Literature DB >> 31036660

No evidence that economic inequality moderates the effect of income on generosity.

Stefan C Schmukle1, Martin Korndörfer2, Boris Egloff3.   

Abstract

A landmark study published in PNAS [Côté S, House J, Willer R (2015) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:15838-15843] showed that higher income individuals are less generous than poorer individuals only if they reside in a US state with comparatively large economic inequality. This finding might serve to reconcile inconsistent findings on the effect of social class on generosity by highlighting the moderating role of economic inequality. On the basis of the importance of replicating a major finding before readily accepting it as evidence, we analyzed the effect of the interaction between income and inequality on generosity in three large representative datasets. We analyzed the donating behavior of 27,714 US households (study 1), the generosity of 1,334 German individuals in an economic game (study 2), and volunteering to participate in charitable activities in 30,985 participants from 30 countries (study 3). We found no evidence for the postulated moderation effect in any study. This result is especially remarkable because (i) our samples were very large, leading to high power to detect effects that exist, and (ii) the cross-country analysis employed in study 3 led to much greater variability in economic inequality. These findings indicate that the moderation effect might be rather specific and cannot be easily generalized. Consequently, economic inequality might not be a plausible explanation for the heterogeneous results on the effect of social class on prosociality.

Entities:  

Keywords:  economic inequality; generosity; income; prosocial behavior; social class

Year:  2019        PMID: 31036660      PMCID: PMC6525487          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1807942116

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  25 in total

1.  Class and compassion: socioeconomic factors predict responses to suffering.

Authors:  Jennifer E Stellar; Vida M Manzo; Michael W Kraus; Dacher Keltner
Journal:  Emotion       Date:  2011-12-12

2.  Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior.

Authors:  Paul K Piff; Daniel M Stancato; Stéphane Côté; Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton; Dacher Keltner
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-02-27       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 3.  Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: how the rich are different from the poor.

Authors:  Michael W Kraus; Paul K Piff; Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton; Michelle L Rheinschmidt; Dacher Keltner
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 8.934

4.  Having less, giving more: the influence of social class on prosocial behavior.

Authors:  Paul K Piff; Michael W Kraus; Stéphane Côté; Bonnie Hayden Cheng; Dacher Keltner
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2010-11

5.  Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: a new look at an old issue.

Authors:  Craig K Enders; Davood Tofighi
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2007-06

6.  Evidence that publication bias contaminated studies relating social class and unethical behavior.

Authors:  Gregory Francis
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-05-21       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Income inequality and happiness.

Authors:  Shigehiro Oishi; Selin Kesebir; Ed Diener
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2011-08-12

Review 8.  Inequality in the long run.

Authors:  Thomas Piketty; Emmanuel Saez
Journal:  Science       Date:  2014-05-23       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 9.  Income inequality and health: a causal review.

Authors:  Kate E Pickett; Richard G Wilkinson
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2014-12-30       Impact factor: 4.634

10.  Lost letter measure of variation in altruistic behaviour in 20 neighbourhoods.

Authors:  Jo Holland; Antonio S Silva; Ruth Mace
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-08-15       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  10 in total

1.  Cooperation as a signal of time preferences.

Authors:  Julien Lie-Panis; Jean-Baptiste André
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2022-04-27       Impact factor: 5.530

2.  Measuring inequality beyond the Gini coefficient may clarify conflicting findings.

Authors:  Kristin Blesch; Oliver P Hauser; Jon M Jachimowicz
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2022-08-29

3.  Individuals of high socioeconomic status are altruistic in sharing money but egoistic in sharing time.

Authors:  Ulf Liebe; Nicole Schwitter; Andreas Tutić
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-06-27       Impact factor: 4.996

4.  Economic Inequality and Masculinity-Femininity: The Prevailing Perceived Traits in Higher Unequal Contexts Are Masculine.

Authors:  Eva Moreno-Bella; Guillermo B Willis; Miguel Moya
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2019-07-30

5.  Impact of internal and external factors on prosocial choices in rhesus macaques.

Authors:  Jérôme Sallet; Andrew Emberton; Jessica Wood; Matthew Rushworth
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2021-01-11       Impact factor: 6.237

6.  Global evidence on the selfish rich inequality hypothesis.

Authors:  Ingvild Almås; Alexander W Cappelen; Erik Ø Sørensen; Bertil Tungodden
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2022-01-18       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  The Impact of Socialisation on Children's Prosocial Behaviour. A Study on Primary School Students.

Authors:  Antonio Tintori; Giulia Ciancimino; Rossella Palomba; Cristiana Clementi; Loredana Cerbara
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-11-16       Impact factor: 3.390

8.  Higher socioeconomic status does not predict decreased prosocial behavior in a field experiment.

Authors:  James Andreoni; Nikos Nikiforakis; Jan Stoop
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2021-07-12       Impact factor: 14.919

9.  Environmental adversity is associated with lower investment in collective actions.

Authors:  N Lettinga; P O Jacquet; J-B André; N Baumand; C Chevallier
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-07-30       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Neighbourhood wealth, not urbanicity, predicts prosociality towards strangers.

Authors:  Elena Zwirner; Nichola Raihani
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2020-10-07       Impact factor: 5.349

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.