Psychology of Money

Study: The Rich Really Are More Selfish

By Brad Tuttle

August 12, 2011

“Lower-class” individuals – i.e., folks without much money
or education – demonstrate more compassion and empathy than
their wealthy counterparts, according to a series of psychological
studies. In social scientist speech, “self-oriented behavior” is
more likely to be exhibited by people with good education,
prestigious jobs, high income, and overall higher-ranking social
status.
How you rank in society purportedly has a lot to do with
how much you care about your fellow man. That’s the gist of
“Social Class as Culture: The Convergence of Resources and
Rank in the Social Realm,” a new paper written by University of
California psychologists and social scientists published in the
academic journal Current Directions in Psychological Science.
The authors write that one’s sense of social class – derived
mainly from income and education – “exerts broad influences on
social thought, emotion, and behavior.” Using various tests that
measure empathy, those who perceive themselves among the
lower classes demonstrate “heightened vigilance of the social
context and an other-focused social orientation.” In other words,
poorer, less well-educated individuals tend to notice, and care
more about the people around them. “Upper-class rank
perceptions,” on the other hand, “trigger a focus away from the
context toward the self, prioritizing self-interest.”
How the heck can researchers measure something like
empathy? One study, for instance, asked participants to identify
the emotions on display in photos of people with different facial
expressions. Those with high-school-only educations showed
“greater empathetic accuracy” than participants with college
educations.The paper also claims that people with less education and
less money tend to be more generous with what money they do
have. When the question is posed regarding how much people
should give to charity, “lower-class” ranks suggest a higher
percentage of one’s income than the percentage recommended by
the wealthy.
Another study cited in the paper involved giving participants
10 points, which would later be traded in for money. The
individuals given the points were to divide them up between
themselves and an anonymous partner. Guess who shared more
of their points?
We found that individuals reporting lower subjective
socioeconomic status gave more to their partner than did uppersocioeconomic-
status participants. In this context, the next time
you’re called “low-class,” consider it a compliment.
(http://moneyland.time.com. Adaptado.)

According to the paper mentioned in the text,