From Trust to Skepticism: The Role of Fairness Perceptions in Shaping Support for Inclusive Social Policies

Background/purpose: The deepening of capitalism has intensified socio-economic disparities between privileged and disadvantaged groups, raising concerns about societal fairness. Negative perceptions of fairness can weaken trust in social systems and reduce support for inclusive policies, particularly those targeting marginalized populations. Immigrants and low-income individuals are often central in public debates about deservingness, where fairness is critical in shaping policy preferences. Prior research usually treats fairness as a one-dimensional concept, overlooking its multifaceted nature. To address this gap, this study employed latent class analysis (LCA) to identify distinct patterns of fairness perceptions. We also used multivariate regression analysis (MRA) to examine how these patterns are associated with policies targeting immigrants and people with low incomes and general social inclusiveness.

Methods: Data were drawn from the 2023 Korean Social Integration Survey (N=8,221). LCA was utilized to identify the patterns of fairness perceptions. Correlation analysis and MRA were then performed. Fairness perception was measured using 21 items initially rated on 4-point Likert scales and later recoded into binary variables (1 = fair, 2 = unfair). These items cover three dimensions: overall societal fairness (1 item), perceived fairness of government institutions (5 items), and societal dimensions (15 items). The three dependent variables were acceptance of immigrants as Korean nationals (IA) and redistribution support (RS), both on 11-point Likert scales. General inclusiveness (GI), calculated as the mean of three items: willingness to help those in need, perceived importance of helping others, and a reverse-coded item on individual responsibility (Cronbach’s α = .61). Control variables included sex, age, marital status, subjective life satisfaction, employment status, education attainment, monthly household income, subjective social status, economic status, future economic status, and experience of financial hardship.

Results: LCA revealed five distinct patterns: C1 (34.7%, consistently high perceptions of fairness across all domains), C2 (16.7%, moderate societal trust but strong institutional skepticism), C3 (6.0%, high fairness perception across both institutions and society), C4 (24.8%, low to moderate fairness perception, especially skeptical of structural fairness), and C5 (17.8%, uniformly low fairness perceptions). Correlation analysis showed significant relationships between IA and RS (r = .37, p<.001) and GI and RS (r=.30, p< .001), supporting the use of MRA. The result showed that C2 and C3 were more likely to support IA than C1, while all groups showed higher support for RS than C1. For GI, only C3 was positively associated, while the rest were negatively associated compared to C1.

Conclusions/Implications: Multidimensional fairness perceptions significantly influence support for inclusive policies. Those with strong or selectively positive fairness views (C2, C3) were more supportive of immigrant inclusion, while both critical (C2, C4, C5) and highly affirmative (C3) fairness perspectives appeared to drive more substantial support for redistribution. However, only those with consistently positive fairness views (C3) exhibited broader social inclusiveness, suggesting that fairness skepticism may motivate specific policy support without translating into general solidarity. These findings underscore the importance of recognizing how fairness perceptions shape attitudes toward social inclusion and redistribution.