[log_base_login]

There is a lot to be said for not wanting to piss off the people who control the money that flows to you. I am not as certain that people would choose to keep things the way that they are if they also weren't keenly aware (as say, someone might especially be in China) that the State might be monitoring their answers.

It's also very important to remember that most people who manage wealth well, on the other hand, do so in a way that benefits those who do not, and as such retain their responsibilities as money managers because they are one half of a financially symbiotic system of exchange.

There are also a lot of social factors to consider that didn't necessarily (and understandably so) make it into the studies dependent or independent variable sets. The attractiveness of each party needs to be controlled for, as there is a definite bias to give money to those we find attractive. The age of someone is another control variable that needs to be accounted for, as the elderly are generally (and correctly, generally speaking) more adept at managing money, for how else would they have survived so long?

All in all, I think mostly what this tells us is that we are cautiously optimistic about the belief that those who have less in our social hierarchy are capable enough to have more, but that it's important to preserve and honor the way in which wealth flows because it flows in a way that has kept us progressing for millenia.

I would be much more interested in reading about how much wealth they believed should be distributed rather than simply if it should. That would give us more than a binary response from which to extrapolate data.