Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior
pnas.org
pnas.org
> In contrast, other research in economics and sociology has hypothesized and found a positive relationship between SES and prosocial and ethical behavior. We review the empirical evidence for these contradictory findings and conduct two direct, well-powered, and preregistered replications of the field studies by Piff and colleagues (2012) to test the relationship between SES and unethical/selfish behavior. Unlike the original findings, we find no evidence of a positive relationship between SES and unethical/selfish behavior in the two field replication studies.
¹) https://pubpeer.com/publications/7363E2E1B57AC42EF166E0D0266... ²) https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2023-34988-001?doi=1
In other words, if a whole series of fairly noisy experiments all comes out squeaky clean, you have to wonder whether you're actually seeing the whole series.
The wealthiest Europeans I know drive the cheapest vehicles. Modesty is wealth in many parts of the world, but perhaps not in California (the authors are affiliated with UC Berkeley).
Not saying I agree with GP, but your point doesn't hold up.
No, but sometimes they can finance a very (comparatively) expensive car for way too many years at an insane percentage just to appear wealthier than they are. And that stomps on the study just as much as millionaires driving a Camry IMO.
But driving a bently is "some work", so I would rather prefer the small e-vehicle :-))
In fact, it usually takes them down the path of flipping the cars and falling up instead of down.
Short version: I would go rather in leight-weight E-vehicle than in a heavy bently, navigating like an aircraft carrier
Clarkson had a line about estate owners driving "ancestral transport", invariably a land rover as old as the trees it lives amongst.
Ultimate statement about european land owners driving ancient vehicles: https://youtu.be/R8-9oIq1hxw?si=Ogg7C5MjFRoDdC9R
To quote the paper:
"Our first two studies were naturalistic field studies, and examined whether upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals while driving. In study 1, we investigated whether upper-class drivers were more likely to cut off other vehicles at a busy four-way intersection with stop signs on all sides. As vehicles are reliable indicators of a person's social rank and wealth (15), we used observers’ codes of vehicle status (make, age, and appearance) to index drivers’ social class."
They can. It just gets reported to FinCEN, which might attract unwanted attention. The same applies to buying a $200k lambo with cash, which has to be reported to the IRS[1], on top of being registered with the state DMV.
[1] https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
Some people buy used hot rods on Facebook Marketplace for around $100k, then trade them in to a dealership. They claim they only paid $5k for the car and their labor increased the value to $100k, then use that trade-in value to get the car they actually want.
Because of this there was always some risk of the government locking up bank accounts, so physical assets were purchased and spread around to avoid seizure of all finances which can prevent a person from fighting a legal battle.
That may well be true of the people you know, but in general the relationship is exactly what one would expect: the higher people's income, the more expensive their car purchases.
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/economic-bulletin/articles/2...
Full paper: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/economic-bulletin/articles/2...
That has been my experience as well. Ive experienced people who are more image conscious to appear to be in an imaginary competition with others and they tend to act accordingly.
After a point, how much someone chooses to spend on their car is about their values more than their wealth.
I once lived in a street with many parked cars worth almost as much the houses of their owners. They were clearly bought (well, financed) as status symbols. I now live in a more affluent, desirable area where the cars are much more modest despite higher wealth and social status of their owners (doctors, scientists etc).
Yeah, that's a fun meme, I'm sure it still gets a lot of likes on Instagram.
The data shows otherwise, however.
> In the actual candy study, the participants were all students, status was manipulated in the lab by telling some students they were better than others, and "nearly twice" means 1 piece vs 2 pieces.
> oh and the researchers told participants they could take some candy. There was no stealing!
But here's what I think happens: people with more power can more easily hide their transgressions. So in practice its easier to enforce rules against people with less power.
Second, a known and agreed upon good is really useful when seeking to manipulate people and generate "thought terminating cliches". Certain organizations / groups have gotten really good at taking known good things, and weave in their agenda and propaganda, linking something obvious with something that seems to make sense but actually doesn't.
History is rittled with how a call to ethical behaviour has been abused by the rich and powerful to keep the lower classes down. In Europe the Church used this to extol the virtues of poverty to the poor while selling pardons to the rich.
In China, the richness of Confucian philosophy was distilled down to obey orders from above / filial piety above all else, etc etc.
The fact that bad actors have taken something good and done bad things with them does not take away the value that can be found, it just needs to be on our own terms, and not someone else's.
It isn't quite a conspiracy as much as it's a lower-level animalistic behavior. You see this sort of behavior occur in monkeys in tribes where alpha chimps will create conflict, drive war, and cut off competitors from resources to secure their edge and position.
I think the reasons are obvious and unrelated to the point of the study. Desperation, culture (broken window theory) which is critically related to average wealth, lack of opportunity, and legal veracity explains the statistics sufficiently.
Also, it seems that higher status/income people benefit a lot more from acting unethically than lower income people would, the more money at the table, the more beneficial it is to act unethically. I’m not saying it to excuse anyone’s behavior, just speculating out loud.
"Rules for thee but not for me."
"There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
Senators build their wealth by millions while "working" for the public, and nobody bats an eye. We all know how it works.
It's why some celebrities are so loved when they don't fit the mold. People give up their seat on the subway every day, but when Keanu Reeves does it, he is venerated. Most people don't have any care for the people who run charities, but Dolly Parton is practically sainted for hers. All high-status people need to do is not be wicked and we are awed by it.
Do you know the source of that quote and the context? It was Frank Wilhoit explaining the core of the problem with conservatism. He wrote it when proposing anti-conservatism. To quote it as a general rule of life presumes that conservatism is the only way humans can organize a society.