6 ms·

Exploring the Psychology of Wealth, 'Pernicious' Effects of Economic Inequality

45 points by deusclovis 13y ago

tagawa 13y ago
From the article, there's "an apparent link between wealth and, well, unseemly behavior", but is that because in some cases, unseemly behavior leads to increased wealth? It's the same old correlation/causation question that doesn't seem to have been looked into.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- ufo 13y ago
  From what I read it seems that they controlled for that. Even in the experimental game setting, where both players are just as rich in real life, the player thats richer inside the game starts exibiting those unseemly behaviours. > But we found consistently with people who were the rich players that they actually started to become, in their behavior, as if they were like rich people in real life. They were more likely to eat from a bowl of pretzels that we positioned off to the side. They ate with their mouths full, so they were a little ruder in their behavior to the other person.
  - hristov 13y ago
    Yeah but in this case, they did not say that they showed that the "fake rich" player engaged in cheating or breaking rules. All they could show is that the "fake rich" player attributed their success to their own skill when it was obvious that the rules were significantly tilted in their favor. So I believe the grand parent post still makes a very good point.
  - notahacker 13y ago
    The monopoly experiment as described in the article doesn't sound like especially convincing evidence for the hypothesis that wealth makes people inconsiderate though: the researchers - with openly stated personal biases - observed that people playing a game rigged in their favour snacked more, and then usually didn't dispute their entitlement to win the game after winning. I don't believe that actually illustrates anything about wealth at all. You'd have to go some way to convince me that Monopoly is a good proxy for wealth, never mind explaining away competing explanations for the exhibited behaviour not associated with courtesy or wealth (winners are generally not disposed towards disavowing their entitlement to win, and those with a simpler challenge have every reason to enjoy themselves more or concentrate less). If his findings suggested that people that started off "rich" were more likely to feel they deserved to win than winners of a fair game it would have been a more interesting finding...
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Did you read the article? They were able to reproduce the effects by making people feel richer, by giving them a leg up in Monopoly, after determining which player would get said leg up by a coin toss. Unless you think participant wealth was substantially impacting that coin toss, they did rule out correlation (and causation in the other direction) being the sole explanation.
- eweise 13y ago
  Why add a comment when you didn't read the article?
jstanley 13y ago
I don't think the example with the sweets is fair. The participants were explicitly told that they can take some.
- DougN7 13y ago
  Yes, it was OK to take _some_, but why did the rich take _more_?
  - thedrbrian 13y ago
    Well they're just hacking the system, seeing just how much they can get away with, seeing just how far they can push the rules before someone explicitly tells them to stop.
    - RodericDay 13y ago
      I guess that's one way to look at it
  - ashray 13y ago
    Maybe the rich are more comfortable with taking more. Or the notion of 'I deserve more'. Maybe that's why they got rich ? Maybe pushing the boundaries is what it's all about - whether that means not stopping for pedestrians - or taking more candy ?
  - francoisdevlin 13y ago
    When you are used to having money, you're more likely to think that material things can be replaced. A bag of candy is a much smaller deal when you make 100k a year as opposed to 20k, so you don't think as much of it. Just one thought.
  - sp332 13y ago
    Because their sympathy isn't the same anymore. All of the people thought: if I were running this, how much would I be OK with people taking? So the people with less money took less because they assumed the people running the show were like them. And the rich people took more, for the exact same reason.
riggins 13y ago
I didn't like the intersection example. They say drivers of high end cars are more likely to 'break the law'. That's true but in this case I think it's just a civil issue. I phrase it differently. Since this is a civil issue (i.e. just a fine) I'd phrase it as drivers of luxury car are more likely to risk a fine of X$. At that point you have a totally banal observation. What would be interesting is to separate out the price sensitivity from the behavior. For example, maybe fines should be based on a percentage of income instead of an absolute amount. Say 1% of income (with an absolute minimum). So if you run an intersection and you have the median income (40K) the fine is $400. If you run an intersection and you make 500K ... the fine is $5000. I bet you'd see the discrepancy narrow or disappear.
- ufo 13y ago
  But is stopping at the light really about avoiding fines? For most people I know, that kind of trafic rule is more about respecting fellow drivers and pedestrians than its about avoiding a monetary penalty. The only real exception is speed limits because in that case, respecting other people has more to do with keeping the same speed as everyone else than driving under an arbitrary limit.
  - riggins 13y ago
    I don't know. that's why I said it'd be interesting to separate the behavior from the price sensitivity.
    - rjsw 13y ago
      An example that doesn't have a cost penalty is to watch how people merge lanes on a multi-lane highway, some people merge as soon as they see a roadsign, some at the last possible point. It always seems to me that there are a lot more luxury car drivers in the group who merge late.
      - Lost_BiomedE 13y ago
        I thought about this situation and concluded that merging late is the right thing to do; however, many drivers also do this 'get ahead' behavior in areas where it is not advantageous to all. What I see, is that the best way to ensure even distribution of the merging cars is by merging late in a one for one fashion. Otherwise, you get more merging cars than those originally in the lane. This really only applies when traffic is heavy enough that space is limited.
gwern 13y ago
I put together citations & fulltext links for some of these studies in http://lesswrong.com/lw/dtg/notes_on_the_psychology_of_power/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/dtg/notes_on_the_psychology_of_power...
abbazabba 13y ago
I want to play devils advocate here. Whenever anyone offers "some" amount of anything, candy in this case, is it wrong to take all but one? They're rationally maximizing their holdings within the bounds specified. Therefore, if they follow this lifestyle for every decision that comes about, they'll be in some sense richer, or more optimal, than people who don't take all but one. In other words, anytime the rules are ambiguous, why not test them? I'm curious if anyone thinks this is neither right nor wrong?
- rquantz 13y ago
  I want to play devils advocate here. You seem to be pretty much in line with most of the people commenting here, who largely assume there are methodological problems with the studies rather than accepting the findings that wealth causes moral decay. Whenever anyone offers "some" amount of anything, candy in this case, is it wrong to take all but one? They're rationally maximizing their holdings within the bounds specified. Yes, this could account for why that person is wealthier. But it is not moral behavior. Someone who says "the rules do not strictly prohibit me from taking as much candy from the children as I feel like, therefore I will do so" is a cancer on society, someone who takes as much as they can get away with, everyone else be damned. In other words, anytime the rules are ambiguous, why not test them? Because there are other people, and you should consider their needs and wants in addition to your own.
  - abbazabba 13y ago
    Thanks for the insight. But why is taking a little bit more here and there considered immoral? Isn't it the fault of the people setting the specifications, or rules, or laws for failing to be specific? Is there anyone else that shares my thoughts?
    - rquantz 13y ago
      Because morality and law (and/or rules) do not intersect perfectly. If murder were legal, would it not be my fault if I killed someone?
- 13y ago
sudhirj 13y ago
I can share some observations based on changes in my own life. I've always considered myself and safe and considerate driver. I'm quite nice to people on the road and I usually stop for pedestrians even though we have no law enforcement in this regard here in India. I recently bought myself the most expensive locally made bike available here, which also happens to be the biggest and most powerful on the road (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKuTFO4wXbw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKuTFO4wXbw). This also happens to coincide with a change of jobs and a substantial 250% increase in pay, suddenly putting me well into the 0.1% in my city. Do I stop / slow down for pedestrians less often? Yes. Do I ignore homeless people and beggars more often? Yes, but I rationalize that by telling myself I don't want to encourage them. Would I take the candy? No. But I might if they were AWS credits that were being used for entertaining children with games. I might not if they were going to the Khan Academy instead. Do I feel entitled to all this? Maybe. I do try to be the best at what I do, love programming and spent a lot of time learning to negotiate for what I think my skills are worth. On the flip side I've started to assume that everyone has had the same opportunities and possibilities that I've had, and that if they wanted a better life they should have worked harder for it.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

45 points by deusclovis 13y ago

From the article, there's "an apparent link between wealth and, well, unseemly behavior", but is that because in some cases, unseemly behavior leads to increased wealth? It's the same old correlation/causation question that doesn't seem to have been looked into.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
ufo 13y ago
From what I read it seems that they controlled for that. Even in the experimental game setting, where both players are just as rich in real life, the player thats richer inside the game starts exibiting those unseemly behaviours. > But we found consistently with people who were the rich players that they actually started to become, in their behavior, as if they were like rich people in real life. They were more likely to eat from a bowl of pretzels that we positioned off to the side. They ate with their mouths full, so they were a little ruder in their behavior to the other person.
- hristov 13y ago
  Yeah but in this case, they did not say that they showed that the "fake rich" player engaged in cheating or breaking rules. All they could show is that the "fake rich" player attributed their success to their own skill when it was obvious that the rules were significantly tilted in their favor. So I believe the grand parent post still makes a very good point.
- notahacker 13y ago
  The monopoly experiment as described in the article doesn't sound like especially convincing evidence for the hypothesis that wealth makes people inconsiderate though: the researchers - with openly stated personal biases - observed that people playing a game rigged in their favour snacked more, and then usually didn't dispute their entitlement to win the game after winning. I don't believe that actually illustrates anything about wealth at all. You'd have to go some way to convince me that Monopoly is a good proxy for wealth, never mind explaining away competing explanations for the exhibited behaviour not associated with courtesy or wealth (winners are generally not disposed towards disavowing their entitlement to win, and those with a simpler challenge have every reason to enjoy themselves more or concentrate less). If his findings suggested that people that started off "rich" were more likely to feel they deserved to win than winners of a fair game it would have been a more interesting finding...
dllthomas 13y ago
Did you read the article? They were able to reproduce the effects by making people feel richer, by giving them a leg up in Monopoly, after determining which player would get said leg up by a coin toss. Unless you think participant wealth was substantially impacting that coin toss, they did rule out correlation (and causation in the other direction) being the sole explanation.
eweise 13y ago
Why add a comment when you didn't read the article?

jstanley 13y ago

I don't think the example with the sweets is fair. The participants were explicitly told that they can take some.

DougN7 13y ago
Yes, it was OK to take _some_, but why did the rich take _more_?
- thedrbrian 13y ago
  Well they're just hacking the system, seeing just how much they can get away with, seeing just how far they can push the rules before someone explicitly tells them to stop.
  - RodericDay 13y ago
    I guess that's one way to look at it
- ashray 13y ago
  Maybe the rich are more comfortable with taking more. Or the notion of 'I deserve more'. Maybe that's why they got rich ? Maybe pushing the boundaries is what it's all about - whether that means not stopping for pedestrians - or taking more candy ?
- francoisdevlin 13y ago
  When you are used to having money, you're more likely to think that material things can be replaced. A bag of candy is a much smaller deal when you make 100k a year as opposed to 20k, so you don't think as much of it. Just one thought.
- sp332 13y ago
  Because their sympathy isn't the same anymore. All of the people thought: if I were running this, how much would I be OK with people taking? So the people with less money took less because they assumed the people running the show were like them. And the rich people took more, for the exact same reason.

riggins 13y ago

I didn't like the intersection example. They say drivers of high end cars are more likely to 'break the law'. That's true but in this case I think it's just a civil issue. I phrase it differently. Since this is a civil issue (i.e. just a fine) I'd phrase it as drivers of luxury car are more likely to risk a fine of X$. At that point you have a totally banal observation. What would be interesting is to separate out the price sensitivity from the behavior. For example, maybe fines should be based on a percentage of income instead of an absolute amount. Say 1% of income (with an absolute minimum). So if you run an intersection and you have the median income (40K) the fine is $400. If you run an intersection and you make 500K ... the fine is $5000. I bet you'd see the discrepancy narrow or disappear.

ufo 13y ago
But is stopping at the light really about avoiding fines? For most people I know, that kind of trafic rule is more about respecting fellow drivers and pedestrians than its about avoiding a monetary penalty. The only real exception is speed limits because in that case, respecting other people has more to do with keeping the same speed as everyone else than driving under an arbitrary limit.
- riggins 13y ago
  I don't know. that's why I said it'd be interesting to separate the behavior from the price sensitivity.
  - rjsw 13y ago
    An example that doesn't have a cost penalty is to watch how people merge lanes on a multi-lane highway, some people merge as soon as they see a roadsign, some at the last possible point. It always seems to me that there are a lot more luxury car drivers in the group who merge late.
    - Lost_BiomedE 13y ago
      I thought about this situation and concluded that merging late is the right thing to do; however, many drivers also do this 'get ahead' behavior in areas where it is not advantageous to all. What I see, is that the best way to ensure even distribution of the merging cars is by merging late in a one for one fashion. Otherwise, you get more merging cars than those originally in the lane. This really only applies when traffic is heavy enough that space is limited.

gwern 13y ago

I put together citations & fulltext links for some of these studies in http://lesswrong.com/lw/dtg/notes_on_the_psychology_of_power/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/dtg/notes_on_the_psychology_of_power...

abbazabba 13y ago

I want to play devils advocate here. Whenever anyone offers "some" amount of anything, candy in this case, is it wrong to take all but one? They're rationally maximizing their holdings within the bounds specified. Therefore, if they follow this lifestyle for every decision that comes about, they'll be in some sense richer, or more optimal, than people who don't take all but one. In other words, anytime the rules are ambiguous, why not test them? I'm curious if anyone thinks this is neither right nor wrong?

rquantz 13y ago
I want to play devils advocate here. You seem to be pretty much in line with most of the people commenting here, who largely assume there are methodological problems with the studies rather than accepting the findings that wealth causes moral decay. Whenever anyone offers "some" amount of anything, candy in this case, is it wrong to take all but one? They're rationally maximizing their holdings within the bounds specified. Yes, this could account for why that person is wealthier. But it is not moral behavior. Someone who says "the rules do not strictly prohibit me from taking as much candy from the children as I feel like, therefore I will do so" is a cancer on society, someone who takes as much as they can get away with, everyone else be damned. In other words, anytime the rules are ambiguous, why not test them? Because there are other people, and you should consider their needs and wants in addition to your own.
- abbazabba 13y ago
  Thanks for the insight. But why is taking a little bit more here and there considered immoral? Isn't it the fault of the people setting the specifications, or rules, or laws for failing to be specific? Is there anyone else that shares my thoughts?
  - rquantz 13y ago
    Because morality and law (and/or rules) do not intersect perfectly. If murder were legal, would it not be my fault if I killed someone?
13y ago

sudhirj 13y ago

I can share some observations based on changes in my own life. I've always considered myself and safe and considerate driver. I'm quite nice to people on the road and I usually stop for pedestrians even though we have no law enforcement in this regard here in India. I recently bought myself the most expensive locally made bike available here, which also happens to be the biggest and most powerful on the road (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKuTFO4wXbw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKuTFO4wXbw). This also happens to coincide with a change of jobs and a substantial 250% increase in pay, suddenly putting me well into the 0.1% in my city. Do I stop / slow down for pedestrians less often? Yes. Do I ignore homeless people and beggars more often? Yes, but I rationalize that by telling myself I don't want to encourage them. Would I take the candy? No. But I might if they were AWS credits that were being used for entertaining children with games. I might not if they were going to the Khan Academy instead. Do I feel entitled to all this? Maybe. I do try to be the best at what I do, love programming and spent a lot of time learning to negotiate for what I think my skills are worth. On the flip side I've started to assume that everyone has had the same opportunities and possibilities that I've had, and that if they wanted a better life they should have worked harder for it.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]