Belief in Economic Mobility (BEM)

Abstract

The Belief in Economic Mobility (BEM) scale is a concise, psychometrically validated five-item self-report instrument engineered to measure an individual’s subjective perception regarding the permeability of socioeconomic strata and the accessibility of upward socioeconomic progression within society. Introduced into the consumer psychology and behavioral economics literature by Sunyee Yoon and Hyeongmin Christian Kim (2018), the instrument operationalizes the subjective belief that socioeconomic advancement is readily achievable for any member of society provided they exert sufficient personal effort, diligence, and motivation. Grounded in the broader paradigms of system justification theory, lay theories of social mobility, and meritocratic ideology, the scale assesses an essential cognitive schema that governs how individuals interpret resource distribution, economic inequality, and individual agency.

Psychometrically, the BEM scale is configured as a unidimensional instrument utilizing a 7-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree). Across initial validation studies and subsequent behavioral experiments, the scale demonstrated high internal consistency reliability (typically yielding Cronbach’s alpha coefficients between α = .87 and α = .92). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses affirm a robust single-factor latent structure with strong item loadings ranging from .73 to .88, establishing the scale’s structural validity. Furthermore, the instrument exhibits convergent validity with general meritocratic beliefs, protestant work ethic scales, and internal economic locus of control, while displaying distinct divergence from dispositional optimism, generalized self-efficacy, and objective socioeconomic status indicators such as household income and educational attainment. As a tool for empirical investigation, the BEM scale has illuminated critical mechanisms in consumer behavior, demonstrating that individuals with low socioeconomic status who perceive low economic mobility experience compensatory psychological states, such as a subjective feeling of being “economically stuck,” which subsequently amplifies variety-seeking behavior as a non-economic avenue to assert personal control and autonomy.

Keywords

Belief in Economic Mobility, Perceived Social Mobility, Meritocracy, Socioeconomic Status, Variety Seeking, System Justification, Lay Theories, Economic Inequality, Consumer Psychology, Subjective Mobility

Authors

The Belief in Economic Mobility (BEM) scale was formalized and validated by Sunyee Yoon and Hyeongmin Christian Kim in their seminal 2018 research publication investigating the compensatory behavioral consequences of perceived socioeconomic immobility. The intellectual development of the instrument stems from doctoral and postdoctoral working research led by Sunyee Yoon in collaboration with academic colleagues investigating the junction of consumer behavior, inequality perceptions, and compensatory consumption.

• Sunyee Yoon, Ph.D. — Associate Professor of Marketing, School of Management, State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY Buffalo). Dr. Yoon’s program of research investigates consumer decision-making, compensatory consumption behaviors, social hierarchy, economic inequality, and the psychological mechanisms underpinning subjective financial well-being and mobility perceptions.
• Hyeongmin Christian Kim, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing, Carey Business School, Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Kim’s scholarship focuses on judgment and decision-making, consumer self-regulation, time discounting, and the intersection of consumer psychology with socioeconomic and policy-relevant behaviors.

Inquiries regarding the theoretical formulation, empirical validation studies, or contextual adaptation of the BEM scale may be directed to the primary authors through their corresponding academic departments at SUNY Buffalo and the Carey Business School at Johns Hopkins University.

Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Belief in Economic Mobility (BEM) scale is to quantitatively measure individual differences in the subjective endorsement of societal economic permeability—specifically, the extent to which people perceive that economic advancement is driven by individual volition, tenacity, and hard work rather than immutable structural, institutional, or generational barriers. While economists and macro-sociologists historically assess social mobility through objective, intergenerational metrics such as intergenerational elasticity coefficients and transition matrices (e.g., comparing parental income rank against adult offspring income rank), psychological and behavioral economic paradigms have increasingly recognized that individual human behavior, consumer choice, motivation, and subjective well-being are far more strongly regulated by perceived mobility than by actual statistical rates of mobility.

In the empirical literature, people frequently hold subjective beliefs that diverge dramatically from empirical economic realities. For example, substantial cohorts of citizens in industrialized nations overestimate the probability that an individual born into the lowest income quintile will ascend to the top quintile, reflecting an idealized meritocratic lay theory. Conversely, other populations or sub-demographics underestimate mobility, perceiving societal structures as rigidly stratified and inaccessible. The BEM scale was developed precisely to capture this psychological variance with brevity, measurement precision, and high diagnostic utility.

The scale serves multiple distinct research and applied purposes:

• Consumer Behavior and Decision Research: The primary initial context of the scale was to explain non-rational consumer behaviors. Yoon and Kim (2018) demonstrated that when lower socioeconomic status (SES) individuals perceive economic mobility to be low, they experience a persistent sense of entrapment or stagnation (“feeling economically stuck”), characterized by perceived deficits in personal freedom and agency. To restore an internal sense of control, these consumers systematically increase their variety-seeking tendencies across mundane product categories (such as snacks, personal care items, or everyday goods). The BEM scale serves as a critical independent, moderating, or mediating metric in consumer research examining compensatory consumption, financial risk-taking, luxury product acquisition, and brand loyalty.
• Public Policy and Behavioral Economics: The scale enables policy researchers to examine public support for redistributive taxation, social safety nets, educational subsidies, and affirmative action policies. Strong endorsement of the BEM scale is consistently linked to lower endorsement of state-sponsored economic redistribution, as poverty is attributed to deficient personal exertion rather than systematic market failure.
• Organizational and Workplace Psychology: In corporate and labor contexts, subjective beliefs about mobility influence employee engagement, occupational aspiration, organizational citizenship behaviors, and responses to performance-based incentive structures. Employees who believe organizational hierarchies mirror broader socioeconomic mobility principles exhibit differing performance dynamics compared to those who view workplace advancement as structurally barricaded.
• Mental Health and Subjective Well-Being: The construct of perceived economic mobility operates as an essential cognitive filter for framing personal financial stress. When individuals encounter personal economic hardship, believing in high mobility can foster psychological resilience, optimism, and goal pursuit; conversely, under conditions of repeated systemic failure, high mobility beliefs can lead to heightened self-blame, psychological distress, and internalized stigmatization.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct evaluated by the BEM scale is perceived economic mobility, defined as a cognitive lay belief or generalized schema concerning the fluidity of socioeconomic boundaries within a given societal system. The construct does not evaluate a person’s objective wealth, liquid assets, educational credentials, or occupational prestige; rather, it assesses an epistemic worldview regarding the operational rules of the economic environment. The construct is grounded in several interrelated cognitive dimensions:

1. Fairness of Opportunity and System Openness

At its core, the belief in economic mobility assumes an equitable starting point or an open societal architecture. Item 1 of the scale specifically taps this component: “everyone has a fair chance to move up in the economic ladder.” This dimension reflects the respondent’s appraisal of institutional justice and the accessibility of societal ladders. It represents the degree to which an individual views socioeconomic strata not as caste-like boundaries, but as porous boundaries that accommodate upward transit regardless of baseline social class, racial identity, or familial background.

2. The Effort-Outcome Contingency (Meritocratic Tenacity)

A central pillar of the construct is the subjective conviction that individual exertion directly translates into economic return. Items 2 and 3 capture this facet: “anyone can get ahead in life if they work hard” and “people can dramatically improve their economic standing if they are determined.” This reflects an individual’s endorsement of the classic Protestant work ethic applied to macroeconomic outcomes. Psychologically, this component bridges generalized expectations with behavioral outcomes, framing economic ascension as an attainable goal governed entirely by volition, diligence, and cognitive grit.

3. Predominance of Internal Causality

The construct posits an asymmetric attributional style regarding the determinants of social status, wherein personal agency is judged to override external structural determinants. Item 4 specifically evaluates this causal attribution: “one’s socioeconomic status is predominantly determined by their own motivation and efforts.” Within attribution theory, this represents an extreme internal attribution for socioeconomic attainment. Respondents scoring high on this dimension discount the explanatory power of structural factors, including macroeconomic shifts, labor market discrimination, inheritance, institutional privileges, and geographic disparities.

4. Universal Efficacy and Generalizability

A distinguishing characteristic of the BEM construct is its perceived universality, captured by the word “anyone” across multiple items (such as Item 5: “anyone can attain higher socioeconomic status if they try hard”). The construct does not merely reflect situational self-efficacy (e.g., “I believe I can personally succeed”); it reflects a generalized universal rule applicable to all citizens within the national framework. It asserts that upward mobility is not an exceptional statistical outlier reserved for uniquely gifted individuals, but a normative outcome accessible to any person who fulfills the behavioral prerequisite of hard work.

Theoretical Framework

The Belief in Economic Mobility scale is deeply embedded in multiple foundational theories across social psychology, behavioral economics, and sociological theory:

System Justification Theory

Formulated by John Jost and Mahzarin Banaji (1994), System Justification Theory (SJT) posits that individuals possess a fundamental ideological motivation to defend, bolster, and rationalize prevailing social, economic, and political arrangements, even when doing so contradicts their personal or group self-interest. The belief in economic mobility serves as a primary system-justifying mechanism. By endorsing the notion that socioeconomic hierarchies are meritocratic and permeable, individuals preserve the psychological comfort of believing that the economic system is legitimate, fair, and orderly. For individuals belonging to disadvantaged or lower-SES groups, high BEM scores provide a palliative function, reducing cognitive dissonance and existential anxiety, even while reinforcing ideologies that may inadvertently rationalize existing inequalities.

Lay Theories and Implicit Mindsets

The BEM scale operates within the conceptual architecture of lay theories or implicit worldviews, conceptually linked to Carol Dweck’s framework of incremental versus entity theories. In Dweck’s work, individuals hold either an entity theory (viewing human attributes like intelligence as fixed and immutable) or an incremental theory (viewing attributes as malleable and responsive to effort). Transposed to a socioeconomic level, the BEM scale captures an incremental lay theory of socioeconomic status. A high score signifies a belief that socioeconomic standing is an incremental, dynamic variable that can be cultivated and expanded through hard work, whereas a low score reflects an entity-based perception that social class is an entrenched, structural condition that remains fixed across the life course.

Locus of Control and Attribution Theory

The scale intersects directly with Julian Rotter’s classical Locus of Control theory and Bernard Weiner’s attributional models of achievement. High BEM scores denote an internal locus of control applied macro-systemically: wealth and social ascension are perceived as contingent upon internal, controllable factors (effort, ambition, work ethic) rather than external, uncontrollable factors (luck, socioeconomic background, macro-level economic downturns). When individuals view the world through this internal framework, socioeconomic stratification is seen not as a manifestation of systemic disparity, but as a distribution of individual motivation.

Compensatory Control and Agency Deprivation

Yoon and Kim (2018) integrated the construct into the framework of compensatory control theory. When lower-SES consumers perceive low economic mobility, they experience a pronounced sense of being trapped within their socio-environmental stratum. Because economic upward movement is deemed inaccessible, their psychological need for self-determination and personal control is thwarted. To compensate for this perceived lack of autonomy, individuals seek control in other behavioral domains where barriers to choice do not exist—such as manifesting a heightened propensity to choose diverse, varied consumer options (variety-seeking). Thus, the theoretical value of the BEM construct extends beyond descriptive ideology into active behavioral self-regulation.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the BEM scale has been thoroughly established through multiple independent experimental, correlational, and cross-sectional studies in the behavioral sciences.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity is evidenced by the scale’s cohesive operationalization of meritocratic permeability. In the validation studies conducted by Yoon and Kim (2018), the five items demonstrated robust communality, mapping precisely onto the conceptual domain of perceived mobility. When subjected to confirmatory factor modeling, the one-factor model fit the data exceptionally well, demonstrating that the five items converge upon a unified psychological latent factor without significant multidimensional cross-contamination.

Convergent Validity

The BEM scale exhibits high, statistically significant positive correlations with theoretically aligned psychological constructs:

• Belief in a Just World: Positive correlation with the General Belief in a Just World Scale (Dalbert, 1999; r typically ranging from .45 to .58), reflecting the shared assumption that people receive what they deserve in life.
• Protestant Work Ethic: Moderate-to-strong positive associations with Mirels and Garrett’s Protestant Work Ethic scale (r ≈ .50 to .62), validating the core tenet that labor and personal discipline are judged to drive material outcomes.
• Meritocratic Beliefs: Substantial convergence with generalized meritocracy scales measuring perceived institutional fairness (r > .60).
• Internal Economic Locus of Control: Positive alignment with measures assessing personal attribution for financial success.

Discriminant Validity

Crucially, empirical investigations have demonstrated that the BEM scale does not simply duplicate generalized positive affective states, self-esteem, or personal demographic variables:

• Objective Socioeconomic Status: Across diverse samples recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk, Prolific, and nationally representative panels, correlations between BEM scores and objective SES indicators (e.g., annual household income, educational level, occupational prestige) are modest or non-significant (typically r < .15). This demonstrates that subjective perceptions of societal mobility operate independently of an individual’s personal financial position.
• Dispositional Optimism: While BEM is weakly associated with the Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R; r ≈ .20 to .28), factor analyses confirm that BEM items load independently of generalized optimism items, indicating that BEM measures an external structural evaluation rather than a personal temperament.
• Generalized Self-Efficacy: The scale remains distinct from self-efficacy measures (e.g., Schwarzer & Jerusalem’s General Self-Efficacy Scale), confirming that evaluating societal rules differs from self-assessments of personal capability.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

The scale possesses demonstrated predictive validity across behavioral economic, consumer, and sociopolitical paradigms. In Yoon and Kim’s (2018) experiments:

• In Study 1, measured BEM interacted significantly with subjective socioeconomic status to predict variety-seeking behavior across multiple consumer choice tasks (F(1, 196) = 4.41, p = .037). Among participants reporting low subjective SES, lower BEM scores predicted higher variety-seeking in choice sets, a behavioral pattern that vanished among high-SES consumers.
• In Study 5, manipulating mobility perceptions using mock economic reports causally replicated the naturalistic patterns obtained with the measured BEM scale, confirming that the scale accurately captures the psychological state of perceived mobility.
• External validation studies have documented the scale’s predictive power regarding support for public wealth redistribution, where lower BEM scores systematically predict increased endorsement of progressive tax structures and government assistance programs.

Reliability

The internal consistency and structural reliability of the BEM scale have been validated across numerous independent empirical cohorts:

Internal Consistency

The five-item instrument routinely exhibits high internal consistency reliability across varied sample demographics:

• In the original validation studies published by Yoon and Kim (2018), the scale demonstrated high internal consistency across multiple independent samples, consistently yielding Cronbach’s alpha values above the conventional .80 threshold. In Study 1, the scale achieved an α of .88; in Study 5, internal consistency was observed at α = .89.
• Subsequent independent replications and behavioral extensions utilizing US adult samples have reported Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging between α = .87 and α = .92, with average inter-item correlations falling reliably within the optimal range of .55 to .70.
• McDonald’s omega (ω), which provides a less biased estimate of reliability when tau-equivalence cannot be strictly assumed, consistently mirrors these findings with values typically exceeding ω = .89.

Split-Half and Test-Retest Stability

The scale demonstrates robust split-half reliability, with Spearman-Brown coefficients routinely exceeding .86 across validation subsets. Although the scale measures a social-cognitive belief that can be experimentally manipulated via external primes (such as reading scientific reports concerning rising income inequality), baseline longitudinal measurements in the absence of targeted experimental interventions reveal high test-retest stability across two- to four-week intervals (test-retest correlations r > .78), indicating that baseline belief in economic mobility functions as a stable ideological trait over short-to-moderate temporal spans.

Factor Analysis

The dimensional architecture of the Belief in Economic Mobility scale has been validated through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) protocols.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Principal axis factoring and maximum likelihood exploratory factor analyses conducted on the 5-item scale consistently extract a single, dominant latent factor accounting for between 62% and 74% of the total variance across diverse participant datasets. Examination of the scree plot demonstrates a sharp drop-off (elbow) after the first eigenvalue (typically λ > 3.20), while the second eigenvalue consistently fails to reach Kaiser’s criterion (λ < 0.55), confirming the absence of secondary sub-constructs or multidimensional fracturing.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Fit Indices

Confirmatory factor analytic structural equation models testing the hypothesized single-factor configuration yield exceptional model fit statistics, comfortably satisfying standard psychometric criteria (Hu & Bentler, 1999):

• Model Chi-Square: Non-significant or minimally inflated due to sample size, with χ²/df ratios typically falling between 1.20 and 2.10.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values routinely exceed .98 (often .99 to 1.00).
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Values reliably exceed .97.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Values consistently range between .030 and .055 (90% confidence interval: [.000, .078]).
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Values consistently remain below .025.

Standardized Factor Loadings

The standardized factor loadings for the five items onto the single latent construct of perceived economic mobility are uniformly high, demonstrating substantial shared variance and excellent construct representation:

• Item 1: “In the United States, everyone has a fair chance to move up in the economic ladder.” — Standardized loading: λ = .78 to .84.
• Item 2: “In the United States, anyone can get ahead in life if they work hard.” — Standardized loading: λ = .84 to .89.
• Item 3: “In the United States, people can dramatically improve their economic standing if they are determined.” — Standardized loading: λ = .80 to .86.
• Item 4: “In the United States, one’s socioeconomic status is predominantly determined by their own motivation and efforts.” — Standardized loading: λ = .73 to .81.
• Item 5: “In the United States, anyone can attain higher socioeconomic status if they try hard.” — Standardized loading: λ = .83 to .88.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The structural characteristics of the Belief in Economic Mobility scale are detailed below:

• Instrument Name: Belief in Economic Mobility (BEM)
• Target Population: General adult population; validated primarily within adult working populations, consumer cohorts, and socioeconomic survey respondents.
• Administration Format: Self-administered paper-and-pencil or computerized/online survey instrument (e.g., Qualtrics, CloudResearch, Prolific).
• Item Count: 5 items.
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Somewhat disagree, 4 = Neither agree nor disagree, 5 = Somewhat agree, 6 = Agree, 7 = Strongly agree).
• Reverse-Scored Items: None. All five items are positively keyed toward the endorsement of upward economic mobility.
• Scoring Procedure: Responses across all five items are summed and averaged to yield a single composite score ranging from 1.00 to 7.00. Higher composite values indicate a stronger subjective belief that the economic environment is permeable, meritocratic, and conducive to upward mobility through personal exertion.
• Completion Time: Approximately 1 to 2 minutes, minimizing participant fatigue and rendering the tool ideal for multi-part survey batteries.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Belief in Economic Mobility (BEM) scale was published in its definitive empirical form in 2018 within the Journal of Consumer Research by Sunyee Yoon and Hyeongmin Christian Kim. The instrument was developed within an academic research context and is broadly accessible for non-commercial educational, scientific, and scholarly investigations without royalty fees, subject to appropriate formal citation of the original source publication.

Researchers intending to use, adapt, or translate the instrument for non-commercial academic research may do so freely, provided proper attribution is given to Yoon and Kim (2018). For commercial applications, sponsored market research, or widespread organizational deployment, researchers should consult the copyright policies of Oxford University Press (the publisher of the Journal of Consumer Research) and the corresponding authors regarding licensing requirements.

References

• Dalbert, C. (1999). The world is more just for me than generally: About the personal belief in a just world scale’s validity. Social Justice Research, 12(2), 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022091609047
• Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.1999.9678121
• Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x
• Mirels, H. L., & Garrett, J. B. (1971). The Protestant Ethic as a personality variable. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 36(1), 40–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030477
• Yoon, S., & Kim, H. C. (2018). Feeling economically stuck: The effect of perceived economic mobility and socioeconomic status on variety seeking. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(5), 1141–1156. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx122

Items of the Scale