CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,478Social Power and Status DynamicsSocial and Intergroup PsychologyNonprofit Sector and Volunteering

Having less, giving more: The influence of social class on prosocial behavior.

Piff, Paul K., Kraus, Michael W., Côté, Stéphane, Cheng, Bonnie Hayden, Keltner, Dacher·2010·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
DOI 10.1037/a0020092
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Lower social class (or socioeconomic status) is associated with fewer resources, greater exposure to threat, and a reduced sense of personal control. Given these life circumstances, one might expect lower class individuals to engage in less prosocial behavior, prioritizing self-interest over the welfare of others. The authors hypothesized, by contrast, that lower class individuals orient to the welfare of others as a means to adapt to their more hostile environments and that this orientation gives rise to greater prosocial behavior. Across 4 studies, lower class individuals proved to be more generous (Study 1), charitable (Study 2), trusting (Study 3), and helpful (Study 4) compared with their upper class counterparts. Mediator and moderator data showed that lower class individuals acted in a more prosocial fashion because of a greater commitment to egalitarian values and feelings of compassion. Implications for social class, prosocial behavior, and economic inequality are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0020092

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Lower-class participants showed greater trust in their anonymous partner than higher-class counterparts, and this relation was mediated by egalitarian values.

    “lower‐class participants showed greater trust in their anonymous partner than did their higher‐class counterparts, and this relation was mediated by egalitarian values.”

    From The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings, and behaviour (2018) · cites this paper as Piff et al. (2010)

  • Piff et al. (2010) found a consistent tendency for higher-class individuals to be less inclined to help others than lower-class counterparts.

    “Piff, Kraus, Côté, Cheng, and Keltner (2010) found a consistent tendency for higher‐class individuals to be less inclined to help others than were their lower‐class counterparts.”

    From The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings, and behaviour (2018) · cites this paper as Piff, Kraus, Côté, Cheng, and Keltner (2010)

  • Participants low in subjective social class made larger allocations in a dictator game than participants high in subjective social class.

    “In Study 1, participants low in subjective social class made larger allocations in a dictator game (a game where you are free to allocate as much or as little of a resource to another person as you want) played with an anonymous other than did participants high in subjective social class.”

    From The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings, and behaviour (2018) · cites this paper as Piff et al. (2010)

  • Overall, the four studies are consistent in showing that, relative to higher-class people, lower-class people are more generous, support charity to a greater extent, are more trusting towards a stranger, and more likely to help a person in distress.

    “Overall, these four studies are consistent in showing that, relative to higher‐class people, lower‐class people are more generous, support charity to a greater extent, are more trusting towards a stranger, and more likely to help a person in distress.”

    From The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings, and behaviour (2018) · cites this paper as Piff et al. (2010)

  • Helping was moderated by compassion among higher-class participants, while lower-class participants were already disposed to help.

    “The researchers predicted that helping would only be moderated by compassion among higher‐class participants, on the grounds that lower‐class participants would already be disposed to help, and the results were consistent with this prediction.”

    From The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings, and behaviour (2018) · cites this paper as Piff et al. (2010)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Piff, P. K., Kraus, M. W., Côté, S., Cheng, B. H., & Keltner, D.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2010
Volume
99
Issue
5
Pages
771-784
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
DOI
10.1037/a0020092
OpenAlex
W2130339726
Cited by
1,478
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 61 · 2025: 118 · 2024: 115 · 2023: 144 · 2022: 134 · 2021: 142 · 2020: 158 · 2019: 104 · 2018: 86 · 2017: 93 · 2016: 81 · 2015: 81 · 2014: 60 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 36
FWCI
106.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Metanexus Institute on Religion, Science and the Humanities
  • John Templeton Foundation
  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Nonprofit Sector and Volunteering
Keywords
social class, socioeconomic status, prosocial behavior, generosity, charitable giving, trust, helpfulness, egalitarian values, compassion, economic inequality, threat exposure, personal control
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Empathy, Female, Games, Experimental, Helping Behavior, Humans, Income, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Sex Factors, Social Behavior, Social Class, Social Values, Socioeconomic Factors, Trust, Gift Giving, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review