Community identity as a mediator of the relationship between socioeconomic status and altruistic behaviour in Chinese residents

Abstract

Socioeconomic status is related to altruistic behaviour, but the link between them remains controversial. The present study explored the link between socioeconomic status and altruistic behaviour, as well as the psychological mechanism between them. We recruited 1,052 residents from 34 provinces in China to investigate the relationship between socioeconomic status and altruistic behaviour and the mediating mechanism. Results showed that objective socioeconomic status was positively related to altruistic behaviour. Subjective socioeconomic status was positively associated with community identity and altruistic behaviour. Community identity mediated the relationship between subjective socioeconomic status and altruistic behaviour. The findings suggest that enhancing individuals' community identity or subjective status perception can effectively increase their altruistic behaviour.

Socioeconomic Status and Prosocial Behavior: The Mediating Roles of Community Identity and Perceived Control

“…Among them, objective socioeconomic status was measured by education level, occupation, and monthly income. With reference to previous studies [ 34 , 45 ], education level was divided into six categories: “primary school and below”, “junior middle school”, “senior high school”, “associate degree”, “college graduate”, and “master and above”, which were assigned a score of 1–6, respectively. Occupation (reverse scoring) was divided into state and social managers, managers, private entrepreneurs, professional and technical personnel, office workers, individual industrial and commercial households, business and service employees, industrial workers, agricultural laborers, urban and rural unemployed, and semi-unemployed, which was based on cultural resources, economic resources, and organizational resources [ 46 , 47 ].…”

“…Monthly income was divided into ten levels, including “less than 1000 yuan”, “1001–3000 yuan”, “3001–5000 yuan”, “5001–7000 yuan”, “7001–10,000 yuan”, “10,001–15,000 yuan”, “15,001–30,000 yuan”, “30,001–50,000 yuan”, “50,001–100,000 yuan”, and “more than 100,001 yuan” [ 48 ]. Referring to the existing studies [ 34 , 49 ], the three indicators were standardized, and a principal component analysis was carried out to generate an eigenvalue greater than 1, which explained 60.99% of the variance. We obtained a comprehensive formula for calculating objective socioeconomic status: objective socioeconomic status = (0.797 × Z education + 0.760 × Z monthly income + 0.785 × Z occupation )/1.830.…”

“…On the other hand, compared with those with upper status, lower-status people were more likely to live in an environment of higher crime rates, parental conflict, and community violence, which was not conducive to the formation of community identity [ 33 ]. Furthermore, some empirical studies [ 15 , 34 ] have pointed out that there was a significant positive correlation between socioeconomic status and community identity. Moreover, Wang et al [ 34 ] found community identity played a mediating role between socioeconomic status and altruistic behavior.…”

“…Furthermore, some empirical studies [ 15 , 34 ] have pointed out that there was a significant positive correlation between socioeconomic status and community identity. Moreover, Wang et al [ 34 ] found community identity played a mediating role between socioeconomic status and altruistic behavior.…”

“…Here, we expand on previous studies, in several respects. First, although Wang et al [ 34 ] indicated that community identity mediated the association between socioeconomic status and altruistic behavior, it is unclear whether community identity mediates the connection of socioeconomic status with prosocial behavior. Second, no study has directly explored the mediating role of perceived control in the relation between socioeconomic status and prosocial behavior.…”