern extends far beyond air travel, affecting nearly every aspect of our lives from health outcomes to political beliefs. What makes this phenomenon so powerful is that inequality operates largely through subjective perceptions rather than objective realities. Even people who are objectively well-off can feel poor when surrounded by greater wealth, triggering psychological responses typically associated with actual poverty. These reactions include shortsighted decision-making, stress-related health problems, superstitious thinking, and tribal political attitudes. By examining these responses through empirical research rather than moral or political lenses, we gain insights into how inequality creates cycles of disadvantage that affect not just the poor but everyone in society.

Chapter 1: Relative Poverty: How Inequality Shapes Our Perceptions

Most people assume that our perceptions of wealth and poverty are straightforward reflections of our objective economic circumstances. However, research reveals that feeling poor can produce the same psychological and behavioral effects as actually being poor, regardless of one's absolute income level. This occurs because humans instinctively judge their position on a social ladder through comparisons with others, not through absolute measures. The effects of perceived status can be profound. Where people place themselves on a subjective status ladder proves to be a stronger predictor of health outcomes, decision-making patterns, and belief systems than their actual income or education level. Someone who feels they occupy a lower rung will typically make more shortsighted decisions, experience more stress-related health problems, and adopt more extreme belief systems, even if their objective economic situation is stable. These effects exist because social comparison is a fundamental feature of human psychology. We evolved in small hunter-gatherer bands where relative standing within the group had significant consequences for survival and reproduction. For most of human history, these status hierarchies were relatively flat—the difference between the highest and lowest members was modest compared to today's vast inequalities. What changed was not human nature but human society. The advent of agriculture allowed for the accumulation of wealth, leading to increasingly stratified societies. Modern economic systems have created inequalities on a scale unprecedented in human history, with the gap between the richest and poorest reaching levels not seen since before the Great Depression. This mismatch between our psychology (evolved for relatively egalitarian small groups) and our current economic environment (featuring enormous disparities) creates a fundamental tension. Just as our evolved cravings for sugar and fat can lead to health problems in an environment of food abundance, our evolved sensitivity to status can lead to psychological distress in an environment of extreme inequality. The human mind is so sensitive to relative status that even temporary feelings of having less than others can trigger behaviors associated with poverty. This explains why inequality—not just poverty itself—contributes to social problems even among middle-class populations in wealthy societies. When the rungs of the economic ladder grow further apart, everyone feels the psychological impact, not just those at the bottom.

Chapter 2: Social Comparisons: The Psychological Mechanisms of Status Anxiety

Human beings are comparison machines. We determine our worth, success, and satisfaction not through absolute measures but through relative judgments against others. This tendency is so deeply ingrained that it shapes our most basic perceptions. Just as a checkerboard optical illusion reveals how our visual system processes brightness relative to surrounding squares, our evaluation of our social position depends fundamentally on the context of others around us. Experiments reveal how automatic these social comparisons are. When research participants are subliminally exposed to high-status figures like Michael Jordan, they subsequently rate their own athletic abilities lower than those exposed to less athletically accomplished figures. The comparisons happen without conscious awareness yet significantly impact self-perception. Similarly, brain imaging studies show that the reward centers in our brains light up more intensely when we outperform others than when we simply perform well in absolute terms. This psychological mechanism helps explain why income satisfaction is not simply a matter of having enough money to meet one's needs. Economist Andrew Clark found that workers' satisfaction with their pay depends less on its absolute value and more on how it compares to what others in similar positions earn. People earning objectively high salaries can feel dissatisfied if they believe colleagues earn more, while those with modest incomes may feel content if they perceive themselves as doing better than their peers. The health implications of these comparisons are profound. Across developed nations, those with greater income equality have better health outcomes than those with wider disparities—even when controlling for average income. The relationship holds true across American states as well: places with greater equality have fewer health and social problems, from lower rates of mental illness to less violence. This occurs because inequality intensifies status anxiety for everyone, not just the poor. A striking experiment by psychologists at University College London revealed that even brief exposure to social evaluation caused spikes in inflammatory markers in participants' bloodstreams—with the most dramatic increases among those who perceived themselves as lower in status. This physiological response occurred within minutes, demonstrating how quickly social comparisons translate into bodily changes that can, over time, contribute to chronic disease. The evidence suggests that inequality itself is pathogenic. When economic gaps widen, everyone experiences more stress, anxiety, and insecurity. The social comparison mechanism that once helped our ancestors navigate relatively modest status differences now contributes to widespread suffering in our highly unequal modern societies.

Chapter 3: Risk and Shortsightedness: How Inequality Distorts Decision-Making

Inequality doesn't just make people feel bad—it fundamentally alters how they make decisions. When people sense they occupy a lower position on the status ladder, they adopt what evolutionary biologists call a "fast life history strategy"—prioritizing immediate rewards over long-term benefits. This approach isn't irrational but rather an adaptive response to perceived scarcity and uncertainty. In environments where the future seems uncertain, evolution has equipped organisms to seize immediate opportunities rather than wait for better ones that may never materialize. Researchers demonstrated this principle by manipulating fruit fly populations over many generations. When flies were subjected to high mortality rates (with 90% randomly killed twice weekly), the surviving population evolved to reproduce earlier and produce more eggs compared to flies in stable environments. The flies weren't consciously deciding to reproduce earlier—those genetically predisposed to early reproduction simply left more descendants in unstable conditions. Human psychology shows similar patterns. Studies across Chicago neighborhoods revealed that women in areas with lower life expectancies had children earlier than those in neighborhoods where people typically lived longer. This wasn't simply due to education or income differences but appeared to be a direct response to environmental cues about life expectancy. When life seems short and unpredictable, investing in the future makes less sense than securing immediate benefits. Experimental evidence confirms that even temporary feelings of deprivation can trigger this short-term focus. When research participants were made to feel financially disadvantaged compared to others, they became significantly more likely to choose smaller immediate rewards over larger delayed ones. They also became more willing to take risks, particularly when those risks offered the possibility of a large payoff that could change their status. This pattern helps explain why many behaviors associated with poverty—from payday loans to lottery tickets to dropping out of school—are more common in highly unequal societies, even among those who aren't objectively poor. Using Google search data, researchers found that searches related to financial risk-taking, sexual risk, and substance abuse were all more common in states with higher inequality, even after controlling for average income. The psychological mechanism at work resembles what ecologists call "risk-sensitive foraging." Just as a hungry bumblebee will take greater risks when nectar is scarce, humans become more willing to gamble when they feel they're falling behind. This explains why economic inequality can actually increase risky behavior at all income levels, creating a self-perpetuating cycle where inequality breeds behaviors that further increase inequality. Rather than reflecting character flaws or cultural deficiencies, these patterns of shortsighted decision-making represent predictable psychological responses to perceived scarcity and insecurity—conditions that inequality intensifies for everyone.

Chapter 4: Political Division: Inequality's Impact on Ideological Polarization

Political divisions in modern democracies are often portrayed as reflecting fundamental differences in values and worldviews. However, research reveals that the political divide between conservatives and liberals is intimately connected to perceptions of inequality and one's position in the social hierarchy. Political psychologist John Jost found that conservatives and liberals differ along two primary dimensions: attitudes toward tradition versus change, and acceptance versus rejection of inequality. Conservatives tend to value tradition and stability, viewing hierarchy as natural and merit-based. Liberals typically favor social change and view hierarchy with suspicion, preferring more egalitarian arrangements. These orientations aren't random but reflect different perceptions of threat and opportunity in society. What's striking is how malleable these political attitudes prove to be. Experimental studies show that when people are briefly reminded of threats—whether through images of the 9/11 attacks or simply contemplating their own mortality—they temporarily become more conservative in their views. Conversely, when prompted to reflect on occasions when they received help from others rather than succeeding through personal merit, they express more liberal attitudes. Contrary to popular belief, economic self-interest plays a surprisingly modest role in political alignment. Many middle and working-class Americans vote against economic policies that would benefit them financially, while wealthy individuals often support higher taxation that would cost them money. This disconnect occurs partly because people have little accurate knowledge about economic policies and their own financial interests. Instead, subjective perceptions of status drive political attitudes more powerfully than objective economic position. In laboratory experiments, when participants were made to feel relatively affluent compared to others, they expressed more conservative views on redistribution. When made to feel relatively disadvantaged, they supported more progressive policies. These shifts occurred despite no change in participants' actual resources or information. Rising inequality appears to intensify political polarization through this psychological mechanism. As the distance between economic classes increases, so does the tendency to view political opponents not merely as mistaken but as fundamentally irrational or malevolent. This effect is asymmetric: those who perceive themselves as higher in status become particularly dismissive of opposing viewpoints, viewing dissenters as incompetent or morally deficient. Historical data support this connection between inequality and polarization. Political scientists have documented that voting patterns in Congress have become increasingly divided along party lines since the 1970s—precisely tracking the rise in economic inequality over the same period. This suggests that today's toxic political climate may stem not from deepening moral differences between citizens but from the psychological effects of widening economic gaps.

Chapter 5: Health Outcomes: The Biological Costs of Status Hierarchies

The health consequences of inequality extend far beyond access to healthcare or material resources. Research across multiple disciplines reveals that subjective social status—where we perceive ourselves on the social ladder—profoundly affects our physical well-being through biological pathways involving stress hormones and immune function. In Glasgow, Scotland, researchers documented a striking pattern in cemetery gravestones: each meter of height in a tombstone corresponded to approximately two additional years of life for the deceased. This relationship between status markers and longevity is no mere historical curiosity. Modern epidemiological studies show that each step down the socioeconomic ladder correlates with worse health outcomes and shorter lifespans, creating a smooth gradient rather than a simple divide between the poor and non-poor. What makes this gradient particularly telling is that it persists even in populations where everyone has adequate material resources. A landmark study of British civil servants found that even among people with stable government jobs and universal healthcare, those in lower-ranking positions experienced significantly higher rates of heart disease and mortality than their higher-ranking colleagues. Most telling, subjective assessments of status proved more predictive of health outcomes than objective measures like income or occupation. The biological mechanism behind this pattern involves the stress response system. When we feel threatened or insecure—emotions commonly triggered by low social status—our bodies release hormones like cortisol and adrenaline. These hormones mobilize energy for immediate use, diverting resources away from long-term processes like immune function, tissue repair, and growth. While this response is adaptive for acute emergencies, chronic activation leads to inflammation, cardiovascular damage, and accelerated aging. Laboratory studies confirm that status differences directly trigger these physiological changes. When volunteers undergo stressful tasks like public speaking or difficult puzzles, those who perceive themselves as lower in status show greater spikes in stress hormones and inflammatory markers. Brain scans reveal that these responses are mediated by neural circuits involved in evaluating social threats and anticipating rejection. Field studies with primates demonstrate similar patterns. Robert Sapolsky's research with wild baboons found that low-ranking males had chronically elevated stress hormones and more stress-related illnesses than dominant males. When circumstances reduced inequality in the troop, stress levels among subordinate males decreased significantly. The health consequences of inequality extend beyond the poor to affect the middle class and even the affluent. Across countries and across American states, greater inequality correlates with shorter average lifespans, higher rates of mental illness, more obesity, and increased vulnerability to infectious disease—even after controlling for average income. This suggests that living in a highly unequal society creates psychological conditions that undermine health for everyone, not just those at the bottom.

Chapter 6: Belief Systems: How Inequality Shapes Our Understanding of Reality

Inequality doesn't just affect our bodies and behaviors—it fundamentally shapes how we perceive reality and what we believe about the world. When people feel insecure or powerless due to their position on the social ladder, they become more susceptible to particular kinds of beliefs that help restore a sense of order, meaning, and control. This tendency begins with basic perception. Psychologists Jennifer Whitson and Adam Galinsky demonstrated that when people are experimentally made to feel powerless, they become significantly more likely to perceive patterns in random visual noise or to detect meaningful connections between unrelated events. This heightened pattern detection represents an adaptive response to uncertainty—if you can find order in chaos, you regain a sense of predictability and control. The same psychological mechanism that leads people to see faces in clouds or religious figures in food items also drives more complex belief systems. Studies show that economic inequality correlates strongly with religious belief across countries. The United States, despite being one of the wealthiest nations on earth, maintains levels of religious devotion more typical of developing countries—a pattern explained by America's exceptionally high inequality. Within countries, religious faith is consistently stronger in regions where suffering and economic insecurity are more prevalent. Conspiracy theories follow a similar pattern. When people feel disadvantaged relative to others, they become more likely to believe that powerful forces are secretly controlling events. These theories offer the psychological benefit of explaining why one's own efforts haven't yielded better results while also suggesting that someone, at least, is in control of an otherwise chaotic world. Research confirms that experimental manipulations that reduce people's sense of control significantly increase their belief in conspiracies. Inequality also shapes how people interpret their social world. Psychologist Melvin Lerner demonstrated that humans have a deep psychological need to believe the world is just and orderly—that people generally get what they deserve. When confronted with evidence contradicting this belief, such as witnessing an innocent person suffer, people often unconsciously distort their perceptions to preserve their belief in a just world. They may decide the victim must have done something to deserve their fate or possess flawed character traits that explain their misfortune. This "just world" belief has different implications depending on one's position in the hierarchy. For those at the bottom, it can lead to self-blame and reduced political engagement. For those higher up, it reinforces the conviction that their success stems entirely from personal merit rather than systemic advantages or luck. When economist Jeffrey Butler randomly assigned different payment rates to research participants for identical work, those who received the higher rate subsequently rated themselves as better at the task than those paid less—despite identical performance. These psychological tendencies help explain why inequality persists despite widespread support for more egalitarian distributions. By shaping our fundamental perception of reality, inequality creates cognitive distortions that make the status quo seem more natural, inevitable, and just than it actually is.

Chapter 7: Race and Resources: The Intersection of Economic and Racial Inequality

Economic inequality and racial inequality represent distinct social problems, but they interact in powerful ways that amplify each other's effects. Understanding this interaction requires recognizing how subjective perceptions of status and resources influence racial attitudes and how racial stereotypes shape economic policies. Despite significant civil rights progress over the past half-century, racial economic disparities remain stubbornly persistent. Black households in America possess approximately one-thirteenth the wealth of white households—a gap that has not meaningfully narrowed since the 1980s. Education gains among racial minorities have not translated into proportional income gains, suggesting structural barriers beyond formal discrimination. Field experiments provide compelling evidence that discrimination continues to affect economic opportunities. When researchers sent pairs of job applicants with identical qualifications but different racial identities to hundreds of employers, white applicants received callbacks at twice the rate of equally qualified Black applicants. Similar disparities appear in housing, lending, and healthcare. Psychological research reveals that economic insecurity intensifies racial bias. When white research participants were experimentally made to feel economically disadvantaged, they perceived biracial faces as "darker" and more stereotypically Black than participants made to feel financially secure. Similarly, occupying a position of power increased implicit racial bias compared to being in a subordinate position. These findings suggest that status hierarchies themselves—independent of actual racial animus—can amplify the perception of racial differences. The relationship works in the other direction as well. Racial stereotypes profoundly influence economic policy preferences, particularly regarding welfare and poverty alleviation. Political scientist Martin Gilens demonstrated that Americans' opposition to welfare spending correlates strongly with racial attitudes but weakly with economic self-interest or ideology. When shown images representing welfare recipients, white Americans consistently visualize them as Black, despite the fact that whites, Blacks, and Hispanics receive public assistance in roughly equal numbers. This mental association creates a self-reinforcing cycle: racial stereotypes reduce support for economic policies that would reduce inequality, while greater inequality intensifies status anxieties that fuel racial bias. Breaking this cycle requires addressing both dimensions simultaneously. Cross-state comparisons provide reason for cautious optimism. States with lower economic inequality consistently show lower levels of implicit racial bias among their populations. This relationship holds even after controlling for regional differences between North and South or differences in average income. The pattern suggests that creating more economically equal societies may help reduce racial prejudice by diminishing the status anxieties that amplify social divisions. Perspective also matters greatly. When white Americans compare racial progress to historical conditions, they typically see significant improvement. When Black Americans compare current conditions to an ideal of true equality, they see persistent gaps. Neither perspective is incorrect, but they lead to dramatically different assessments of whether racial inequality remains a pressing problem. Finding common ground requires acknowledging both how far we've come and how far we have yet to go.

Summary

The psychology of inequality operates through relative perceptions rather than absolute conditions. Our minds constantly gauge our position on the social ladder through comparisons with others, triggering cascading effects on decision-making, health, politics, and beliefs. These responses evolved when status differences were modest, but modern economic inequality has created status disparities our psychology was never designed to handle. The resulting stress, shortsightedness, tribalism, and status anxiety affect everyone in society, not just those at the bottom. Understanding inequality as a psychological phenomenon offers new possibilities for addressing its harms. While reducing absolute inequality through policy remains essential, individuals can also mitigate its psychological effects by choosing social comparisons more carefully, focusing on personally meaningful values rather than status, and recognizing the role of context and luck in both success and failure. The science of inequality suggests that building a more equal society isn't merely about redistributing resources but about creating conditions where everyone can maintain their dignity and psychological well-being regardless of their position on the economic ladder.

About Author

Loading...

Keith Payne

Librarian note:There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this nameKeith Payne is a professor of psychology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an international leader in the psychology of inequality and discrimination. His research has been featured in The Atlantic and The New York Times, and on NPR, and he has written for Scientific American and Psychology Today.

Read more