Attitude of Russians to Economic Inequality: Substantiation of Economic-Psychological Experiment

Nikolskaya Anastasiya Vsevolodvna ORCID: 0000-0001-8821-5177 PhD in Psychology Associate professor of the Department of Psychology at Kosygin Russian State University of Technology, Design and Art 119071, Russia, Moskovskaya oblast', g. Moscow, ul. Malaya Kaluzhskaya, 1 tonokazutoya@gmail.com Other publications by this author

Kostrigin Artem Andreevich PhD in Psychology Associate professor of the Department of Psychology at Kosygin Russian State University 119071, Russia, Moscow, Malaya Kaluzhskaya str., 1 artdzen@gmail.com Other publications by this author

Introduction

Currently, Russian society is facing various social problems: heterogeneity of public opinion on various issues, stratification of society, low social and political activity, inequality, etc. The phenomenon of inequality, manifested in various forms (economic, social, legal, political, etc.), resonates very acutely in society, as many Russian citizens encounter a similar problem and experience inequality in various spheres. The study of the population's attitude to inequality is an important area of sociological and socio-psychological research.

It should be noted that in modern scientific literature, the problem of studying inequality is considered quite widely (features and factors of attitudes to inequality ^{[1; 9; 18; 20; 28; 39; 40; 43]}; models for explaining inequality through the phenomena of attitude deprivation ^{[29; 41]} and social dominance ^{[31; 37; 46]}), however, the actual psychological and socio-psychological features of the attitudes of the population in relation to various types of inequality have not been sufficiently studied. Moreover, there is a methodological and instrumental problem in studying attitudes to inequality: surveys, questionnaires, interviews and focus groups are traditionally used. These methods have some disadvantages: a high probability of receiving socially approved answers, limitations of open and closed questions, difficulty in identifying deep personal attitudes and values, etc.

The problem of special study of attitudes and attitudes towards inequality has been posed by the last two or three decades. Thus, psychodiagnostic methods are being developed to diagnose the presence of attitudes towards inequality, in particular, the methodology "Subjective perception of economic inequality in everyday life" (Perceived Economic Inequality in Everyday Life) ^[38] and the "Support for Economic Inequality Scale" ^[49].

However, in our opinion, it requires the use of an experimental method and the development of experimental situations that could simulate various situations for assessment, as well as identify the true attitude of respondents to inequality. ^{[23; 31; 35; 47]}.

Let's turn to the accumulated experience of studying attitudes to inequality in the framework of experimental economics. There are two types of experiments here: the first type is the choice between alternative societies with different income distributions; the second type is the "leaky bucket experiment" ("leaky bucket").

Let us present the procedure and content of the experiment with the choice of a preferred society. O. Johansson-Stenman, F. Carlsson and D. Daruvala conducted experiments with a hypothetical choice ^[35]. They interpreted the relative risk aversion of an individual as an aversion to social inequality from the point of view of the utilitarian function of social security. The rejection of inequality is assessed by the choice of individuals between two types of society, taking into account the "veil of ignorance"^[1]. Respondents are asked to choose the society that would be the best in terms of the well-being of their imaginary grandson (so that the choice is not related to the circumstances and living conditions of the respondents). The income distribution in the two societies (A and B) is uniform, and the respondent is informed that his grandson has an equal probability of earning income at any level within a certain range.

For example, Society A has a uniform income of SEK 10,000 to SEK 50,000, while Society B has a uniform income of SEK 19,400 to SEK 38,800. The participants (in this paper, the experiment was conducted with students) in the experiment are informed that prices in these two societies are the same, that there is no welfare state, and that there is no influence of differences in income distribution. A person who is prone to risk will prefer Society A, in which the expected income is higher. If a person is not risk-averse, then he will probably choose society B, since the average income in it will be higher and fixed in a narrower range. Additionally, attitudes towards inequality are measured.

This experiment reveals two types of inequality aversion: the first is the level of risk aversion by an individual, and the second is a person's willingness to pay for life in a more equal society. Assessing individual rejection of inequality only through risk aversion ignores any preferences that people may have regarding inequality as such. In order to separate these two installations, F. Karlsson, D. Daruvala and O. Johansson-Stenman expanded the analysis carried out by them in their previous work. If the above experiment measured the level of risk aversion (when deciding in which society their imaginary grandson would live, the respondents did not know the position of their grandchildren, but only the distribution of income and, consequently, the distribution of probabilities in each society), then the authors conducted an experiment specifically to identify the level of inequality aversion (in a risk-free society): respondents chose between hypothetical societies with different income distributions, where the income of a grandson is known and equal to the average income in society ^[27]. The results showed that only 7% of respondents prefer inequality, in the sense that they are willing to sacrifice their own income to make society more unequal, while 6% were extremely inclined to completely reject inequality.

This point of view is shared by other authors: respondents in general are more inclined to an even distribution of income, however, when they need to sacrifice for the sake of achieving an equal society, they abandon their initial belief ^[36].

Let us turn to the second type of experiment on the study of attitudes to inequality. J. Amiel, F. Cowell and V. Gertner demonstrated in their study the "leak experiment" ^[22]. A sample of students were asked to indicate the amount of "lost money" that they would be willing to transfer from a richer to a poorer person, given that this loss could occur, for example, in connection with withholding interest on a bank transfer. According to the authors, in such an experiment, 10-22% of respondents showed rejection of inequality, which is much lower than the estimates of the alternative approach (36% of respondents in the work ^[35]). However, comparing the results of these two experiments is not entirely relevant, since the experimental conditions are different.

According to Y. Pirttil and R. Uusitalo, the differences in the values of non-acceptance of inequality are due precisely to measurement methods ^[44]. The authors assessed the rejection of inequality using a questionnaire approach in a representative survey of Finns. The advantage of this questionnaire was that the same person was asked questions based on two different measurement methods: leakage and the preferred distribution of wages under the "veil of ignorance". The median value of the inequality aversion parameter for leak issues was 50%. The results of the preferred distribution survey gave a much higher value in terms of rejection of inequality. Thus, there are a significant number of respondents who are willing to sacrifice average wages in order to achieve a more even distribution of wages, but who at the same time are unwilling to make expensive transfers from richer to poorer ones.

The authors of this study have proposed a number of explanations for this rather drastic difference in results. One explanation is that people simply feel differently about the supposed trade-off between efficiency and fairness in different situations. The issue of leakage is specifically focused on redistribution, while changes in the distribution of wages are the result of negotiations.

This is confirmed by the study of S. Beckman et al.: the actual position of the respondent in the distribution of income affects the answer given in the experiment with leakage ^[24]. As expected, support for money transfer is higher among those who will benefit from this event.

Given that the defining concept for measuring inequality is the Pigou-Dalton transfer principle^[2][14], next we will discuss those experimental results that cover the aspect of inequality associated with redistribution.

In the work of Y. Amiela and F. Cahuela's principle of transmission is presented to respondents both in the form of a numerical problem and orally ^[21]. In the first case, it is proposed to indicate which of the two income distributions is more unequal: A = (1, 4, 7, 10, 13) against B = (1, 5, 6, 10, 13). Verbally, they are asked to tell what happens to inequality in the following scenario: "Suppose we transfer income from a person who has more income to a person who has less income. After the transfer, the income of the first person remains the same high." Almost two thirds of the sample of students in the work of Y. Amiela and F. Cahuela did not believe that inequality in A is lower than in B, while 40% did not agree that inequality would decrease according to the oral scenario. The difference in these numbers, according to the authors, comes from the fact that some people think of Robin Hood-style redistribution when solving an oral problem, whereas the actual numerical problem involves redistribution from the fairly poor to the even poorer.

The considered directions of experimental study of respondents' attitudes to inequality in society show that this phenomenon is quite difficult to study, since, apparently, a large number of factors, including internal, psychological, influence the final response and choice of the respondent (and hence his attitude). However, this toolkit (experiment) it seems to us more reliable than sociological surveys or even psychodiagnostic methods. Moreover, as it was shown above, these experimental situations are currently the most promising in foreign literature.

In this paper, we set the following research goal – to identify the peculiarities of the attitude of Russian respondents to economic inequality and to substantiate the economic and psychological experiment as a promising method of studying attitudes to inequality in society.

The work is aimed at testing the hypothesis of the study – there are differences in the preferences of equal and unequal societies among Russian respondents when income distribution conditions change in an experimental economic and psychological situation.

Of particular interest is the identification of the peculiarities of the attitude of various groups (age and regional) to economic inequality, which will be reflected in particular hypotheses.

Private hypothesis 1: there are differences in the preferences of equal and unequal societies among Russian respondents belonging to different age groups when income distribution conditions change in an experimental economic and psychological situation.

Private hypothesis 2: there are differences in the preferences of equal and unequal societies among Russian respondents belonging to different regional groups when income distribution conditions change in an experimental economic and psychological situation.

In addition, a hypothesis was formulated about the prospects of using an economic and psychological experiment.

Private hypothesis 3: an economic and psychological experiment reveals psychological aspects of respondents' attitude to economic inequality directly related to economic activity, compared with survey and testing methods (in the course of comparing the results of this study with other publications on this topic).

Research methods and materials

Research methods: focus groups, survey, quasi-experiment, statistical data processing (z-criterion for two proportions).

9 focus groups were conducted in Moscow, Vladimir and Gus-Khrustalny with a total number of respondents – 90 people (45 men and 45 women; 30 people aged 20-30 years, students and specialists with higher education, 30 people aged 31-55 years with secondary education, 30 people aged 56 and above, with secondary education). The study was conducted in October-November 2019. Selective sampling was carried out: respondents in a certain age range were selected in specific cities. The inclusion of respondents from these cities in the study was due to the fact that each of them corresponds to a certain status of the region, which determines the prevailing income level: Moscow is a federal center and a high income level, Vladimir is a regional center and an average income level, Gus–Khrustalny is a district center and a relatively low income level. It seems that the income factor, which is important for studying the respondents' attitude to economic inequality, is included in the regional factor in Russian conditions and corresponds to the stratometric method of sample modeling ^[5]. A small sample size, first of all, meets the goal of substantiating the method of economic and psychological experiment.

To study the respondents' attitude to economic inequality and the peculiarities of their economic behavior, an experimental situation (quasi-experiment) was selected, conducted within the framework of focus groups. The experimental situation assumed two conditions. In the first case, we invited all participants to choose one of the societies A or B in which their grandchildren would live. In Society A, people have a monthly income of 10,000 to 60,000 rubles. The company's monthly income ranges from 20,000 to 40,000 rubles. The prices in these two societies are the same, there is no welfare state. The respondents do not know what economic position their grandchildren will occupy in these societies. Under these conditions, as mentioned above, a risk-neutral person will prefer Society B, in which the expected income is higher.

In order to distinguish between two types of inequality aversion, namely, the level of risk aversion by an individual and a person's willingness to pay for life in a more equal society, we continued the experiment. The second experimental condition was that we asked the respondents to choose between the same hypothetical societies with different income distributions, but the income of the grandson was known and equal to the average income in the society. This experiment allowed us to evaluate the parameters of individual rejection of inequality in a risk-free environment.

To overcome (or reduce) the influence of the respondents' current personal circumstances (in particular, the current income level, which obviously differs in these three cities, which, in turn, is included in the regional factor) on their solution of the task and to identify their attitude to the socio-economic phenomenon of inequality (and not to unfair the level of their personal income, which may be due to their individual characteristics, motivation, family conditions, education, etc.), the situation of choosing between two societies was presented by the participants precisely as hypothetical (and the grandson himself was also positioned as hypothetical), in which the range of income was not related to real current salaries and prices and was expressed as follows the same in hypothetical quantities. This explanation was given to the respondents during the briefing: the proposed income ranges do not reflect the minimum and maximum salaries throughout the country, but the boundaries of the average values (which means relatively minimum and relatively maximum income). This is due to the fact that the presentation of high salaries as incentive material could lead to a shift in responses in their direction. The income level range for Company A is from 10,000 to 60,000 rubles. It was adopted on the basis of analytical studies: for the lower limit, the minimum wage was used in 2019 ^[15] (it was rounded down to 10,000 rubles), and for the upper limit, the maximum average salary in Russia in 2019 ^[16] (it was rounded up to 60,000 rubles.). The range for Company B is from 20,000 to 40,000 rubles. It was defined as the interval located on both sides of the rounded median salary (?30,000 rubles) ^[15]. In order to organize the economic situation of the society's choice, it was required not an exact, but a fundamental and representative correspondence to the real economic indicators of income in Russia, which, of course, has its limitations ^[35]. These economic situations model a situation of inequality in which the economic condition of people with insufficient and sufficient income levels is contrasted.

In the experiment, the dependent variable was the attitude to inequality (preference for an equal or unequal society), as an independent variable – various conditions of income distribution in society – a society with risk (the possibility of non–fixed both high and low income) or a society without risk (fixed average income); as controlled variables - age and the regional characteristics of the respondents. The conducted experimental situation was designated by us as a quasi-experiment, since only one group participated in it (for each city), and the impact was carried out twice, which corresponds to the quasi-experimental plan of discrete time series ^[5]: the first series of impact (presentation of situations of choice of society for a hypothetical grandson) and measurement (fixation of respondents' answers) was carried out in the situation the respondents' choice of the society in the absence of knowledge of the economic situation of their grandchildren, the second series – in the presence of knowledge about the average income of grandchildren. The internal validity of the quasi-experiment was ensured by two series of effects and a specific task set for the subject (the remoteness of the economic problem of choosing society and income from oneself and its transfer to a hypothetical grandson). The external validity of the experimental situation was associated with the fact that the simulated tasks reflected the economic behavior of people when choosing a profession, place of work, financial and economic instruments, etc., as well as when evaluating various social and economic events. The representativeness and equivalence of the sample was achieved by the inclusion of representatives of different cities (regional characteristics) and ages in it, as well as the possession by respondents of the appropriate economic status that characterizes a certain region. The results of the respondents' choice of the society in two experimental situations were compared using a statistical z-criterion, which will be described below.

An additional method of studying respondents' attitudes to inequality was a questionnaire survey. The questionnaire included two closed questions and one open question:

1. Assess how much economic inequality you resent:

- It doesn't bother me at all;

- Rather not outraged;

- Rather outraged;

- Very outraged.

2. Do you contribute anything to charity?

- Regularly;

- From case to case;

- I don't have that opportunity.;

- I don't think it's right, everyone should solve their own financial problems;

- I find it difficult to answer.

3. Do you agree to donate 1-3% of your income (salaries and pensions) to those who live poorer.

The first question evaluates the emotional aspect of attitudes towards economic inequality (direct emotional assessment), the second and third – and behavioral (direct participation in the elimination of inequality). To identify the cognitive aspects, the respondents' responses to the simulated economic situations of the choice of societies were used.

The second question, aimed at determining the charitable economic behavior of respondents, determines how much respondents themselves are willing to be active in solving problems of economic inequality; this type of economic behavior (charity) is associated with issues of distribution of economic benefits ^[44].

The last question was chosen based on the work on the leak experiment ^[22].

The data obtained in the form of a selection of a hypothetical society were translated into relative frequencies and processed using the appropriate z-criterion to check the differences between the proportions. The Z-criterion of two proportions is usually used to check the differences between the indicators of two population groups (expressed in relative terms), in particular, their relationship to various social events. their choice of a solution to a certain problem, etc. ^{[10; 11]}.

The novelty of the study is, firstly, the conduct of this experiment on a Russian sample, and secondly, in modifying the experimental situation for Russian respondents taking into account Russian reality.

The methodological basis of the research is the methodology of experimental economics and economic psychology, in which an experimental situation is introduced to study attitudes to various economic phenomena, including economic inequality ^{[25; 26; 30; 47]}. In this approach, a certain situation is simulated (sometimes called a game, a game model), which presents the respondent with a more detailed problem to solve, and also allows the respondent to get used to this situation somewhat so that his reaction or response is more reliable and sincere. Economic inequality is a macroeconomic manifestation that the respondent rarely encounters, but may have a certain personal relationship to it. In our opinion, such a study of economic inequality can be described as an economic and psychological experiment. In our study, we use the developed experimental situations ^{[22; 34; 35]} and adapt them to the Russian sample. The adaptation consisted in determining the average income levels for Russian society, as well as supplementing the instructions with an emphasis on the hypothetical nature of the proposed task conditions and focusing on socio-economic aspects, excluding the personal circumstances of the participants.

The results of the study

The results of the first part of the experiment showed the following distribution of respondents' responses in the situation of choosing a preferred society for a hypothetical grandson (Table 1).

Table 1

Respondents' choice of a society with different incomes for a hypothetical grandson (by age and city) (n=90)

Conducting experimental situations revealed that societies A and B selected the same number of respondents. The distribution by city shows that in the capital (Moscow, a city of federal significance), society A is preferred, in the regional center (Vladimir, a city of regional significance) – society B, in the district center (Gus-Khrustalny, a city of regional significance) – society B. The age distribution shows that young people prefer society B, middle–aged people equally prefer societies A and B, mature and elderly people prefer society A.

The results of the second part of the experiment, in which respondents were asked to choose between the same hypothetical societies with different income distributions, only now the grandson's income is known and equal to the average income in society, are presented in Table. 2. This experiment allowed us to evaluate the parameters of individual rejection of inequality in a risk-free environment when solving a simulated situation.

Table 2

Respondents' choice of a society with different incomes with a fixed average income of a hypothetical grandson (by age and city) (n=90)

In terms of a fixed average income, Russian respondents are ready to live approximately equally, both in a more equal (54.4%) and unequal (45.6%) society. The distribution by city shows that society A is preferred in the capital, societies A and B are equally preferred in the regional center, and the same is true in the district center. The age distribution shows that young people choose society A and B equally, middle–aged people prefer society B, mature and elderly people prefer society A.

Checking for the significance of differences between the relative frequencies of the choice of society A and B in the first and second experimental situations using a two-sided z-criterion for two proportions (Statistica 12) showed no statistically significant differences (Table 3). Since the choice of one society means the rejection of the other, the relative indicators (in %) of the choice one society will also reflect the relative rates of rejection of another (if 50% of respondents chose society A, it means that 50% of respondents rejected it and chose another). Therefore, in the table we will present the relative indicators and the level of significance only for the choice of society A, since this level of significance of differences coincides with that in relation to comparing the relative indicators of the choice of society B.

Table 3

Determining the level of statistical significance of the differences between the relative indicators of the respondents' choice of society And

Symbols: * – there are no differences, ** – there are differences at p<0.05.

The survey using the questionnaire showed the following attitude to economic inequality: not at all outraged – 8 people (9%), rather not outraged – 18 people (20%), rather outraged – 33 people (37%), very outraged – 31 people (34%). More than 2/3 of respondents have a negative attitude towards inequality.

The results of a questionnaire aimed at determining the frequency of donations from respondents show the following distribution: regularly – 3 people (3.3%), occasionally – 52 people (57.8%), I do not have such an opportunity – 23 people (25.6%), I do not think it is right, everyone should decide their own financial problems – 12 people (13.3%).

Thus, a very small number of respondents regularly donate part of their income to those who are even worse off, but slightly more than half of the respondents declare their willingness to do so.

The results of an open question on donations, which also shows the focus of respondents on equality/inequality in society, reveal that 36.7% of respondents are willing to sacrifice part of their salary to help those who live worse. This number is comparable to the number of people who strongly reject inequality (34%), but less than the number of respondents who are willing to sacrifice the monthly income of a hypothetical grandson (45.6%).

The distribution by city shows that the majority of respondents in cities of all levels of importance are not ready to donate to charity. The age distribution shows that young people are not ready to donate part of their salary to charity, middle–aged people are inclined to charity, mature and elderly people are also not ready.

Discussion of the research results

The results obtained allow us to draw the following conclusions. The main hypothesis of the study about the existence of statistically significant differences in the preferences of equal and unequal societies among Russian respondents when income distribution conditions change has not been confirmed. Respondents choose society A and B equally. This means that Russian respondents can be divided into two equally represented types – risk-prone (to an unequal society) and risk-neutral (inclined to an equal society) in economic behavior.

The private hypothesis about differences in preferences of equal and unequal societies among Russian respondents belonging to different regional groups was also not confirmed when income distribution conditions changed. In large federal cities, people tend to choose an unequal society with potentially higher incomes. This may be due to the fact that in large Russian cities, respondents are aware of great opportunities, see examples of high income in various segments of the population, so they strive to have a higher income, perhaps not realizing that, thereby, they create the basis for an unequal society.

In cities of regional and district significance, there is a stratification of the population: respondents are simultaneously inclined to an equal society with a fixed average income and an unequal society with high incomes. This may probably be due to the fact that in small cities, respondents often do not see opportunities to earn more income, do not believe in it, therefore they definitely do not choose a high income.

The private hypothesis about differences in preferences of equal and unequal societies among Russian respondents belonging to different age groups has not been confirmed when income distribution conditions change. There is no certainty in the youth and middle-aged groups: they equally choose an equal and unequal society. Mature and elderly people, on the contrary, choose a society with higher incomes, in which there is inequality. This can be explained by the fact that young people, without much experience, prefer not to take risks, adhere to the conditions in which they currently live and work, while mature and elderly people, as more experienced in professional and labor aspects, most likely expect to receive higher incomes with the help of connections or other levers. It can also be assumed that people of mature and elderly age may experience some restrictions, discrimination in obtaining higher benefits and income, therefore they want to compensate for this. Here we can state either the age aspect of economic inequality – young people and middle–aged people have fewer obstacles in economic behavior, unlike people of mature and elderly age, or generational and ideological - people of mature and elderly age lived a significant part of their lives during the Soviet era.

To the question of why respondents still choose society A if they know that their hypothetical grandson will have an average income there, answers were received that can be classified on two grounds: personal interest and focus on achievement. Examples of statements:

- "In society A, he will receive 5 thousand more than in society B";

- "Let him try, and he will be able to get 60 thousand, which is better than 40."

In the Russian sample, there is a fairly large stratification in almost all age and regional groups: some strive for an unequal society (perhaps preserving their well-being or not having opportunities for economic growth), others choose an equal society, equal rights and opportunities. Probably, the reason for this division is the socio-economic situation in the country: the post-Soviet period lasts only 30 years, some social, political and economic institutions are still at the stage of reform, and society itself, citizens are experiencing ideological and value changes.

Evaluating the procedural part of the conducted economic and psychological experiment, the following conclusion can be drawn: economic conditions in society, the presence/absence of risk in income generation (independent variable) do not affect the preference for an equal or unequal society (dependent variable). This is confirmed by the absence of statistically significant differences in the preferences of equal and unequal societies when income changes. The factors and causes of the Russian population's attitude to inequality may lie in the personal sphere: values, worldview, social and political attitudes. This conclusion leads to the idea that economic reforms (aimed, for example, at income redistribution, etc.) are not enough for the restructuring of society, and a restructuring of public consciousness is necessary.

The obtained methodological and instrumental result of the implementation of the economic and psychological experiment is associated with the third particular hypothesis about the prospects of this method of economic and psychological experiment for studying attitudes to economic inequality. This hypothesis is confirmed by comparison with similar studies performed using traditional survey methods and psychological testing. Thus, in sociological and economic surveys devoted to identifying the peculiarities of attitudes towards inequality, the results are explained by factors of the financial situation of the respondents themselves and their families ^{[2; 13]}, social mobility ^{[2; 13]}, historical experience ^[19]; the same is observed in works using psychodiagnostic methods ^[48]. Some studies have noted the factor of social perceptions of inequality, justice, wealth and poverty ^{[13; 19]}. In our study, using the modeling of economic situations of choice, attitudes towards inequality were not related to demographic and economic factors, which refers to more complex psychological reasons that are not recorded by surveys.

At the same time, this study revealed a similar situation not only of the presence of inequality in society, but also of its definite approval by respondents ^[6], thus, a psychological vector of analysis of attitudes to economic inequality is highlighted (for example, using structures of economic consciousness and psychological mechanisms of social perception and economic socialization ^{[7; 12]}).

Within the framework of our work, the attitude to economic inequality was determined, firstly, by the peculiarities of the respondents' risky behavior (the frequency of which is very high in the economic sphere ^[8]), which is shown in other works only with the help of psychodiagnostic methods and quite indirectly ^{[3; 4]}, secondly, by personal traits, values, worldview, etc., which is also revealed indirectly through psychological testing ^[17]. The advantage of the economic and psychological experiment is that with the help of experimental situations, on the one hand, the formality and impersonality of surveys are overcome, on the other hand, the mediation of personal properties revealed using psychodiagnostic techniques. In an economic and psychological experiment, the respondent's behavior simultaneously solves problems of a sociological and psychological nature: in the process of making a choice and making a decision, a person demonstrates the social (sociological) and psychological aspects of his own economic activity.

Continuing the analysis of psychological factors of attitudes to inequality and the possibilities of an economic and psychological experiment, it is possible to formulate questions for further research. Since the economic views and behavior (in the form of answers to questions and solutions to experimental situations) of respondents are determined by their personal characteristics, it is possible to further study the issue of willingness to sacrifice part of their income through the study of the features of the locus of control and vectors of value orientations of the population: respect for traditions, collectivism, social justice, independence, self-belief, self-respect.

In addition, it seems promising to determine the relationship between attitudes towards inequality in society and the individual's self-attitude. S. Lonen et al., considering the relationship between such a biased attitude towards oneself and income inequality in the country, argue that macrosocial differences in the distribution of country income are associated with microsocial processes of self-perception ^[38]. They also demonstrate that the level of self-esteem is higher in countries with a higher Gini coefficient.

Finally, it is necessary to note the limitations of the conducted research and the results obtained: the sample of the study was not fully representative both in terms of educational status and regional affiliation; the method of experimental situations was new, not yet standardized, included solving problems of choosing hypothetical societies while excluding current and familiar economic conditions for respondents. These limitations do not allow us to fully extrapolate the results of the study to the entire Russian society, however, based on the data obtained, trends in the economic attitudes and behavior of Russian respondents are outlined.

Conclusion

The conducted research has shown that:

1. In the Russian sample, there is a tendency to choose both an equal (with a fixed average income) and an unequal (with higher incomes) society. This stratification and contradiction in socio-economic views, in our opinion, is presumably a specific characteristic of Russian respondents.

2. The stratification in the choice of an equal and unequal society was revealed in various age groups (youth and middle-aged people) and regional groups (people from cities of regional and district significance). Mature and elderly people, as well as people from federal cities, are likely to choose an unequal society with high incomes.

3. The absence of differences in the choice of hypothetical societies when income distribution conditions change means that, firstly, the reason for the stratification of the sample in relation to economic inequality, and secondly, the high percentage of Russian respondents inclined to choose an economically unequal society are not socio-economic conditions, but socio-psychological factors, personal values and attitudes and features of the public consciousness of the Russian population.

4. The economic and psychological experiment showed a number of advantages over traditional methods of polling and psychological testing: it was used to simulate situations of economic choice that involve respondents and increase the likelihood of reliability of their answers, identified sociological and psychological features of respondents' attitudes to economic inequality, outlined prospects for studying the personal aspects of respondents' economic activity that can be implemented with using the same method.

5. The study of the population's attitude to economic inequality using experimental tools makes it possible to expand the understanding of social processes, public consciousness and socio-psychological conditions for political and economic reforms.

^[1] The "veil of ignorance" is a method of determining the morality of a problem. A person is asked to make a choice about some social or moral issue. It is assumed that the decision-maker has sufficient information to understand the consequences of his possible decisions for everyone, but does not know or will not take into account his position within the social structure of a given society. Under this condition, the decision-maker, choosing the principles for the distribution of rights, positions and resources in the society in which he will live, does not know what position he will occupy in this society (he has a 50 percent chance of being poor or rich), since this is prevented by a veil of ignorance. The idea is that individuals exposed to the veil of ignorance will make choices based on moral considerations, since they will not be able to make choices based on their own interests or the interests of their class. Thus, this method shows that ignorance of one's position in society will lead to the creation of a fair system, since the decision-maker does not want any particular group to benefit from his final decision to the detriment of another (since the decision-maker may eventually end up in a disadvantaged group).

^[2] The Pigou-Dalton principle makes it possible to find and measure the degree of income equalization in the distribution of national dividends, which increases the level of aggregate satisfaction, provided that the convergence of incomes of the richest and the poorest does not entail a direct redistribution of what has already been produced, but creates conditions for the appropriate orientation of people in the future.