As the build-up to the presidential primaries continues, 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 focusing 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The article “How Wealth Plays into Politics on a Personal Level” written by Anand Giridharadas asks a number of questions about the influence of money in politics. Of utmost importance is the question of how money affects politicians. Giridharadas references a study by Michael W. Kraus and Bennett Callaghan in which researchers examined the “wealth of members of Congress predicting their support for legislation that affects inequality.” (Giridharadas 2016) The results of the study were divided based on political affiliation. The researchers determined that wealth among Republican members of Congress had no impact on how they voted. That is, among Republicans, how members voted was not altered by the amount of wealth they owned. Among Democratic members, the researchers observed that “poorer legislators were more likely to support policies such as raising the minimum wage or canceling student debt (Giridharadas 2016).” Another conclusion that Giriharadas notes is that research has also shown that wealth can influence 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 driving etiquette. In general, luxury drivers were more aggressive than drivers “of more humble vehicles” (Giriharadas 2016). Finally, Giriharadas mentions two other studies conducted by Michael W. Kraus. In the first study, Kraus used a simulated interview process to assess an individual's abilities to pick up on social cues. The result determined that poor people tended to be better at judging emotions. In the other study, Kraus assessed the individual's response to a “distress and suffering video and a neutral control video. (Giriharadas 2016)” Vital signs of poorer students indicated a physiological response to the video, while wealthy students “remained consistent” (Giriharadas 2016). The way research is presented by Giriharadas largely ignores the process of research. Rather, each reference to a study is a synopsis of that study. Giriharadas briefly mentions the researchers, the method and the conclusion. I believe this approach is completely inadequate. Giriharada's argument comes across as an artificial amalgamation of points that barely lend credence to his main point. Most worryingly, Giriharadas provides nothing that would challenge his point of view. A more cohesive argument would include negative opinions and an attack on these points. The author does himself no favors in constructing his argument, and in the end it turns out to be little more than a piece of drivel. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Harsh criticism aside, I found the general idea of ​​the research interesting.