High economic inequality leads higher-income individuals to be less generous.

Stéphane Côté, Julian House, Robb Willer
Author Information
  1. Stéphane Côté: Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 3E6; Scote@rotman.utoronto.ca.
  2. Julian House: Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 3E6;
  3. Robb Willer: Department of Sociology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.

Abstract

Research on social class and generosity suggests that higher-income individuals are less generous than poorer individuals. We propose that this pattern emerges only under conditions of high economic inequality, contexts that can foster a sense of entitlement among higher-income individuals that, in turn, reduces their generosity. Analyzing results of a unique nationally representative survey that included a real-stakes giving opportunity (n = 1,498), we found that in the most unequal US states, higher-income respondents were less generous than lower-income respondents. In the least unequal states, however, higher-income individuals were more generous. To better establish causality, we next conducted an experiment (n = 704) in which apparent levels of economic inequality in participants' home states were portrayed as either relatively high or low. Participants were then presented with a giving opportunity. Higher-income participants were less generous than lower-income participants when inequality was portrayed as relatively high, but there was no association between income and generosity when inequality was portrayed as relatively low. This research finds that the tendency for higher-income individuals to be less generous pertains only when inequality is high, challenging the view that higher-income individuals are necessarily more selfish, and suggesting a previously undocumented way in which inequitable resource distributions undermine collective welfare.

Keywords

References

  1. Nature. 2015 Oct 15;526(7573):426-9 [PMID: 26352469]
  2. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0133193 [PMID: 26193099]
  3. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Mar 13;109(11):4086-91 [PMID: 22371585]
  4. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011 Jan;6(1):9-12 [PMID: 26162108]
  5. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2013 Sep;8(5):487-97 [PMID: 26173207]
  6. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010 Feb;98(2):245-55 [PMID: 20085398]
  7. Psychol Sci. 2014 Sep;25(9):1699-711 [PMID: 25037961]
  8. Emotion. 2012 Jun;12(3):449-59 [PMID: 22148992]
  9. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010 Nov;99(5):771-84 [PMID: 20649364]
  10. Psychol Methods. 2007 Jun;12(2):121-38 [PMID: 17563168]
  11. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Nov;85(5):823-37 [PMID: 14599247]
  12. J Pers Assess. 2004 Aug;83(1):29-45 [PMID: 15271594]

MeSH Term

Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Female
Humans
Income
Linear Models
Male
Middle Aged
Poverty
Social Welfare
Socioeconomic Factors
Surveys and Questionnaires
United States
Young Adult

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0higher-incomeindividualsinequalitygenerouslessgenerosityhigheconomicstatesportrayedrelativelygivingopportunityn=unequalrespondentslower-incomelowparticipantsincomeResearchsocialclasssuggestspoorerproposepatternemergesconditionscontextscanfostersenseentitlementamongturnreducesAnalyzingresultsuniquenationallyrepresentativesurveyincludedreal-stakes1498foundUSleasthoweverbetterestablishcausalitynextconductedexperiment704apparentlevelsparticipants'homeeitherParticipantspresentedHigher-incomeassociationresearchfindstendencypertainschallengingviewnecessarilyselfishsuggestingpreviouslyundocumentedwayinequitableresourcedistributionsunderminecollectivewelfareHighleads

Similar Articles

Cited By