Social Class and Prosocial Behavior: The Moderating Role of Public Versus Private Contexts
Abstract
Associations between social class and prosocial behavior—defined broadly as action intended to help others—may vary as a function of contextual factors. Three studies examined how making prosocial actions public, versus private, moderates this association. In Study 1, participation in a public prosocial campaign was higher among upper than lower class individuals. In Studies 2 and 3, lower class individuals were more prosocial in a dictator game scenario in private than in public, whereas upper class individuals showed the reverse pattern. Follow-up analyses revealed the importance of reputational concerns for shaping class differences in prosociality: Specifically, higher class individuals reported that pride motivated their prosocial behavior more than lower class individuals, and this association partially accounted for class-based differences in prosociality in public versus private contexts. Together, these results suggest that unique strategies for connecting and relating to others develop based on one’s position in the class hierarchy.
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?
Lower-class participants were more generous in private than in public, whereas the reverse was true for higher-class participants.
“Lower‐class participants were more generous in private than in public, whereas the reverse was true for higher‐class participants.”
From The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings, and behaviour (2018) · cites this paper as Kraus and Callaghan (2016)
Higher-class participants were more likely to expect to feel proud about acting prosocially, and this difference in anticipated pride mediated the effect of social class on the difference between public and private donations.
“higher‐class participants were more likely to expect to feel proud about acting prosocially, and this difference in anticipated pride mediated the effect of social class on the difference between public and private donations.”
From The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings, and behaviour (2018) · cites this paper as Kraus and Callaghan (2016)
Kraus and Callaghan (2016) argued that the relation between social class and prosocial behaviour is moderated by a number of factors, including whether the context is public or private.
“One way to resolve these apparently discrepant findings is to argue, as Kraus and Callaghan (2016) did, that the relation between social class and prosocial behaviour is moderated by a number of factors, including whether the context is a public or private one.”
From The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings, and behaviour (2018) · cites this paper as Kraus and Callaghan (2016)
Cites
Morris, S. B., & DeShon, R. P. (2002) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.105 · Cited by 2,502 · see citing works
Compassion: an evolutionary analysis and empirical review
Goetz, J. L., Keltner, D., & Simon-Thomas, E. (2010) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0018807 · Cited by 2,200 · see citing works
Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.11.2.142 · Cited by 1,704 · see citing works
Social Class, Contextualism, and Empathic Accuracy
Kraus, M. W., Côté, S., & Keltner, D. (2010) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797610387613 · Cited by 663 · see citing works
Self-citation
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
“One way to resolve these apparently discrepant findings is to argue, as Kraus and Callaghan (2016) did, that the relation between social class and prosocial behaviour is moderated by a number of factors, including whether the context is a public or private one.”
BackgroundResultVan Bavel, J. J., Robertson, C. E., del Rosario, K., Rasmussen, J., & Rathje, S. (2024) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-022123-110258 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Cha, M.-K., Yi, Y., & Lee, J. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.02.039 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Wang, T., Wang, X., Jiang, T., Wang, S., & Chen, Z. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18063170 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kraus, M. W., & Callaghan, B.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kraus, Michael W.
- Venue
- Social Psychological and Personality Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-07-19
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 769-777
- ISSN
- 1948-5506 (ISSN-L)
- 1948-5514
- OpenAlex
- W2490146414
- Cited by
- 119
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 23.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Social Psychological and Personality Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Keywords
- social class, prosocial behavior, dictator game, reputational concerns, pride, class hierarchy, contextual moderators
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
