As preparations for the presidential primaries continue, the issue of income inequality in the United States has become a hot topic among candidates vying for support in the race. The focus on income inequality has in turn prompted broader questions about wealth. A New York Times article cites recent psychological research focused on wealth and the role it plays in politics and personalities. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get an Original Essay The article “How Wealth Plays a Role in Politics on a Personal Level” written by Anand Giridharadas poses a number of questions questions about the influence of money. in politics. The question of how money affects politicians is of the utmost importance. Giridharadas points to a study by Michael W. Kraus and Bennett Callaghan in which researchers examined "the wealth of members of Congress and predicted their support for legislation affecting inequality." (Giridharadas 2016) The results of the study were divided according to political affiliation. The researchers determined that the wealth of Republican members of Congress had no impact on their vote. That is to say, among Republicans, the way members voted was not modified by their wealth. Among Democratic members, researchers observed that “poorer legislators were more likely to support policies such as raising the minimum wage or canceling student debt (Giridharadas 2016). » Giriharadas also concludes that research has also shown that wealth can affect an individual's personality. Giriharadas also cites another study conducted by UC Berkeley and the University of Toronto in which researchers observed traffic and made observations indicating that luxury drivers were more likely to violate traditional roads. In general, drivers of luxury cars were more aggressive than drivers of “more modest vehicles” (Giriharadas 2016). Finally, Giriharadas highlights two other studies conducted by Michael W. Kraus. In the first study, Kraus used a simulated interview process to assess individuals' abilities to pick up on social cues. The result determined that poor people tended to judge their emotions better. In the other study, Kraus assessed an individual's response to a "distress and suffering video and a neutral control video." (Giriharadas 2016) » The poorer students' vital signs indicated a physiological response to the video, while the rich students "remained consistent" (Giriharadas 2016). The way Giriharadas presents research largely ignores the research process. Rather, each reference to a study is a summary of that study. Giriharadas briefly mentions the researchers, the method and the conclusion. I think this approach is completely inadequate. Giriharada's argument comes across as an artificial jumble of points that barely lend credence to his main argument. Most troubling is that Giriharadas provides nothing that would challenge his view. A more coherent argument would include disparaging opinions and attack on these points. The author does himself a disservice in constructing his argument, and in the end it amounts to little more than a piece of fluff. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Harsh reviews aside, I found the general idea from research..