Poor People More Economically Compassionate Than the Rich

[applejack]

The Economist

The rich are different from you and me
They are more selfish

Jul 29th 2010

LIFE at the bottom is nasty, brutish and short. For this reason, heartless folk might assume that people in the lower social classes will be more self-interested and less inclined to consider the welfare of others than upper-class individuals, who can afford a certain noblesse oblige. A recent study, however, challenges this idea. Experiments by Paul Piff and his colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley, reported this week in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, suggest precisely the opposite. It is the poor, not the rich, who are inclined to charity.

In their first experiment, Dr Piff and his team recruited 115 people. To start with, these volunteers were asked to engage in a series of bogus activities, in order to create a misleading impression of the purpose of the research. Eventually, each was told he had been paired with an anonymous partner seated in a different room. Participants were given ten credits and advised that their task was to decide how many of these credits they wanted to keep for themselves and how many (if any) they wished to transfer to their partner. They were also told that the credits they had at the end of the game would be worth real money and that their partners would have no ability to interfere with the outcome.

A week before the game was run, participants were asked their ethnic backgrounds, sex, age, frequency of attendance at religious services and socioeconomic status. During this part of the study, they were presented with a drawing of a ladder with ten rungs on it. Each rung represented people of different levels of education, income and occupational status. They were asked to place an “X” on the rung they felt corresponded to where they stood relative to others in their own community.

The average number of credits people gave away was 4.1. However, an analysis of the results showed that generosity increased as participants’ assessment of their own social status fell. Those who rated themselves at the bottom of the ladder gave away 44% more of their credits than those who put their crosses at the top, even when the effects of age, sex, ethnicity and religiousness had been accounted for.


The prince and the pauper

In follow-up experiments, the researchers asked participants to imagine and write about a hypothetical interaction with someone who was extremely wealthy or extremely poor. This sort of storytelling is used routinely by psychologists when they wish to induce a temporary change in someone’s point of view.

In this case the change intended was to that of a higher or lower social class than the individual perceived he normally belonged to. The researchers then asked participants to indicate what percentage of a person’s income should be spent on charitable donations. They found that both real lower-class participants and those temporarily induced to rank themselves as lower class felt that a greater share of a person’s salary should be used to support charity.

Upper-class participants said 2.1% of incomes should be donated. Lower-class individuals felt that 5.6% was the appropriate slice. Upper-class participants who were induced to believe they were lower class suggested 3.1%. And lower-class individuals who had been “psychologically promoted” thought 3.3% was about right.

A final experiment attempted to test how helpful people of different classes are when actually exposed to a person in need. This time participants were “primed” with video clips, rather than by storytelling, into more or less compassionate states. The researchers then measured their reaction to another participant (actually a research associate) who turned up late and thus needed help with the experimental procedure.

In this case priming made no difference to the lower classes. They always showed compassion to the latecomer. The upper classes, though, could be influenced. Those shown a compassion-inducing video behaved in a more sympathetic way than those shown emotionally neutral footage. That suggests the rich are capable of compassion, if somebody reminds them, but do not show it spontaneously.

One interpretation of all this might be that selfish people find it easier to become rich. Some of the experiments Dr Piff conducted, however, sorted people by the income of the family in which the participant grew up. This revealed that whether high status was inherited or earned made no difference—so the idea that it is the self-made who are especially selfish does not work. Dr Piff himself suggests that the increased compassion which seems to exist among the poor increases generosity and helpfulness, and promotes a level of trust and co-operation that can prove essential for survival during hard times.

EDIT - This is interesting in light of the fact that a few billionaires just pledged to donate half of their wealth.

Of course, a poor man who gives away half his earnings makes a bigger personal sacrifice than someone pulling in a million dollars a year or more who does the same thing.

[Shinova]

I think there's a difference between the very rich, like the majority of bankers, investors, business owners, etc and the hyper-rich like bill gates, buffet, or the others in that linked thread. Mainly in that the rich got their wealth by gaming the system and getting rich while the hyper-rich got there because they did something truly novel and game-changing.

Just my thought, but there appears to be that kind of divide.

[lance]

This is old news, we had an article like this from a couple of years ago. But it is interesting on the methodology. I wonder how they brought people down.
"Well I am pretty well of"
"Are you? I couldn't tell by that car your driving"

[Twoyboy]

Same outcome has been shown time and time again. Most famously by The Bagel Man.

There's been many hypotheses for it, but the one that has always grabbed me the most is that poorer people have a better appreciation of small amounts of money than rich people do. Just a permutation of empathy.

[K. A. Pital]

One interpretation of all this might be that selfish people find it easier to become rich.

Another is that becoming rich makes one a selfish douchebag. The existence defines the character. Becoming one of the rich requires to be a douchebag, because rising to richness in capitalism is built on douchebaggery - destroying competition (in the extreme case, physically), "cutting down the waste" at the expense of humans and other things that work to destroy the last shreds of empathy inside a human. Complete mistrust is also a must, because you're dealing with large capitals and that is dangerous stuff, you know. Chronic mistrust in the rich is a subject of many sociological studies.

But this is probably too fearful a thought - it's not the rich who are at fault but the way they become rich. The "path to riches" itself.

It makes the rich empathyless, callous, chronically distrusting, always suspicious of the people around them.

[Nephtys]

Or that you know, it's easier to donate a smaller sum than it is to find a worthy way to donate large sums. Giving a few bucks to a homeless man if you make 10,000 dollars is not 500 times kinder than someone who makes 1,000,000 dollars who does it twice.

Fixed amounts do sort of matter. If you say to yourself 'Hey, I donated 40,000 dollars to charity', that sounds pretty good and probably is quite personally satisfying, even if you may make over a million a year. Even if it may be proportionately less than someone who makes less money donating a smaller (but proportionately higher) sum.

[K. A. Pital]

Or that you know, it's easier to donate a smaller sum than it is to find a worthy way to donate large sums. Giving a few bucks to a homeless man if you make 10,000 dollars is not 500 times kinder than someone who makes 1,000,000 dollars who does it twice.

How is it easier to donate a smaller sum than a larger one? There's loads of charities. Pick one and go. It works for any sums, big and small.

Besides, giving a greater share of your income away DOES make you kinder, because it impacts your well-being more than that of the rich person. So if I give away 10 bucks from my 300 bucks of wage, I do give away more than someone who gives 20 bucks from his 1 000 000 monthly income. Not "500 times", but certainly it is a difference. To actually worsen your well-being in favour of others takes a lot of empathy. Not worsening your well-being for the sake of others doesn't take that much empathy.

[Nephtys]

It's more complicated than writing a bigger check is more compassionate. If you're donating a larger amount, you need to make sure the money is being used responsibly. Giving 2000 dollars to the local homeless shelter is one thing, and you can probably be assured that such an amount could be used to do something positive. You can't just walk there and write them a check for a million dollars and expect it to be used efficiently. You'd likely need to involve a larger charity which brings up other issues and problems.

Kindness is more than just a mathematical ratio of how bad it sets you back. It's also the amount and type of actual change and progress your actions will create. Giving away money to a guy who is immediately then buying alcohol is not kinder than giving the same amount to sick children's care.

[K. A. Pital]

Empathy, however, is not related to efficiency. One can argue that giving 3 bucks to a drunk is less efficient than another similar donation to a more noble organization or man. But it entails a similar amount of empathy in my view. Empathy can be simply misplaced - that's all.

Being assured that your donation will do something positive is not clear in small cases either. Small charities loot and misplace money easily. Small evangelical churches, for one, are in my view absolutely notorious for this.

[Broomstick]

Poor people might be more inclined to give to charity because either they have received charity, or can easily imagine needing charity in the future, so they see charity as something that could (or has) benefited them. The rich, however, may feel they will never need charity or financial help and thus see giving money to charity as "throwing it away" as they don't think they'll ever get a return on it.

Of course, charity donations that increase social statue or allow for income tax deductions will skew these results - which might be why we publicize big donors and allow charitable tax deductions, to increase the amount given to what are perceived as worthy causes.

[Kanastrous]

It's possible that some 'rich' people look at the dollar amount of taxes they pay, and figure they're financing enough public-welfare-type work that way, already.

[Gil Hamilton]

It's possible that some 'rich' people look at the dollar amount of taxes they pay, and figure they're financing enough public-welfare-type work that way, already.

I'm not sure how that would affect the above at all, in simulated games. The above has how they behave in games which test a person's willingness to help out other players who may be in need versus potential personal gain. What they pay in taxes doesn't affect that, but how they think does.

[aieeegrunt]

Someone who actively pursues and suceeds in becoming rich is somebody who really believes that they deserve more from life than anybody else. Given this sociopathic mindset, it's not surprising at all that they are less likely to be charitable.

[Kanastrous]

Wow. That may be the pig-stupidest thing I've seen posted here since I joined.

How old are you?

[Nephtys]

I'm actually also rather surprised at the automatic assumption by some in this thread that 'rich' automatically makes someone some sort of sociopath. As if everybody ever who is classified by whatever standards as 'upper class' is automatically some sort of financial capitalist weasel. There are very many people in this world who are or become quite rich and not 'defined' by it.

[K. A. Pital]

I'm actually also rather surprised at the automatic assumption by some in this thread that 'rich' automatically makes someone some sort of sociopath. As if everybody ever who is classified by whatever standards as 'upper class' is automatically some sort of financial capitalist weasel. There are very many people in this world who are or become quite rich and not 'defined' by it.

Are there statistical investigations on the percentage of sociopaths among the rich and comparing it to the general spread of sociopathy in society? Because otherwise the statement that "there are many people who become rich and are not "defined" by it" can be dismissed as "exceptions that underscore the norm".

Being fair enough, I haven't looked at sociological data proving either one or the other. So that's a question.

[Temujin]

I want to say they're about three times as prevalent in the business world as in the normal population, but I can't find the source offhand.

[Nephtys]

I want to say they're about three times as prevalent in the business world as in the normal population, but I can't find the source offhand.

...So you're making stuff up.

[Temujin]

I want to say they're about three times as prevalent in the business world as in the normal population, but I can't find the source offhand.

...So you're making stuff up.

No, I actually remember seeing that posited in some material regarding sociopaths; I just can't find it now to confirm it or confirm if the source was reputable or not. I made that clear in my post.

[Broomstick]

I've also heard that sociopaths are more common among the rich as well - often, rich businessmen and/or entrepreneurs. Which is not to say all such are sociopaths - some are great humanitarians - just that being a sociopath can, apparently, be an advantage in some professions.

[loomer]

I imagine it would if it came to things like hiring/firing - not really having empathy there would keep you from delaying as long as possible, and so forth.

As to the actual topic, I've noticed this in my daily life. I'm dirt poor, but honestly, I manage what money I do have pretty well and so I have enough left over for charities and friends. I've paid the rent for half my friends at least twice (though I do make them do some work for it I don't have the energy/strength/health for), bought far too many chickens for third world villages (excellent program, by the way. Don't buy a guy a Christmas gift. Buy a chicken with that money and send him a card saying so.) and so forth.

My friends - the ones who can afford it - are the same. We all pool resources but (or maybe because it allows us to) we all donate to whatever causes we find worthy when we have the spare money, work at soup kitchens and so on. It may very well be because we're used to sharing our limited resources to get the most out of them, and so extending it further is an easy leap.

[Kanastrous]

The chicken-purchase program sounds good. Have you a link to that charity's site?

[Omeganian]

An old saying is that a window and a mirror are both glass, but when looking at a mirror, a man sees only himself. Because a mirror is covered with silver (sounds better in Hebrew, where "silver" and "money" are the same word).

[Kanastrous]

Not the greatest of sayings. When one looks in a mirror one also sees everything else that's reflected in the mirror.

[loomer]

The chicken-purchase program sounds good. Have you a link to that charity's site?

I use Oxfam's service, but other charities do it as well. You can buy more expensive things - buffalo, cattle, fertilizer/seed plans, farming tools and so forth - but I use chickens because I'm not rich enough to be able to do the others easily.

http://www.oxfamunwrapped.com.au/Produc ... a58eabaf40