“Trading places”: Do individual status changes reduce misattributions of poverty?

Abstract This research explores how individual status positions and changes within an economic game influence attributional biases and support for redistribution. Across three studies, participants were assigned roles as losers, winners, or observers of the game. In a pilot study, losers perceived the game as less fair, attributed others' failures more to external factors, and showed greater support for social game policies than winners. Two follow‐up studies replicated some of these findings and examined the additional effects of status changes, such as moving from loser to winner or vice versa. Contrary to expectations, transitioning from a winner to a loser did not reduce attributional biases or increase support for social policies. Notably, shifting from a loser to a winner position actually strengthened these biases. Consistent with our predictions, participants in stable conditions, like winner–winner or observer–observer, perceived the game as the most fair, while those in the loser–loser condition viewed it as the least fair. These findings highlight how status positions and changes influence perceptions of fairness and support for redistribution, with implications for understanding the psychological mechanisms behind attributional biases and policy support.