CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 255Nonprofit Sector and VolunteeringExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesSocial Power and Status Dynamics

A Large Scale Test of the Effect of Social Class on Prosocial Behavior

Open access
Korndörfer, Martin, Egloff, Boris, Schmukle, Stefan C.·2015·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0133193PMC PMC4507988
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Does being from a higher social class lead a person to engage in more or less prosocial behavior? Psychological research has recently provided support for a negative effect of social class on prosocial behavior. However, research outside the field of psychology has mainly found evidence for positive or u-shaped relations. In the present research, we therefore thoroughly examined the effect of social class on prosocial behavior. Moreover, we analyzed whether this effect was moderated by the kind of observed prosocial behavior, the observed country, and the measure of social class. Across eight studies with large and representative international samples, we predominantly found positive effects of social class on prosociality: Higher class individuals were more likely to make a charitable donation and contribute a higher percentage of their family income to charity (32,090 ≥ N ≥ 3,957; Studies 1-3), were more likely to volunteer (37,136 ≥N ≥ 3,964; Studies 4-6), were more helpful (N = 3,902; Study 7), and were more trusting and trustworthy in an economic game when interacting with a stranger (N = 1,421; Study 8) than lower social class individuals. Although the effects of social class varied somewhat across the kinds of prosocial behavior, countries, and measures of social class, under no condition did we find the negative effect that would have been expected on the basis of previous results reported in the psychological literature. Possible explanations for this divergence and implications are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0133193

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Korndörfer, Egloff, and Schmukle (2015) found contrary evidence to the reliability of the finding that lower-class people are more prosocial.

    “The reliability of this finding has been called into question by Korndörfer, Egloff, and Schmukle (2015), who found contrary evidence in a series of studies.”

    From The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings, and behaviour (2018) · cites this paper as Korndörfer, Egloff, and Schmukle (2015)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 105

  1. [1]Piff PK, Kraus MW, Côté S, Cheng BH, Keltner D (2010) Having less, giving more: The influence of social class on prosocial behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol 99 (5): 771– 784. 10.1037/a0020092 20649364 · DOI · Paper page
  2. [2]Guinote A, Cotzia I, Sandhu S, Siwa P (2015) Social status modulates prosocial behavior and egalitarianism in preschool children and adults. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112 (3): 731– 736. 10.1073/pnas.1414550112 25561527 PMC4311842 · DOI
  3. [3]Chen Y, Zhu L, Chen Z (2013) Family income affects children’s altruistic behavior in the Dictator Game. PLoS ONE 8 (11): e80419 10.1371/journal.pone.0080419 24265820 PMC3827203 · DOI
  4. [4]Kraus MW, Piff PK, Mendoza-Denton R, Rheinschmidt ML, Keltner D (2012) Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: How the rich are different from the poor. Psychol Rev 119 (3): 546– 572. 10.1037/a0028756 22775498 · DOI · Paper page
  5. [5]Keltner D, Kogan A, Piff PK, Saturn SR (2014) The sociocultural appraisals, values, and emotions (SAVE) framework of prosociality: Core processes from gene to meme. Annu Rev Psychol 65: 425– 460. 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115054 24405363 · DOI · Paper page
  6. [8]Gittell R, Tebaldi E (2006) Charitable giving: Factors influencing giving in U.S. states. Nonprof Volunt Sec Q 35 (4): 721– 736.
  7. [9]Hughes P, Luksetich W (2007) Income volatility and wealth: The effect on charitable giving. Nonprof Volunt Sec Q 37 (2): 264– 280.
  8. [10]Ramirez-Valles J (2006) Volunteering in public health: An analysis of volunteers’ characteristics and activities. Int J Vol Admin 24 (2): 15– 24.
  9. [12]Bonett DG (2012) Replication-extension studies. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 21 (6): 409– 412.
  10. [13]Schmidt S (2009) Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences. Rev Gen Psychol 13 (2): 90– 100.
  11. [15]Gallo LC, Bogart LM, Vranceanu A, Matthews KA (2005) Socioeconomic status, resources, psychological experiences, and emotional responses: A test of the reserve capacity model. J Pers Soc Psychol 88 (2): 386– 399. 15841865
  12. [16]Kraus MW, Horberg EJ, Goetz JL, Keltner D (2011) Social class rank, threat vigilance, and hostile reactivity. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 37 (10): 1376– 1388. 10.1177/0146167211410987 21653579 · DOI
  13. [17]Oakes JM, Rossi PH (2003) The measurement of SES in health research: Current practice and steps toward a new approach. Soc Sci Med 56 (4): 769– 784. 12560010
  14. [21]Specht J, Egloff B, Schmukle SC (2013) Everything under control? The effects of age, gender, and education on trajectories of perceived control in a nationally representative German sample. Dev Psychol 49 (2): 353– 364. 10.1037/a0028243 22545833 · DOI
  15. [22]Kraus MW, Keltner D (2009) Signs of socioeconomic status: A thin-slicing approach. Psychol Sci 20 (1): 99– 106. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02251.x 19076316 · DOI
  16. [24]Oveis C, Horberg EJ, Keltner D (2010) Compassion, pride, and social intuitions of self-other similarity. J Pers Soc Psychol 98 (4): 618– 630. 10.1037/a0017628 20307133 · DOI
  17. [25]van Kleef GA, Oveis C, van der Löwe I, LuoKogan A, Goetz J, Keltner D (2008) Power, distress, and compassion: Turning a blind eye to the suffering of others. Psychol Sci 19 (12): 1315– 1322. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02241.x 19121143 · DOI · Paper page
  18. [27]Blanco C, Grant J, Petry NM, Simpson HB, Alegria A, Liu SM (2008) Prevalence and correlates of shoplifting in the United States: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC). Am J Psychiat 165 (7): 905– 913. 10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.07101660 18381900 PMC4104590 · DOI
  19. [29]Johns A, Slemrod J (2010) The distribution of income tax noncompliance. Natl Tax J 63 (3): 397– 418.
  20. [30]Piff PK, Stancato DM, Côté S, Mendoza-Denton R, Keltner D (2012) Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109 (11): 4086– 4091. 10.1073/pnas.1118373109 22371585 PMC3306667 · DOI · Paper page
  21. [31]Côté S, Piff PK, Willer R (2013) For whom do the ends justify the means? Social class and utilitarian moral judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol 104 (3): 490– 503. 10.1037/a0030931 23276265 · DOI
  22. [32]Kraus MW, Callaghan B (2014) Noblesse oblige? Social status and economic inequality maintenance among politicians. PLoS ONE 9 (1): e85293 10.1371/journal.pone.0085293 24465526 PMC3897426 · DOI
  23. [33]Kraus MW, Keltner D (2013) Social class rank, essentialism, and punitive judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol 105 (2): 247– 261. 10.1037/a0032895 23713698 · DOI
  24. [34]Piff PK (2014) Wealth and the inflated self: Class, entitlement, and narcissism. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 40 (1): 34– 43. 10.1177/0146167213501699 23963971 · DOI
  25. [35]Stellar JE, Manzo VM, Kraus MW, Keltner D (2012) Class and compassion: Socioeconomic factors predict responses to suffering. Emotion 12 (3): 449– 459. 10.1037/a0026508 22148992 · DOI
  26. [36]James RN, Sharpe DL (2007) The nature and causes of the U-shaped charitable giving profile. Nonprof Volunt Sec Q 36 (2): 218– 238.
  27. [37]Rajan SS, Pink GH, Dow WH (2009) Sociodemographic and personality characteristics of canadian donors contributing to international charity. Nonprof Volunt Sec Q 38 (3): 413– 440.
  28. [38]Reed PB, Selbee LK (2001) The civic core in Canada: Disproportionality in charitable giving, volunteering, and civic participation. Nonprof Volunt Sec Q 30 (4): 761– 780.
  29. [39]Lee Y, Chang C (2007) Who gives what to charity? Characteristics affecting donation behavior. Soc Behav Pers 35 (9): 1173– 1180.
  30. [41]Trautmann ST, van de Kuilen G, Zeckhauser RJ (2013) Social class and (un)ethical behavior: A framework, with evidence from a large population sample. Perspect Psychol Sci 8 (5): 487– 497. 26173207
  31. [43]Schervish PG, Havens JJ (1995) Do the poor pay more: Is the U-shaped curve correct. Nonprof Volunt Sec Q 24 (1): 79– 90.
  32. [44]Schervish PG, Havens JJ (1995) Explaining the curve in the U-shaped curve. Voluntas 6 (2): 202– 225.
  33. [48]Asendorpf JB, Conner M, de Fruyt F, de Houwer J, Denissen JJA, Fiedler K et al (2013) Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology. Eur J Personality 27 (2): 108– 119.
  34. [49]Francis G (2012) Too good to be true: Publication bias in two prominent studies from experimental psychology. Psychon B Rev 19 (2): 151– 156. 22351589
  35. [50]Francis G (2014) The frequency of excess success for articles in Psychological Science. Psychon B Rev 21 (5): 1180– 1187. 24638826
  36. [52]Maxwell SE (2004) The persistence of underpowered studies in psychological research: Causes, consequences, and remedies. Psychol Methods 9 (2): 147– 163. 15137886
  37. [53]Francis G (2012) Evidence that publication bias contaminated studies relating social class and unethical behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109 (25): E1587; author reply E1588. 10.1073/pnas.1203591109 22615347 PMC3382534 · DOI
  38. [54]Piff PK, Stancato DM, Cote S, Mendoza-Denton R, Keltner D (2012) Reply to Francis: Cumulative power calculations are faulty when based on observed power and a small sample of studies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109 (25): E1588.
  39. [55]Francis G (2012) Checking the counterarguments confirms that publication bias contaminated studies relating social class and unethical behavior. Available: http://www1.psych.purdue.edu/~gfrancis/Publications/FrancisRebuttal2012.pdf. Accessed 22 February 2013. PMC3382534 22615347
  40. [57]Greenwald AG, Pratkanis AR, Leippe MR, Baumgardner MH (1986) Under what conditions does theory obstruct research progress. Psychol Rev 93 (2): 216– 229. 3714929
  41. [59]Batson CD, Powell AA (2003) Altruism and prosocial behavior In: Millon T, Lerner MJ, editors. Handbook of psychology. Personality and social psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley pp. 463– 484.
  42. [60]Caprara GV, Alessandri G, Eisenberg N (2012) Prosociality: The contribution of traits, values, and self-efficacy beliefs. J Pers Soc Psychol 102 (6): 1289– 1303. 10.1037/a0025626 21942280 · DOI
  43. [61]Penner LA, Dovidio JF, Piliavin JA, Schroeder DA (2005) Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annu Rev Psychol 56 (1): 365– 392. 15709940
  44. [62]Benenson JF, Pascoe J, Radmore N (2007) Children's altruistic behavior in the dictator game. Evol Hum Behav 28 (3): 168– 175.
  45. [63]Kaufmann F (2013) Variations of the welfare state Great Britain, Sweden, France and Germany between capitalism and socialism. Heidelberg: Springer.
  46. [64]Brooks AC (2004) The effects of public policy on private charity. Admin Soc 36 (2): 166– 185.
  47. [65]Curhan KB, Levine CS, Markus HR, Kitayama S, Park J, Karasawa M et al (2014) Subjective and objective hierarchies and their relations to psychological well-being: A U.S./Japan comparison. Soc Psychol Pers Sci 5 (8): 855– 864. PMC4266948 25530829
  48. [66]Grossmann I, Na J (2014) Research in culture and psychology: Past lessons and future challenges. WIREs Cogn Sci 5 (1): 1– 14. 26304293
  49. [67]Park J, Kitayama S, Markus HR, Coe CL, Miyamoto Y, Karasawa M et al (2013) Social status and anger expression: The cultural moderation hypothesis. Emotion 13 (6): 1122– 1131. 10.1037/a0034273 24098926 PMC3859704 · DOI
  50. [68]Ariely D, Mann H (2013) A bird's eye view of unethical behavior: Commentary on Trautmann et al (2013). Perspect Psychol Sci 8 (5): 498– 500. 26173208
  51. [69]Adler NE, Epel ES, Castellazzo G, Ickovics JR (2000) Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, White women. Health Psychol 19 (6): 586– 592. 11129362
  52. [70]Diemer MA, Mistry RS, Wadsworth ME, López I, Reimers F (2013) Best practices in conceptualizing and measuring social class in psychological research. Soc Iss Pub Pol 13 (1): 77– 113.
  53. [73]Kraus MW, Tan JJX, Tannenbaum MB (2013) The social ladder: A rank-based perspective on social class. Psychol Inq 24 (2): 81– 96.
  54. [74]Singh-Manoux A, Adler NE, Marmot MG (2003) Subjective social status: Its determinants and its association with measures of ill-health in the Whitehall II study. Soc Sci Med 56 (6): 1321– 1333. 12600368
  55. [75]Diemer MA, Ali RS (2009) Integrating social class into vocational psychology: Theory and practice implications. J Career Assessment 17 (3): 247– 265.
  56. [76]Grossmann I, Huynh AC (2013) Where is the culture in social class. Psychol Inq 24 (2): 112– 119.
  57. [78]Swann WB, Gómez Á, Huici C, Morales JF, Hixon JG (2010) Identity fusion and self-sacrifice: Arousal as a catalyst of pro-group fighting, dying, and helping behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol 99 (5): 824– 841. 10.1037/a0020014 20649370 · DOI
  58. [86]Treiman DJ (1977) Occupational prestige in comparative perspective. New York, NY: Academic Press.
  59. [87]Ganzeboom HB, Treiman DJ (1996) Internationally comparable measures of occupational status for the 1988 International Standard Classification of Occupations. Soc Sci Res 25 (3): 201– 239.
  60. [88]Cleveland WS, Loader C (1996) Smoothing by local regression: Principles and methods In: Härdle W, Schimek MG, editors. Statistical theory and computational aspects of smoothing. New York, NY: Springer pp. 10– 49.
  61. [89]Tibshirani R, Hastie T (1987) Local likelihood estimation. J Am Stat Assoc 82 (398): 559– 567.
  62. [90]Loader C (1997) Locfit: An introduction. Statistical Computing and Graphics Newsletter 8 (1): 11– 17. Available: http://www.stat.uni-muenchen.de/~leiten/Lehre/Material/GLM_0708/Tutorium/locfit.pdf. Accessed 9 March 2013.
  63. [91]Cleveland WS, Devlin SJ (1988) Locally weighted regression: An approach to regression analysis by local fitting. J Am Stat Assoc 83 (403): 596– 610.
  64. [92]Tobin J (1958) Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrica 26 (1): 24– 36.
  65. [94]Whelan CT (1994) Social class, unemployment, and psychological distress. Eur Sociol Rev 10 (1): 49– 61.
  66. [95]Rotolo T, Wilson J (2007) The effects of children and employment status on the volunteer work of American women. Nonprof Volunt Sec Q 36 (3): 487– 503.
  67. [96]Rotolo T, Wilson J (2007) Sex segregation in volunteer work. Sociol Quart 48 (3): 559– 585.
  68. [97]Schlegelmilch BB, Tynan C (1989) Who volunteers? An investigation into the characteristics of charity volunteers. J Marketing Manag 5 (2): 133– 151.
  69. [98]Auten GE, Clotfelter CT, Schmalbeck RL (2000) Taxes and philanthropy among the wealthy In: Slemrod J, editor. Does atlas shrug?: The economic consequences of taxing the rich. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press pp. 392– 424.
  70. [99]Auten GE, Sieg H, Clotfelter CT (2002) Charitable giving, income, and taxes: An analysis of panel data. Am Econ Rev 92 (1): 371– 382.
  71. [100]Johnson ND, Mislin AA (2011) Trust games: A meta-analysis. J Econ Psychol 32 (5): 865– 889.
  72. [101]Berg J, Dickhaut J, McCabe K (1995) Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Game Econ Behav 10 (1): 122– 142.
  73. [102]Amanatullah ET, Morris MW, Curhan JR (2008) Negotiators who give too much: Unmitigated communion, relational anxieties, and economic costs in distributive and integrative bargaining. J Pers Soc Psychol 95 (3): 723– 738. 10.1037/a0012612 18729705 · DOI
  74. [103]Ashraf N, Bohnet I, Piankov N (2006) Decomposing trust and trustworthiness. Exp Econ 9 (3): 193– 208.
  75. [104]Balliet D, van Lange PAM (2013) Trust, conflict, and cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 139 (5): 1090– 1112. 10.1037/a0030939 23231532 · DOI
  76. [105]Blaze-Temple D, Lo SK (1992) Stages of drug use: A community survey of Perth teenagers. Addiction 87 (2): 215– 225. 1554998
  77. [107]Ben-Ner A, Halldorsson F (2010) Trusting and trustworthiness: What are they, how to measure them, and what affects them. J Econ Psychol 31 (1): 64– 79.
  78. [108]Sutter M, Kocher MG (2007) Trust and trustworthiness across different age groups. Game Econ Behav 59 (2): 364– 382.
  79. [109]Altmann S, Dohmen T, Wibral M (2008) Do the reciprocal trust less. Econ Lett 99 (3): 454– 457.
  80. [110]Brandt MJ (2013) Do the disadvantaged legitimize the social system? A large-scale test of the status-legitimacy hypothesis. J Pers Soc Psychol 104 (5): 765– 785. 10.1037/a0031751 23421361 · DOI
  81. [111]Egloff B, Richter D, Schmukle SC (2013) Need for conclusive evidence that positive and negative reciprocity are unrelated. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110 (9): E786 10.1073/pnas.1221451110 23382252 PMC3587259 · DOI
  82. [112]Klein WM, Kunda Z (1993) Maintaining self-serving social comparisons: Biased reconstruction of one's past behaviors. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 19 (6): 732– 739.
  83. [113]Tourangeau R, Smith TW (1996) Asking sensitive questions—the impact of data collection mode, question format and question context. Public Opin Quart 60 (2): 275– 304.
  84. [114]Krumpal I (2013) Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: A literature review. Qual Quant 47 (4): 2025– 2047.
  85. [115]Beyer H, Krumpal I (2010) „Aber es gibt keine Antisemiten mehr“: Eine experimentelle Studie zur Kommunikationslatenz antisemitischer Einstellungen. Köln Z Soziol 62 (4): 681– 705
  86. [116]Cai H, Kwan VS, Sedikides C (2012) A sociocultural approach to narcissism: The case of modern China. Eur J Personality 26 (5): 529– 535.
  87. [117]Foster JD, Campbell WK, Twenge JM (2003) Individual differences in narcissism: Inflated self-views across the lifespan and around the world. J Res Pers 37 (6): 469– 486.
  88. [118]Milinski M, Semmann D, Krambeck H (2002) Reputation helps solve the 'tragedy of the commons'. Nature 415 (6870): 424– 426. 11807552
  89. [119]Nowak MA (2006) Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science 314 (5805): 1560– 1563. 17158317 PMC3279745
  90. [121]Simpson B, Willer R (2008) Altruism and indirect reciprocity: The interaction of person and situation in prosocial behavior. Soc Psychol Quart 71 (1): 37– 52.
  91. [122]Cheng JT, Tracy JL (2013) The impact of wealth on prestige and dominance rank relationships. Psychol Inq 24 (2): 102– 108.
  92. [123]Glazer A, Konrad KA (1996) A signaling explanation for charity. Am Econ Rev 86 (4): 1019– 1028.
  93. [124]Frey BS, Meier S (2004) Social comparisons and pro-social behavior: Testing “conditional cooperation” in a field experiment. Am Econ Rev 94 (5): 1717– 1722.
  94. [125]Martin R, Randal J (2009) How Sunday, price, and social norms influence donation behaviour. J Socio Econ 38 (5): 722– 727.
  95. [126]Raihani NJ (2014) Hidden altruism in a real-world setting. Biol Lett 10 (1): 20130884 10.1098/rsbl.2013.0884 24478198 PMC3917331 · DOI
  96. [127]Martin R, Randal J (2008) How is donation behaviour affected by the donations of others. J Econ Behav Organ 67 (1): 228– 238.
  97. [132]IJzerman H, Brandt MJ, van Wolferen J (2013) Rejoice! In replication. Eur J Personality 27 (2): 128– 129.
  98. [133]Donnellan MB, Lucas RE, Cesario J (2015) On the association between loneliness and bathing habits: Nine replications of Bargh and Shalev (2012) study 1. Emotion 15 (1): 109– 119. 10.1037/a0036079 24821396 · DOI
  99. [134]Bargh JA, Shalev I (2012) The substitutability of physical and social warmth in daily life. Emotion 12 (1): 154– 162. 10.1037/a0023527 21604871 PMC3406601 · DOI
  100. [135]Galak J, Leboeuf RA, Nelson LD, Simmons JP (2012) Correcting the past: Failures to replicate psi. J Pers Soc Psychol 103 (6): 933– 948. 10.1037/a0029709 22924750 · DOI
  101. [136]Wagenmakers E, Wetzels R, Borsboom D, van der Maas HLJ (2011) Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: The case of psi: Comment on Bem (2011). J Pers Soc Psychol 100 (3): 426– 432. 10.1037/a0022790 21280965 · DOI · Paper page
  102. [137]Bem DJ (2011) Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. J Pers Soc Psychol 100 (3): 407– 425. 10.1037/a0021524 21280961 · DOI · Paper page
  103. [138]Klein RA, Ratliff KA, Vianello M, Adams RB, Bahník Š, Bernstein MJ et al (2014) Investigating variation in replicability. Soc Psychol 45 (3): 142– 152.
  104. [139]Klein RA, Ratliff KA, Vianello M, Adams RB, Bahník Š, Bernstein MJ et al (2014) Theory building through replication: Response to commentaries on the ‘‘Many Labs” replication project. Soc Psychol 45 (4): 307– 310.
  105. [140]Duarte JL, Crawford JT, Stern C, Haidt J, Jussim L, Tetlock PE (in press) Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behav Brain Sci. 25036715

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Korndörfer, M., Egloff, B., & Schmukle, S. C.
Affiliations
  • Leipzig University (DE)
  • Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
Corresponding author
Korndörfer, Martin
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2015-07-20
Volume
10
Issue
7
Pages
e0133193
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0133193
PMC
PMC4507988
OpenAlex
W1517495738
Cited by
255
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
FWCI
47.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Social Science Open Access Repository (GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Nonprofit Sector and Volunteering
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
Keywords
social class, prosocial behavior, charitable giving, volunteering, helping behavior, trust, economic games, cross-national comparison, U-shaped relationship
MeSH terms
Adult, Charities, Female, Humans, Income, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Middle Aged, Occupations, Social Behavior, Social Class, Volunteers, 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