Rich people are more likely to behave unethically, study finds

Related Posts

Wealthy individuals are more likely to engage in unethical behavior, a new study from UC Berkeley and University of Toronto researchers suggests.

The study – which was published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal – found that those in higher social classes are more likely to engage in behaviors such as cheating, stealing and lying, due to being “less generous and altruistic” than their counterparts in lower social classes.

“These findings suggest that it is the people who occupy relatively high levels of wealth and rank in society who are more inclined to favor greed and behave unethically, whether that means breaking the law while driving, keeping extra change given to you at a coffee shop, lying to another person in the service of self-interest or even cheating in games,” said Paul Piff, a UC Berkeley doctoral student in psychology and lead author of the study, in an email.

In the first and second of seven separate studies conducted within the overarching study, researchers found that individuals in more expensive vehicles were more likely to cut off other drivers and pedestrians with right of way.

The rest of the studies required participants to report their socio-economic statuses and take surveys about various scenarios in which moral dilemmas appeared. Across the board, results showed that those from wealthier backgrounds were more likely to take valued goods from others, lie in negotiations, cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize and endorse unethical behavior at work than their lower class counterparts.

The study suggests that the tendency for wealthy participants to engage in unethical behavior may stem from several factors. Members of the upper class have more privacy and independence in their professions and therefore associate less risk with unethical behavior than others may, according to the study. They also have more resources to handle any possible repercussions of such behavior, the study states.

The findings also suggest that the trend may exist because upper-class individuals view greed in a more positive light than others do.

After being encouraged to think of the positive aspects of greed in the final portion of the study, lower class participants were as likely as their wealthier counterparts to engage in unethical behavior.

“Upper-class individuals, who may be more likely to serve as leaders in their organizations, may … be more likely to have received economics-oriented training and to work in settings that hone self-interest,” the study states. “These factors may promote values among the upper class that justify and even moralize positive beliefs about greed.”

Piff conceded that there are exceptions to the findings, but maintains that the general trend – one that he says may have contributed to the country’s current economic turmoil – remains consistent.

“There are important exceptions to our findings — for instance, the notable philanthropy of super rich individuals like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett — but in general, what we find in the lab resonates with patterns observed in timely political events, from scandalous acts of insider trading to the unethical acts committed by financiers in the times leading up to the recent financial meltdown,” Piff said in the email.

Comment Policy

Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.

Comments

comments

8

Archived Comments (8)

  1. Budoboy says:

    Why does this study seem less than scientific?  Why does it seem like the researcher already had a conclusion in mind when he set this study up?  Would a study that said poor people are more likely to be obese or physically assault you get as much press?  I wonder …

  2. Tara Petrie says:

    Interesting. I read another article on this that suggested there is no “innate” differences between people *because* when the poor were made to feel rich, or imaginatively situated differently, they would act just as unethically. However, what I find most problematically interesting is the larger macro-psychological issue underlying the explanations, and that is, that of the zero-sum mentality that appears to govern thinking, not due to some innate tendencies, but simply socioeconomic status. Financial resources explain the differences almost 100% until one considers the idea that there is simply a larger set of social forces at work constructing our psychological tendencies – the idea that when 1 gains, another loses. Theorizing the materiality of that, psychological or otherwise, is far more interesting than the fact those favorably situated rationalize their situation and protect it. Are their fears of fall or decline or loss even real, or are they socially constructed?

  3. Alumna says:

    I think the correlation between socioeconomic standing and higher-education should also be taken into consideration in a study such as this one. It is far too simple to claim rich people have less morality than poor people “due to being ‘less generous and altruistic’ than their counterparts in lower social classes”. It’s circular, even!

    What are the foundational causes of this finding? Is it that wealthy individuals are more educated, or some other more characteristically driven cause? And shouldn’t we relate this finding to those root causes versus their more superficial manifestations, e.g. having money. Though education may not be the answer, it is certainly something to consider insofar as it complicates the study in a way that actually makes you stop and think, “Wait, does this correlation really make sense?”

  4. Tonytonytonay says:

    Well, that explains a lot of Gingrich’s behavior. 
    Well, that explains a lot of Bush’s behavior. 
    Well, that explains a lot of Santorum’s behavior. 
    Well, that explains a lot of Romney’s behavior. 
    Well, that explains a lot of Palin’s behavior. 
    Well, that explains a lot of Beck’s behavior. 
    Well, that explains a lot of Cheney’s behavior. 

    “There are important exceptions to our findings — for instance, the notable philanthropy of super rich individuals like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett ”

    I dont like black/white right/left, but does the right have a Bill Gates or a Clinton Foundation or a Soros Foundation? Im talking huge amounts of money for global common good, not superpac donations or anti-abortion fundraising or donations to the Heartland Institute. 

    • Steve says:

       And Obama’s behavior.  Obama has a net worth of $10 million, which exceeds Santorum’s $4.2, and close to Palin’s $12 million. (www.celebritynetworth.com).

    • guest says:

      — Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher
      than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households
      give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average
      liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

      — Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

      — Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004
      gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents
      of states that voted for George Bush.

      — Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

      — In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60
      percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to
      charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less
      than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

      — People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
       

    • Goalieace30 says:

      Hey idiot, you’re forgetting someone. Let’s see…Hmmm. Bill Clinton? Yeah he’s full of ethics and morality. You forget the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

  5. libsrclowns says:

    Well, that explains a lot of Obama’s behavior.