8/22/2019 Higher Social Class Unethical Behavior

1/6

Higher social class predicts increasedunethical behaviorPaul K. Piffa,1, Daniel M. Stancatoa, Stphane Ctb, Rodolfo Mendoza-Dentona, and Dacher Keltnera

aDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720; and bRotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON,Canada M5S 3E6

Edited* by Richard E. Nisbett, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, and approved January 26, 2012 (received for review November 8, 2011)

Seven studies using experimental and naturalistic methods reveal

that upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-

class individuals. In studies 1 and 2, upper-class individuals were

more likely to break the law while driving, relative to lower-class

individuals. In follow-up laboratory studies, upper-class individuals

were more likely to exhibit unethical decision-making tendencies(study 3),take valued goods fromothers(study4), liein a negotiation

(study 5), cheatto increase their chances of winninga prize(study 6),

and endorse unethical behavior at work (study 7) than were lower-

class individuals. Mediator and moderator data demonstrated that

upper-class individuals unethical tendencies are accounted for, inpart, by their more favorable attitudes toward greed.

socioeconomic status | immoral action | ethical judgment | self-interest

Which social class is the more likely provenance of unethicalbehavior, the upper class or the lower class? Examininghow social class is associated with unethical behavior, or actionsthat harm others and are illegal or morally objectionable to onescommunity (1), would shed light on behaviors such as cheating,deception, or breaking the law that have important consequencesfor society. On the one hand, lower-class individuals live in en-

vironments defined by fewer resources, greater threat, and moreuncertainty (2, 3). It stands to reason, therefore, that lower-classindividuals may be more motivated to behave unethically to in-crease their resources or overcome their disadvantage.

A second line of reasoning, however, suggests the opposite

prediction: namely, that the upper class may be more disposed tothe unethical. Greater resources, freedom, and independencefrom others among the upper class give rise to self-focused social-cognitive tendencies (37), which we predict will facilitate un-ethical behavior. Historical observation lends credence to thisidea. For example, the recent economic crisis has been attributedin part to the unethical actions of the wealthy (8). Religiousteachings extol the poor and admonish the rich with claims like, It

will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven (9).Building upon past findings, in the present investigation we tested

whether upper-class individualsrelative to lower-class individu-alsare more likely to engage in unethical behavior, and whethertheir attitudes toward greed might help explain this tendency.

Social class, or socioeconomic status (SES), refers to an in-

dividuals rank vis--vis others in society in terms of wealth, oc-cupational prestige, and education (2, 3). Abundant resources

and elevated rank allow upper-class individuals increased free-dom and independence (4), giving rise to self-focused patterns ofsocial cognition and behavior (3). Relative to lower-class indi-

viduals, upper-class individuals have been shown to be less cog-nizant of others (4) and worse at identifying the emotions thatothers feel (5). Furthermore, upper-class individuals are moredisengaged during social interactionsfor example, checkingtheir cell phones or doodling on a questionnairecompared

with their lower-class peers (6).Individuals from upper-class backgrounds are also less gener-

ous and altruistic. In one study, upper-class individuals provedmore selfish in an economic game, keeping significantly morelaboratory creditswhich they believed would later be exchanged

for cashthan did lower-class participants, who shared moreof their credits with a stranger (7). These results parallel na-tionwide survey data showing that upper-class households donatea smaller proportion of their incomes to charity than do lower-class households (10). These findings suggest that upper-classindividuals are particularly likely to value their own welfare overthe welfare of others and, thus, may hold more positive attitudestoward greed.

Greed, in turn, is a robust determinant of unethical behavior.Plato and Aristotle deemed greed to be at the root of personalimmorality, arguing that greed drives desires for material gain atthe expense of ethical standards (11, 12). Research finds thatindividuals motivated by greed tend to abandon moral principlesin their pursuit of self-interest (13). In one study, a financialincentive caused people to be more willing to deceive and cheatothers for personal gain (14). In another study, the mere pres-ence of money led individuals to be more likely to cheat in ananagram task to receive a larger financial reward (1). Greedleads to reduced concern for how ones behavior affects othersand motivates greater unethical action.

We reason that increased resources and independence fromothers cause people to prioritize self-interest over others welfareand perceive greed as positive and beneficial, which in turn givesrise to increased unethical behavior. We predict that, given theirabundant resources and increased independence, upper-classindividuals should demonstrate greater unethical behavior andthat one important reason for this tendency is that upper-class

individuals hold more favorable attitudes toward greed.We conducted seven studies using university, community, andnationwide samples to test this general prediction. Throughoutthis research, we sought to generalize our results across oper-ationalizations of social class, using both self-report and objectiveassessments of unethical behavior, and while controlling for al-ternative explanations of the results concerned with character-istics related to social class (e.g., age, ethnicity, religiosity). Instudies 13, we tested whether higher social class is linked to moreunethical behaviors in naturalistic settings (behavior while driv-ing) and unethical responding to various ethical judgments. Instudy 4, we extended our research by examining whether experi-mentally primed higher and lower social-class mindsets causedifferent levels of unethical judgment and behavior. In studies 57, we examined whether more positive attitudes toward greed

help explain why higher social class relates to greater unethicality.

Results

Studies 1 and 2. Our first two studies were naturalistic fieldstudies, and examined whether upper-class individuals behave

Author contributions: P.K.P., D.M.S., S.C., and D.K. designed research; P.K.P. and D.M.S.

performed research; P.K.P. analyzed data; and P.K.P., D.M.S., S.C., R.M.-D., and D.K. wrote

the paper.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

*This Direct Submission article had a prearranged editor.

1To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: paulpiff@gmail.com.

This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.

1073/pnas.1118373109/-/DCSupplemental.

40864091 | PNAS | March 13, 2012 | vol. 109 | no. 11 www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1118373109

mailto:paulpiff@gmail.comhttp://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1118373109/-/DCSupplementalhttp://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1118373109/-/DCSupplementalhttp://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1118373109http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1118373109http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1118373109/-/DCSupplementalhttp://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1118373109/-/DCSupplementalmailto:paulpiff@gmail.com

8/22/2019 Higher Social Class Unethical Behavior

2/6

more unethically than lower-class individuals while driving. Instudy 1, we investigated whether upper-class drivers were morelikely to cut off other vehicles at a busy four-way intersection

with stop signs on all sides. As vehicles are reliable indicators ofa persons social rank and wealth (15), we used observers codesof vehicle status (make, age, and appearance) to index driverssocial class. Observers stood near the intersection, coded thestatus of approaching vehicles, and recorded whether the drivercut off other vehicles by crossing the intersection before waiting

their turn, a behavior that defies the California Vehicle Code. Inthe present study, 12.4% of drivers cut in front of other vehicles.

A binary logistic regression indicated that upper-class driverswere the most likely to cut off other vehicles at the intersection,even when controlling for time of day, drivers perceived sex andage, and amount of traffic, b = 0.36, SE b = 0.18, P < 0.05.Percentages of cars that cut off other vehicles as a function of

vehicle status are shown in Fig. 1A.In study 2, we tested whether upper-class drivers are more likely

to cut off pedestrians at a crosswalk. An observer positioned him-or herself outof plain sight at a marked crosswalk, coded the statusof a vehicle, and recorded whether the driver cut off a pedestrian(a confederate of the study) attempting to cross the intersection.Cutting off a pedestrian violates California Vehicle Code. In this

study, 34.9% of drivers failed to yield to the pedestrian. A binarylogistic regression with time of day, drivers perceived age and sex,and confederate sex entered as covariates indicated that upper-class drivers were significantly more likely to drive through thecrosswalk without yielding to the waiting pedestrian, b = 0.39, SEb = 0.19, P< 0.05. Percentages of cars that cut off the pedestrianas a function of vehicle status are shown in Fig. 1B.

Study 3. Study 3 extended these findings by using a more directmeasure of social class and assessing tendencies toward a varietyof unethical decisions. Participants read eight different scenariosthat implicated an actor in unrightfully taking or benefiting fromsomething, and reported the likelihood that they would engage

in the behavior described (16). Participants also reported theirsocial class using the MacArthur scale of subjective SES (2). Thismeasure parallels objective, resource-based measures of socialclass in its relationship to health (2), social cognition (4), andinterpersonal behavior (7). As hypothesized, social class posi-tively predicted unethical decision-making tendencies, even aftercontrolling for ethnicity, sex, and age, b = 0.13, SE b = 0.06, t(103) = 2.05, P < 0.04. These results suggest that upper-classindividuals are more likely to exhibit tendencies to act unethi-

cally compared with lower-class individuals.

Study 4. Study 4 sought to provide experimental evidence that theexperience of higher social class has a causal effect on unethicaldecision-making and behavior. We adopted a paradigm used inpast research to activate higher or lower social-class mindsets andexamine their effects on behavior (5, 7). Participants experiencedeither a low or high relative social-class rank by comparingthemselves to people with the most (least) money, most (least)education, and most (least) respected jobs. Participants also ratedtheir position in the socioeconomic hierarchy relative to peopleat the very top or bottom. This induction primes subjective per-ceptions of relatively high or low social-class rank. In this priorresearch, as expected, manipulations of perceived social-classrank influenced generosity (7) and the ability to identify othersemotions (5). Participants completed a series offiller measures,

which included the measure of unethical decision-making ten-dencies used in study 3 (16). Our main dependent variable wasa behavioral measure of unethical tendencies. Specifically, at theend of the study, the experimenter presented participants witha jar of individually wrapped candies, ostensibly for children ina nearby laboratory, but informed them that they could take someif they wanted. This task was adapted from prior research onentitlement (17) and served as our measure of unethical behaviorbecause taking candy would reduce the amount that would oth-erwise be given to children. Participants completed unrelatedtasks and then reported the number of candies they had taken.

The manipulation of social-class rank was successful: Partic-ipants in the upper-class rank condition (M = 6.96) reported

a social-class rank signifi

cantly above participants in the lower-class rank condition (M = 6.00), t(127) = 3.51, P < 0.01, d =0.62. Central to our hypothesis, participants in the upper-classrank condition took more candy that would otherwise go tochildren (M = 1.17) than did those in the lower-rank condition(M = 0.60), t(124) = 3.18, P < 0.01, d = 0.57. Furthermore,replicating the findings from study 3, those in the upper-rankcondition also reported increased unethical decision-makingtendencies (M = 4.29) than participants in the lower-class rankcondition (M = 3.90), t(125) = 2.31, P< 0.03, d = 0.41. Theseresults extend the findings of studies 13 by suggesting that theexperience of higher social class has a causal relationship tounethical decision-making and behavior.

Study 5. Study 5 focused on positive attitudes toward greed as one

mediating mechanism to explain why people from upper-classbackgrounds behave in a more unethical fashion. Participantstook part in a hypothetical negotiation, assuming the role of anemployer tasked with negotiating a salary with a job candidateseeking long-term employment (14). Participants were givenseveral pieces of information, including the fact that the job

would soon be eliminated. Participants reported the percentagechance they would tell the job candidate the truth about jobstability. Participants also reported their social class using theMacArthur scale (2) and completed a measure of the extent to

which they believed it is justified and moral to be greedy (18).We first tested the associations between social class, attitudes

toward greed, and probability of telling the job candidate thetruth, while accounting for participant age, sex, and ethnicity, as

well as religiosity and political orientation, variables that can

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1 2 3 4 5

Cut(%)

Vehicle Status

A

(n = 26) (n = 33) (n = 114) (n = 74) (n = 27)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1 2 3 4 5

Cut(%)

Vehicle Status

B

(n = 5) (n = 28) (n = 61) (n = 45) (n = 13)

Fig. 1. Percentage of cars that cut off (i) other vehicles at the four-way in-tersection (from study 1) (A) o r (ii) thepedestrianat thecrosswalk (from study2) (B), as a function of vehicle status (1 = lowest status, 5 = highest status).

Piff et al. PNAS | March 13, 2012 | vol. 109 | no. 11 | 4087

PSYCHOLOGICALAND

8/22/2019 Higher Social Class Unethical Behavior

3/6

influence unethical behavior (19). Social class negatively pre-dicted probability of telling the truth, b = 4.55, SE b = 1.90,t(103) = 2.39, P < 0.02, and positively predicted favorableattitudes toward greed, b = 0.16, SE b = 0.04, t(103) = 3.54, P