How kind of you
High economic inequality leads higher-income individuals to be less generous
Stéphane Côté, Julian House & Robb Willer
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, forthcoming
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.
---------------------
Fostering selflessness through I-sharing
Mark Huneke & Elizabeth Pinel
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, March 2016, Pages 10–18
Abstract:
Although previous research has shown that perceived objective similarity (Me-sharing) and perceived subjective similarity (I-sharing) both increase liking for strangers, perceived subjective similarity may have a unique effect on selflessness. Study 1 addressed this possibility by focusing on whether I-sharing (but not Me-sharing) promotes greater willingness to share a desired good. After interacting with three ostensible partners (an I-sharer, a Me-sharer, and a Not Similar Other), participants indicated their liking for each of these partners and distributed a desired good between themselves and each partner. Although participants reported higher liking for both the I-sharer and the Me-sharer than for the dissimilar other, when it came to the allocation of the desired good, they showed generosity only to the I-sharer. Study 2 addressed questions lingering from Study 1 by manipulating I-sharing and Me-sharing in a between participants design, by equalizing the importance of the I-sharing and Me-sharing dimensions, and by looking at a separate indicator of selflessness (i.e., helping intentions). Results conceptually replicated those of Study 1, with participants reporting significantly higher helping intentions when they I-shared with their partner than when they Me-shared with their partner (even though participants reported equivalent levels of liking in both partner conditions). Taken, together these findings suggest that subjective similarity contributes uniquely to a person's ability to behave selflessly.
---------------------
Finding Excuses To Decline the Ask: A Field Experiment
Christine Exley & Ragan Petrie
Harvard Working Paper, September 2015
Abstract:
In an online contest, individuals are asked to donate to their favorite animal group after voting for them. By varying whether or not asking for a donation is expected, we can investigate if individuals are less likely to give when they expect the ask. In a baseline treatment, we confirm that individuals are significantly less likely to click to donate if they expect to be asked for a donation. The proportion that clicks declines by 20%. We propose an explanation for these findings: when individuals expect to be asked to give, they may develop excuses not to give. Additional treatments show that individuals also avoid information as an excuse not to give.
---------------------
The Neuropeptide Oxytocin Induces a Social Altruism Bias
Nina Marsh et al.
Journal of Neuroscience, 25 November 2015, Pages 15696-15701
Abstract:
Current psychological concepts of social and ecological responsibility emphasize the relevance of altruism, suggesting that more altruistic individuals are more likely to engage in sustainable behaviors. Emerging evidence indicates a central role of the neuropeptide oxytocin in promoting altruism. Whether this influence extends to ecological responsibility or is limited to the social domain remains unknown. In two independent experiments involving 172 human participants, we addressed this question by exposing subjects to a sustainability-related monetary donation task, with the option to support either socially or ecologically framed charities. We found that oxytocin induced a context-dependent change in altruistic behavior away from pro-environmental toward pro-social donations, while keeping constant the overall proportion of donated money. This pro-social bias transcended to the domain of sustainable consumption. Collectively, our findings demonstrate that altruistic priorities vary as a function of oxytocin system activity, which has implications for the promotion of pro-environmental attitudes and eco-friendly behaviors.
---------------------
Warm glow of giving collectively – An experimental study
Ivo Bischoff & Thomas Krauskopf
Journal of Economic Psychology, December 2015, Pages 210–218
Abstract:
We report on an experiment to test for a warm glow of giving collectively. Comparing subjects’ affective state before and after the experiment, we find that individual charitable donations create a feeling of warm glow while collective donations do not. Proposing to donate the full endowment collectively improves subjects’ affective state significantly, though the behavioral data suggests that this result cannot be explained by the notion of expressive voting. We also find that subjects who consider Kant’s Categorical Imperative to be an important guideline for individual decisions are more likely to donate the full endowment to charity. This result supports the notion of Kantian thinking as an independent factor explaining cooperative behavior (Roemer, 2014).