High economic inequality leads higher-income individuals to be less generous
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Côté, House, and Willer (2015) showed that higher-income respondents were only less generous in the offers they made to an anonymous other in a dictator game than their lower-income counterparts in areas that were high in economic inequality, as reflected in the Gini coefficient.
“Côté, House, and Willer (2015), who analysed results from a nationally representative US survey and showed that higher‐income respondents were only less generous in the offers they made to an anonymous other in a dictator game than their lower‐income counterparts in areas that were high in economic inequality, as reflected in the Gini coefficient.”
From The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings, and behaviour (2018) · cites this paper as Côté, House, and Willer (2015)
Cites
Building a Better America—One Wealth Quintile at a Time
Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. (2011) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691610393524 · Cited by 1,119 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings, and behaviour
Manstead, A. S. R. (2018) · British Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjso.12251 · Cited by 831 · see citing works
“There is also evidence that high economic inequality increases the tendency for high-income people to be less generous to others (Côt e et al., 2015), but these are influences that need further examination.”
BackgroundSigns of Social Class: The Experience of Economic Inequality in Everyday Life
Kraus, M. W., Park, J. W., & Tan, J. J. X. (2017) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691616673192 · Cited by 288 · see citing works
- Authors
- Côté, S., House, J., & Willer, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Toronto (CA)
- Stanford University (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2015-11-23
- Volume
- 112
- Issue
- 52
- Pages
- 15838-15843
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC4702979
- OpenAlex
- W330766106
- Cited by
- 295
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 52.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Income, Poverty, and Inequality
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
- Keywords
- economic inequality, generosity, social class, income, entitlement, donation behavior, state-level inequality, social welfare (welfare economics), selfishness
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Income, Male, Middle Aged, Poverty, Surveys and Questionnaires, Social Welfare, Socioeconomic Factors, United States, Linear Models, 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