Piff, Kraus, Cote, Cheng + Keltner HAVING LESS, GIVING MORE

Question 1

What is noblesse oblige?

Answer 1

Those in upper echelons of society should act benevolently toward others who have less

Question 2

What is the main aim of the study?

Answer 2

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?

Question 3

What difference was found between the upper and lower class in terms of explaining their achievements?

Answer 3

Upper = internal characteristics
Lower = contextual explanation, limited by environment

Question 4

What evidence is there lower class individuals take a more contextual approach to life events vs upper?

Answer 4

1. 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

Question 5

What difference was found between the upper and lower class in terms of interpersonal interactions?

Answer 5

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

Question 6

What research is there to suggest lower social class behave more pro-scoially?

Answer 6

1. 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
2. Frank, 1999
   - High income ppl donated less money vs lower income ppl

Question 7

What is a potential explanation for why lower class are suggested to behave more pro-socially?

Answer 7

• 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

Question 8

What cultural variation was found by Henrich et al, 2001 about sharing behaviour and social class?

Answer 8

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

Question 9

What evidence is there suggesting lower class ppl should be less pro-social?

Answer 9

1. As cost of prosocial behaviour rises, the likelihood + magnitude of prosocial behaviour diminishes
2. sense of control also predicts increased compassion + pro-social behaviour
   = lower class = less resources + feeling less control so SHOULD = less pro-social behaviour

Question 10

What was the aim of E1, E2, E3 and E4?

Answer 10

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

Question 11

What was the procedure of E1?

Answer 11

1. Questionnaire to collect data about ppt
2. Dictator game about giving money to partner
3. SES scale to see subjective placement of social class

Question 12

What were the findings of E1?

Answer 12

Lower class ppt allocated a larger proportion of their points to their partner, even when accounted for religion

Question 13

What was the procedure of E2?

Answer 13

1. Demographic survey
2. Given SES scale (ladder)
   - asked to read either about top or bottom
3. Place them on scale
   - asked them to consider how they would differ from their place
4. Asked to share how much money a person should donate from their salary
   - how much money should be spent in different aspects of life

Question 14

What were the findings of E2?

Answer 14

1. ppt induced to xp lower sense of social class rank reported greater % of people’s annual salary should be spent on charitable donations
2. Lower family income was associated with beliefs that people in general should donate a larger portion of their salary to charity

Question 15

What was the procedure of E3?

Answer 15

1. Demographic data collected
2. Trust game - trust = willing to allocate points to partner despite risk of partner defection
3. Social class assessed using highest education of level + annual household income
4. Social values measured

Question 16

What were the results of E3?

Answer 16

1. Lower class ppt allocated more of their points to their partner in trust game
2. Showed greater tendency towards egalitarian social values
3. Thos who reported more egalitarian social values = more likely to give money

Question 17

What is thought to be the mediator as a result of E3?

Answer 17

due to lower class people’s egalitarian orientation + concern for the welfare of others

Question 18

What is the procedure of E4?

Answer 18

1. Demographic data collected
2. Compassion vs neutral condition
   - charity video vs clip from movie
3. While waiting for partner, as partner was looking distressed, given opportunity to choose tasks of different length
4. Compassion level measured
5. social class - ppt income

Question 19

What were the results of E4?

Answer 19

1. ppt induced to feel more compassion reported more compassionate feelings
2. ppt induced to feel compassion helped their partner more (by taking on more time-consuming tasks)
3. Lower class showed clear tendency to help their partner more
4. Compassion-induction condition, upper class ppt ALS exhibited high lvls of helping behaviour

Question 20

What was concluded from E4?

Answer 20

compassion moderated the tendency for lower class individuals to express more pro-social behaviour than upper class

Question 21

What alternative factors should be considered for why lower class give more?

Answer 21

1. Self concepts
   Lower = construe themselves more in terms of relationships to others which may overlap with heightened sensitive to other people’s welfare
2. Class-based differences in approached to communal + exchange relationships
   Upper = expect reciprocity immediately
3. Reputation
   individuals sometimes behave altruistic to improve their standing + reputation within a group
4. Different types of pro-scoial behaviour
   Upper class greater pro-social behaviour regarding environment + more volunteering
5. Underlying autonomic physiology
   found heart rate deceleration in response to the suffering of others consistently predicts increased altruism