Piff, Kraus, Cote, Cheng + Keltner HAVING LESS, GIVING MORE Flashcards
What is noblesse oblige?
Those in upper echelons of society should act benevolently toward others who have less
What is the main aim of the study?
Examine how social class influences pro-social behaviour
- despite xping life stressors on a more chronic basis
= lower class individuals appear to be more engaged with the needs of others
- to increase orientation to the needs of others?
What difference was found between the upper and lower class in terms of explaining their achievements?
Upper = internal characteristics Lower = contextual explanation, limited by environment
What evidence is there lower class individuals take a more contextual approach to life events vs upper?
- Kluegel + Smith, 1986
- why are there rich + poor ppl in the US?
Lower = more likely to evoke contextual factors, education, prejudice etc vs individual trait + effort
What difference was found between the upper and lower class in terms of interpersonal interactions?
Upper = keep distance Lower = invest more in their interactions w/ others Scherer, 1974 - lower class children played in closer proximity to other children, relative to their upper class counterparts
What research is there to suggest lower social class behave more pro-scoially?
- Kleef et al, 2008
- low trait ratings of social power (reflection of person’s capacity to influence outcome of others) reported greater investment + compassion for stranger’s suffering - Frank, 1999
- High income ppl donated less money vs lower income ppl
What is a potential explanation for why lower class are suggested to behave more pro-socially?
- lower class greater religious affiliation?
- lower class more reliant on strength of social bonds since upper class can just use wealth to buffer life disruptions
What cultural variation was found by Henrich et al, 2001 about sharing behaviour and social class?
countries who are more interdependent = more sharing of good given by experimenter
1. Peru (economic independence) = less good shared vs Indonesia who are more dependent on others fro survival
= cultural dependence increases people’s generosity
What evidence is there suggesting lower class ppl should be less pro-social?
- As cost of prosocial behaviour rises, the likelihood + magnitude of prosocial behaviour diminishes
- sense of control also predicts increased compassion + pro-social behaviour
= lower class = less resources + feeling less control so SHOULD = less pro-social behaviour
What was the aim of E1, E2, E3 and E4?
E1: test if lower class individuals would act more pro-socially in lab setting E2: manipulate people's perception of their social class and see how that affects their behaviour, more or less pro-social? E3: assess a mediating process that could account for why lower class individuals engage in more prosocial behaviour E4: Role of compassion in making people more pro-social
What was the procedure of E1?
- Questionnaire to collect data about ppt
- Dictator game about giving money to partner
- SES scale to see subjective placement of social class
What were the findings of E1?
Lower class ppt allocated a larger proportion of their points to their partner, even when accounted for religion
What was the procedure of E2?
- Demographic survey
- Given SES scale (ladder)
- asked to read either about top or bottom - Place them on scale
- asked them to consider how they would differ from their place - Asked to share how much money a person should donate from their salary
- how much money should be spent in different aspects of life
What were the findings of E2?
- ppt induced to xp lower sense of social class rank reported greater % of people’s annual salary should be spent on charitable donations
- Lower family income was associated with beliefs that people in general should donate a larger portion of their salary to charity
What was the procedure of E3?
- Demographic data collected
- Trust game - trust = willing to allocate points to partner despite risk of partner defection
- Social class assessed using highest education of level + annual household income
- Social values measured
What were the results of E3?
- Lower class ppt allocated more of their points to their partner in trust game
- Showed greater tendency towards egalitarian social values
- Thos who reported more egalitarian social values = more likely to give money
What is thought to be the mediator as a result of E3?
due to lower class people’s egalitarian orientation + concern for the welfare of others
What is the procedure of E4?
- Demographic data collected
- Compassion vs neutral condition
- charity video vs clip from movie - While waiting for partner, as partner was looking distressed, given opportunity to choose tasks of different length
- Compassion level measured
- social class - ppt income
What were the results of E4?
- ppt induced to feel more compassion reported more compassionate feelings
- ppt induced to feel compassion helped their partner more (by taking on more time-consuming tasks)
- Lower class showed clear tendency to help their partner more
- Compassion-induction condition, upper class ppt ALS exhibited high lvls of helping behaviour
What was concluded from E4?
compassion moderated the tendency for lower class individuals to express more pro-social behaviour than upper class
What alternative factors should be considered for why lower class give more?
- Self concepts
Lower = construe themselves more in terms of relationships to others which may overlap with heightened sensitive to other people’s welfare - Class-based differences in approached to communal + exchange relationships
Upper = expect reciprocity immediately - Reputation
individuals sometimes behave altruistic to improve their standing + reputation within a group - Different types of pro-scoial behaviour
Upper class greater pro-social behaviour regarding environment + more volunteering - Underlying autonomic physiology
found heart rate deceleration in response to the suffering of others consistently predicts increased altruism
