"This study aims to contribute new insights into the ‘paradox of redistribution' theory in light of identity priming. Korpi and Palme argued that low-income targeting leads to less redistribution and explained this trade-off as a result of coalition politics among different social strata. Indeed, recent empirical studies suggest that high-income earners tend to have more negative attitudes toward redistribution in the context of targeted spending (the polarization hypothesis). Contrary to most studies, which have relied on a single data source and measure, this study explores whether the polarization hypothesis is supported by multiple (both micro and macro) data sources. The findings of this study indicate that different question wordings produce different responses to inequality and redistribution. Some of the results confirmed the polarization hypothesis, whereas others did not. This article attempts to explain these discrepancies by comparing the wording patterns of inequality-attitude measures and arguing that high- and low-income earners polarize their views in the context of low-income targeting when their sense of ingroup favoritism and intergroup conflict is sufficiently triggered."

Support: Digital