Introduction

Overall, the general public tend to oppose excessive inequality and support a degree of redistribution as a matter of principle (Coughlin, 1980; Kumlin, 2007; Curtice, 2017). However, differences in welfare attitudes are clearly observable between institutional regimes, ideological systems and sociodemographic groups (Wlezien and Soroka, 2012; Kulin and Seymer, 2014; Wu and Chou, 2015). A range of factors contribute towards attitudinal divergence within and across socioeconomic groups, but existing research (particularly quantitative analysis) has tended to explain this through self-interested rationalities (Iversen and Soskice, 2001; Linos and West, 2003; Cusack et al, 2006; Lelkes, 2009).

Specifically, when it comes to welfare attitudes and policy preferences, sociological and political science research has tended to suggest that ‘rational, informed individuals behave in a way that maximises their utility functions’ (Sumino, 2014: 111). This is perhaps unsurprising given the substantial evidence that ‘richer people are more averse to redistribution’ and that lower-income individuals are much more likely to problematise inequality and support welfare provision (Hasenfeld and Rafferty, 1989; Park et al, 2007; Alesina and Giuliano, 2009: 3). These attitudinal differences might be described as self-interested given the material position of citizens (for example, Evans and de Graaf, 2013; Naumann et al, 2015). Equally, support for policies or principles that may not work in the material interests of participants may be characterised as altruistic (Feldman and Zaller, 1992; Papadakis and Bean, 1993; Groskind, 1994; Van Oorschot, 2000). However, this is not necessarily the underlying cause of attitudinal difference and conflating material position with self-interest is potentially attributing a causative explanation to the characteristic of an attitude.

While many acknowledge how ‘class relations generate a matrix of differential life chances and possession of economic assets’, there is a tendency to overlook or presume how this might feature in explanations of attitudinal divergence (Brooks and Svallfors, 2010: 208).