6 ms·
Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior (2012)
- chrisseaton 7y agoWhat does 'upper class' mean to the authors? To me, 'upper class' means something like an international billionaire, or a member of a European aristocracy, someone with considerable social influence, something like that. Here it seems to mean someone driving a new car?!
- JamesBarney 7y agoIn one study upper class is defined as being in close physical proximity to a large number of $1 bills.
- chrisseaton 7y ago> responded to an advertisement on Craigslist, an online community forum, and received an invitation to complete an on-line study for a chance to win a $50 gift certificate I don't think upper class people regularly respond to competitions for $50 gift certificates on Craigslist, either.
- TheSpiceIsLife 7y agoBored stay at home partner might?
- jshevek 7y agoThe issue is the degree of selection bias, not whether outliers exist.
- doubletgl 7y agoFor the study with cars at an intersection, they simply used the model and make of the cars, so an old toyota vs. a new mercedes for example would be on opposite ends of the spectrum.
- badpun 7y agoThe problem with that is, plenty of wealthy people drive mundane or even frugal cars. I'm guessing that the need to drive a flashy car can correlate with being an asshole much more strongly than wealth.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- chrisseaton 7y agoThe Queen of the United Kingdom's state Bentleys were made back in 2002 so she's presumably working class in the eyes of this study.
- C1sc0cat 7y agoThe only time I have seen the Queen she was in a 1950's or earlier Rolls Royce. I used to work near St Pauls so you occasionally had official events. Also Prince Charles famously has a 40 year old Barbour he wears
- leoedin 7y agoMy biggest complaint with that study is that it doesn't seem to control at all for the "asshole who buys a shiny car they can't afford" effect. I bet there's a correlation between people who buy expensive cars purely to give the perception of wealth who are also much more likely to cut people off.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- luckylion 7y ago> To me, 'upper class' means something like an international billionaire, or a member of a European aristocracy, someone with considerable social influence, something like that. That's a weird concept of "upper class". There are very few billionaires, they don't really make up a "class". They are part of the upper class, but pretty much anybody with a personal wealth that is far above the mean would qualify for upper class in my book. If you stopped working now and, living an average lifestyle, wouldn't have to ever work again, surely you're not middle class, but you also don't have to be a billionaire for that to be possible.
- chrisseaton 7y ago> If you stopped working now and, living an average lifestyle, wouldn't have to ever work again, surely you're not middle class I think you'd be middle class. Upper class is people with international influence, staff, significant land, titles, honours, membership of elite social organisations. It's not just people with a bit of money.
- luckylion 7y agoBut that would make them quite literally the 1% (or 0.1%), i.e. you'd have large middle and lower classes and barely visible upper class. I wouldn't put "net wealth of 5m" into a group with "net wealth of 50k", I think the 5m person is more similar to somebody with 500m insofar that he doesn't do manual labor, has a significant income from capital gains, and has ensured that even his kids won't ever have to actually work. Something like 50% lower, 40% middle, 10% upper class, with a tiny part of that upper class making up the super rich sounds more reasonable to me. Maybe the super rich are their own class?
- chrisseaton 7y ago> you'd have large middle and lower classes and barely visible upper class Yes, isn't that the world we live in?
- 7y ago
- TomMckenny 7y agoSince higher position in a social structure always means better treatment by the judicial system, it should be expected that the reduced deterrent would result in more bad behavior.
- jdc 7y agoYour point is well-taken, but always is a stretch.
- TomMckenny 7y agoTrue, one should always avoid the word "always". But given that the world just saw a Senate trial of a nations highest ranking member occur with no witness and no evidence allowed, the claim remains pretty strong.
- dusted 7y agoEspecially in combination with the stronger sense of entitlement that often follow high status. When someone poor does something bad, they're judged harshly for it, they're already poor, how dare they! But when someone rich does something bad, they're excused, they're rich after all, they've earned that right. Which is probably why it's only LBA (Large Black Audis) drivers and handicapped people who park on the handicap parking spaces.
- emsign 7y agoAnother researcher has discovered soon after problems with that publications p-value. Evidence that publication bias contaminated studies relating social class and unethical behavior https://www.pnas.org/content/109/25/E1587 https://www.pnas.org/content/109/25/E1587
- the_duke 7y agoOh boy. Very trustworthy "science" right here. There are so many problems with this... Study 5+7: online survey via Mechanical Turk (n=90/108) really? Study 6: online survey via Craigslist ad, voucher reward Study 3+4: survey with undergrad students (n=120/150) Studies 1+2: rating behaviour of about 200 drivers at an intersection * Not even a definition for social class or ethical behaviour. * "Social class" was assigned via self-ranking or car value, both very problematic. * Almost no numbers or info on methodology. * Online surveys with self ranking for social class, and via paid Mechanical Turk participants or Craigslist ad with vouchers are sure to give a very accurate and representative sample with "higher class" individuals... * In 1+2, very low n considering how easy data collection would be. Driver age and gender were ostensibly controlled for, but I'm doubtful this was done properly. The hypothesis might very well be true, but this "research" is about as valuable as a tabloid opinion piece.
- alexgmcm 7y agoYeah, I'm sure it'll get plenty of citations though and in modern science that's the figure of merit.
- cryptica 7y agoThe irony of it is that when you consider the reality of increasing wealth inequality (and the power imbalances that this creates), the claims made by the article are consistent with the ethical degradation of modern science and business in general.
- thrwaway69 7y agoI don't even bother reading papers that are politically charged these days if any at all. There is no end to this kind of papers if you check and I am really tired of seeing the media spin up of these, too. Is exaggerating a claim to the point it makes it false or not verifying the papers before promoting "fake information"? Here's why you need to stop doing x. It's bad for you, research confirms. Why research thinks the type of food you eat has influenced your election candidate Why we are going to be extinct in the next 50 years and scientists can't figure it out. This new material can change the way how processing works in a matter of few years, research shows (date - 2005) Most AI researchers claim this and that (survey cut down to a single event with undergraduates and journalists mixed in.) I would be curious if someone has any papers confirming that the number of shit papers has increased over time or has remained the same whilst being scrutinized more heavily.
- nordsieck 7y agoStudy 1 + 2 > As vehicles are reliable indicators of a person's social rank and wealth (15), we used observers’ codes of vehicle status (make, age, and appearance) to index drivers’ social class. Study 3 > Participants also reported their social class using the MacArthur scale of subjective SES [1]. Study 4 > Participants experienced either a low or high relative social-class rank by comparing themselves to people with the most (least) money, most (least) education, and most (least) respected jobs. Participants also rated their position in the socioeconomic hierarchy relative to people at the very top or bottom. This induction primes subjective perceptions of relatively high or low social-class rank. Study 5 > Participants also reported their social class using the MacArthur scale Study 6 > Participants also completed the measures of social class and attitudes toward greed that we used in study 5. Study 7 > Participants also reported their social class using the previously described MacArthur measure. ___ 1. https://macses.ucsf.edu/research/psychosocial/subjective.php https://macses.ucsf.edu/research/psychosocial/subjective.php
- keiferski 7y agoExtremely disappointing that a scientific paper makes proclamations about ethics without even defining what "unethical" means. This is really missing the forest for the trees, especially considering that numerous philosophers have argued that traditional Christian morality (which led to current conceptions of democratic morality) is itself a morality of the lower classes. In that case, it's almost inevitable that higher social classes would be unethical according to the lower classes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master–slave_morality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master–slave_morality I should add that I don't necessarily buy this argument, but I do think that scientists conducting experiments involving morality should be aware of the field's history of thought.
- stdbrouw 7y ago> numerous philosophers have argued Friedrich Nietzsche is not "numerous philosophers".
- knolax 7y agoHow does one even define "Traditional Christian Morality?". It's in no way a monolithic religion. Even within the same denomination you can go from Jesus to Saint Olga for your definition of "moral". The more I read Nietzsche the more glad I am that I live in a society that does not greatly value philosophy.
- keiferski 7y ago> How does one even define "Traditional Christian Morality?" Well, you could try reading the books that philosophers write and see how they define terms. > The more I read Nietzsche the more glad I am that I live in a society that does not greatly value philosophy. Or not. Ignorance is bliss, after all.
- knolax 7y ago> Well, you could try reading the books that philosophers write and see how they define terms. And you'll find definitions that are conveniently constructed to support their thesis exactly, and which fall apart under the slightest bit of scrutiny. The question was rhetorical. > Or not. Ignorance is bliss, after all. Not all information is useful or correct.
- sysbin 7y agoI assume the free will ideology creates unethical behaviour by the outcome of creating justification towards social stratification. Then we get falsehood excuses for materialism and judgement & punishment of the less privileged. The higher social class ends up being delusional to reality.
- gojomo 7y agoThis tiny-sample study [Piff 2012] hasn't held up strongly in attempts to confirm/replicate: https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1053175632568442880 https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1053175632568442880
- dlwdlw 7y agoAll behavior is selfish. Each level is supported by the lower level. Upper class has a smaller support of semi-elites below them they must appease. Many things are zero-sum so most actions at this level take from the majority for the minority. Thus unethical behavior baked into hierarchy.
- collyw 7y ago>All behavior is selfish. That's highly debatable. A child would be incapable of survival in its first few years of life if it weren't for the love of its mother. I guess your response to that will be that it's selfish genes to which I don't really have a counter response.
- theqult 7y agoWhy there is reference to PhpMyAdmin in the url ? It sounds like an old good vulnerability
- stevespang 7y agoWhat whif of intelligence decided to repost an 8 year old study ?
- glutamate 7y agoHere's a later study from different authors that replicates but also refines these findings: https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fpspi0000008 https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fpspi0000008 > Replicating past work, social class positively predicted unethical behavior; however, this relationship was only observed when that behavior was self-beneficial. When unethical behavior was performed to benefit others, social class negatively predicted unethical behavior; lower class individuals were more likely than upper class individuals to engage in unethical behavior. Overall, social class predicts people’s tendency to behave selfishly, rather than predicting unethical behavior per se.
- say_it_as_it_is 7y agoPNAS resorting to buzzfeedy, click bait faux research.
- econcon 7y agoThey expected to find upper class people on Mechanical Turks, sounds legit.