When facing a chaotic situation, people with higher incomes may be more likely than people with lower incomes to find comfort in material possessions.
A study conducted in part by researchers in UC Berkeley’s Department of Psychology has found that when chaotic conditions undermine a person’s sense of control, upper-class individuals tend to hold on to material possessions to regain that control while lower-class individuals tend to reach out to others in their society for support.
“We’ve run lots and lots of psychological studies showing these really different behaviors between the haves and have-nots,” said Paul Piff, a post-doctoral scholar in psychology at UC Berkeley and co-author of the paper published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Aug. 13. “This study takes everything that we have seen so far and maps it onto how people of different socioeconomic backgrounds deal with crises differently.”
Researchers also found that people from higher-income backgrounds were more likely to choose jobs based on their potential for wealth and prefer financial gain over a close-knit community, and they were less likely to volunteer for community-building projects than people from lower-income backgrounds.
In one experiment, Piff said, all subjects were given a choice between a higher-paying job that required them to move away from their family and a lower-paying job that was closer to their family.
In another, college students were asked to list both chaotic — such as classes being cancelled — and nonchaotic events in their college experience, Piff said. The researchers then assessed the subjects on how connected they felt to their community.
“We still saw this split, suggesting that social upbringing particularly in times of threats plays a huge role in people’s responses,” said Piff. “There are different sets of values and priorities that are embedded in different social steps.”
A study co-authored by Piff published in February found that upper-class individuals have a higher propensity for unethical behavior due to more favorable attitudes toward greed. Piff said he is currently trying to figure out why wealthier people, who are expected by society to be the most helpful in times of crisis, want to hold on to their money.
“Very basic situational variables or interventions can go a long way to decreasing the ‘empathy divider’ – the compassion divider between the haves and have-nots,” said Piff. “We want to figure out how these people can become more compassionate.”
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.
The study judges ethics based on incomplete understanding of human behavior. Of course “greed” has a negative connotation which is why the authors can label it “unethical behavior”. However, another way to view greed is “self-preservation”. Wealthy people who worked hard for their money fully understand that the less-wealthy are envious of that money and would like to steal it. Since money guarantees personal security as well as a path towards overcoming chaotic situations, everyone wants it. Poor people don’t have money and have no self confidence in making money, so by definition they can’t be “greedy” as they look for help from family and friends. Wealthy people know how to make more money so they rely on themselves to solve their problems. However, the authors label this as “greed” and proceed to make a moral judgment on this behavior.
You’re a spewing fool only trying to defend your selfish ‘elitist’ position with ridiculous inconsistent ideas. Pathetic. “Wealthy people know how to make more money…” ? What about spoiled no-nothing rats like you?
Reduce their material wealth, obviously, Duh!!