A Large Scale Test of the Effect of Social Class on Prosocial Behavior

Abstract

Does being from a higher social class lead a person to engage in more or less prosocial behavior? Psychological research has recently provided support for a negative effect of social class on prosocial behavior. However, research outside the field of psychology has mainly found evidence for positive or u-shaped relations. In the present research, we therefore thoroughly examined the effect of social class on prosocial behavior. Moreover, we analyzed whether this effect was moderated by the kind of observed prosocial behavior, the observed country, and the measure of social class. Across eight studies with large and representative international samples, we predominantly found positive effects of social class on prosociality: Higher class individuals were more likely to make a charitable donation and contribute a higher percentage of their family income to charity (32,090 ! N ! 3,957; Studies 1-3), were more likely to volunteer (37,136 !N ! 3,964; Studies 4-6), were more helpful (N = 3,902; Study 7), and were more trusting and trustworthy in an economic game when interacting with a stranger (N = 1,421; Study 8) than lower social class individuals. Although the effects of social class varied somewhat across the kinds of prosocial behavior, countries, and measures of social class, under no condition did we find the negative effect that would have been expected on the basis of previous results reported in the psychological literature. Possible explanations for this divergence and implications are discussed.

Predictive multivariate modelling of religiosity, prosociality and moralizing in 295,000 individuals from European and non-European populations

“…But what then explain the cultural variability of cooperation? An emerging body of work suggest that living standard, levels of resources, and environmental harshness partially determined levels of cooperation (21)(22)(23)(24). One likely explanation is that when resources are low and unpredictable, individuals start their life with little capital (embodied capital, economic capital, human capital, etc.)…”

The rich are different: Unravelling the perceived and self‐reported personality profiles of high‐net‐worth individuals

“…Research on personality differences between high‐net‐worth individuals and others has focused primarily on one specific aspect of potential differences: (a lack of) pro‐sociality. High socio‐economic status (SES) has been associated with more self‐beneficial (Dubois, Rucker, & Galinsky, ) and less pro‐social behaviour (Chen, Zhu, & Chen, ; Guinote, Cotzia, Sandhu, & Siwa, ; Piff, Kraus, Côté, Cheng, & Keltner, ), whereas lower SES individuals have been found to be more compassionate (Goetz, Keltner, & Simon‐Thomas, ; Oveis, Horberg, & Keltner, ; Van Kleef et al ., ; but see also Korndörfer, Egloff, & Schmukle, ; Smeets, Bauer, & Gneezy, ).…”

Early prosocial development: a systematic review of evidence to support the integration of neurocognitive and cross cultural methods

“…For example, Köster and colleagues (2016) reported that mothers from Brazil and Germany adopted different scaffolding styles with their children, but that adoption of the prevalent style in one's community led to the highest levels of prosocial behaviours in children in either setting. Given this interplay of culturally specific and universal factors, the question of whether inter-or intra-cultural differences are associated with greater variance in timing and emergence of prosocial behaviours remains a topic of debate (Safra et al, 2016, Korndörfer et al, 2015.…”