Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Mar 13; 109(11): 4086–4091.

Paul K. Piff

aDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 94720; and

Daniel M. Stancato

aDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 94720; and

Stéphane Côté

bRotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, M5S 3E6

Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton

aDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 94720; and

Dacher Keltner

aDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 94720; and

bRotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, M5S 3E6

Edited* by Richard E. Nisbett, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, and approved January 26, 2012 (received for review November 8, 2011)

Author contributions: P.K.P., D.M.S., S.C., and D.K. designed research; P.K.P. and D.M.S. performed research; P.K.P. analyzed data; and P.K.P., D.M.S., S.C., R.M.-D., and D.K. wrote the paper.

Supplementary Materials

Supporting Information

GUID: 56A31804-97C9-4A57-898C-F2C995044774

GUID: 03563BDF-A8C3-494D-A4AA-FB9DAC57BC5A

Abstract

Seven studies using experimental and naturalistic methods reveal that upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals. In studies 1 and 2, upper-class individuals were more likely to break the law while driving, relative to lower-class individuals. In follow-up laboratory studies, upper-class individuals were more likely to exhibit unethical decision-making tendencies (study 3), take valued goods from others (study 4), lie in a negotiation (study 5), cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize (study 6), and endorse unethical behavior at work (study 7) than were lower-class individuals. Mediator and moderator data demonstrated that upper-class individuals’ unethical tendencies are accounted for, in part, by their more favorable attitudes toward greed.

Keywords: socioeconomic status, immoral action, ethical judgment, self-interest

Which social class is the more likely provenance of unethical behavior, the upper class or the lower class? Examining how social class is associated with unethical behavior, or actions that harm others and are illegal or morally objectionable to one's community (1), would shed light on behaviors such as cheating, deception, or breaking the law that have important consequences for society. On the one hand, lower-class individuals live in environments defined by fewer resources, greater threat, and more uncertainty (2, 3). It stands to reason, therefore, that lower-class individuals may be more motivated to behave unethically to increase their resources or overcome their disadvantage.

A second line of reasoning, however, suggests the opposite prediction: namely, that the upper class may be more disposed to the unethical. Greater resources, freedom, and independence from others among the upper class give rise to self-focused social-cognitive tendencies (3 –7), which we predict will facilitate unethical behavior. Historical observation lends credence to this idea. For example, the recent economic crisis has been attributed in part to the unethical actions of the wealthy (8). Religious teachings extol the poor and admonish the rich with claims like, “It will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven” (9). Building upon past findings, in the present investigation we tested whether upper-class individuals—relative to lower-class individuals—are more likely to engage in unethical behavior, and whether their attitudes toward greed might help explain this tendency.

Social class, or socioeconomic status (SES), refers to an individual's rank vis-à-vis others in society in terms of wealth, occupational prestige, and education (2, 3). Abundant resources and elevated rank allow upper-class individuals increased freedom and independence (4), giving rise to self-focused patterns of social cognition and behavior (3). Relative to lower-class individuals, upper-class individuals have been shown to be less cognizant of others (4) and worse at identifying the emotions that others feel (5). Furthermore, upper-class individuals are more disengaged during social interactions—for example, checking their cell phones or doodling on a questionnaire—compared with their lower-class peers (6).

Individuals from upper-class backgrounds are also less generous and altruistic. In one study, upper-class individuals proved more selfish in an economic game, keeping significantly more laboratory credits—which they believed would later be exchanged for cash—than did lower-class participants, who shared more of their credits with a stranger (7). These results parallel nationwide survey data showing that upper-class households donate a smaller proportion of their incomes to charity than do lower-class households (10). These findings suggest that upper-class individuals are particularly likely to value their own welfare over the welfare of others and, thus, may hold more positive attitudes toward greed.

Greed, in turn, is a robust determinant of unethical behavior. Plato and Aristotle deemed greed to be at the root of personal immorality, arguing that greed drives desires for material gain at the expense of ethical standards (11, 12). Research finds that individuals motivated by greed tend to abandon moral principles in their pursuit of self-interest (13). In one study, a financial incentive caused people to be more willing to deceive and cheat others for personal gain (14). In another study, the mere presence of money led individuals to be more likely to cheat in an anagram task to receive a larger financial reward (1). Greed leads to reduced concern for how one's behavior affects others and motivates greater unethical action.

We reason that increased resources and independence from others cause people to prioritize self-interest over others’ welfare and perceive greed as positive and beneficial, which in turn gives rise to increased unethical behavior. We predict that, given their abundant resources and increased independence, upper-class individuals should demonstrate greater unethical behavior and that one important reason for this tendency is that upper-class individuals hold more favorable attitudes toward greed.

We conducted seven studies using university, community, and nationwide samples to test this general prediction. Throughout this research, we sought to generalize our results across operationalizations of social class, using both self-report and objective assessments of unethical behavior, and while controlling for alternative explanations of the results concerned with characteristics related to social class (e.g., age, ethnicity, religiosity). In studies 1–3, we tested whether higher social class is linked to more unethical behaviors in naturalistic settings (behavior while driving) and unethical responding to various ethical judgments. In study 4, we extended our research by examining whether experimentally primed higher and lower social-class mindsets cause different levels of unethical judgment and behavior. In studies 5–7, we examined whether more positive attitudes toward greed help explain why higher social class relates to greater unethicality.

Results

Studies 1 and 2.

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. Observers stood near the intersection, coded the status of approaching vehicles, and recorded whether the driver cut off other vehicles by crossing the intersection before waiting their turn, a behavior that defies the California Vehicle Code. In the present study, 12.4% of drivers cut in front of other vehicles. A binary logistic regression indicated that upper-class drivers were the most likely to cut off other vehicles at the intersection, even when controlling for time of day, driver's perceived sex and age, and amount of traffic, b = 0.36, SE b = 0.18, P < 0.05. Percentages of cars that cut off other vehicles as a function of vehicle status are shown in Fig. 1_A_.

Percentage of cars that cut off (i) other vehicles at the four-way intersection (from study 1) (A) or (ii) the pedestrian at the crosswalk (from study 2) (B), as a function of vehicle status (1 = lowest status, 5 = highest status).

In study 2, we tested whether upper-class drivers are more likely to cut off pedestrians at a crosswalk. An observer positioned him- or herself out of plain sight at a marked crosswalk, coded the status of a vehicle, and recorded whether the driver cut off a pedestrian (a confederate of the study) attempting to cross the intersection. Cutting off a pedestrian violates California Vehicle Code. In this study, 34.9% of drivers failed to yield to the pedestrian. A binary logistic regression with time of day, driver's perceived age and sex, and confederate sex entered as covariates indicated that upper-class drivers were significantly more likely to drive through the crosswalk without yielding to the waiting pedestrian, b = 0.39, SE b = 0.19, P < 0.05. Percentages of cars that cut off the pedestrian as a function of vehicle status are shown in Fig. 1_B_.

Study 3.

Study 3 extended these findings by using a more direct measure of social class and assessing tendencies toward a variety of unethical decisions. Participants read eight different scenarios that implicated an actor in unrightfully taking or benefiting from something, and reported the likelihood that they would engage in the behavior described (16). Participants also reported their social class using the MacArthur scale of subjective SES (2). This measure parallels objective, resource-based measures of social class in its relationship to health (2), social cognition (4), and interpersonal behavior (7). As hypothesized, social class positively predicted unethical decision-making tendencies, even after controlling for ethnicity, sex, and age, b = 0.13, SE b = 0.06, t(103) = 2.05, P < 0.04. These results suggest that upper-class individuals are more likely to exhibit tendencies to act unethically compared with lower-class individuals.

Study 4.

Study 4 sought to provide experimental evidence that the experience of higher social class has a causal effect on unethical decision-making and behavior. We adopted a paradigm used in past research to activate higher or lower social-class mindsets and examine their effects on behavior (5, 7). Participants experienced either a low or high relative social-class rank by comparing themselves to people with the most (least) money, most (least) education, and most (least) respected jobs. Participants also rated their position in the socioeconomic hierarchy relative to people at the very top or bottom. This induction primes subjective perceptions of relatively high or low social-class rank. In this prior research, as expected, manipulations of perceived social-class rank influenced generosity (7) and the ability to identify others’ emotions (5). Participants completed a series of filler measures, which included the measure of unethical decision-making tendencies used in study 3 (16). Our main dependent variable was a behavioral measure of unethical tendencies. Specifically, at the end of the study, the experimenter presented participants with a jar of individually wrapped candies, ostensibly for children in a nearby laboratory, but informed them that they could take some if they wanted. This task was adapted from prior research on entitlement (17) and served as our measure of unethical behavior because taking candy would reduce the amount that would otherwise be given to children. Participants completed unrelated tasks and then reported the number of candies they had taken.

The manipulation of social-class rank was successful: Participants in the upper-class rank condition (M = 6.96) reported a social-class rank significantly above participants in the lower-class rank condition (M = 6.00), t(127) = 3.51, P < 0.01, d = 0.62. Central to our hypothesis, participants in the upper-class rank condition took more candy that would otherwise go to children (M = 1.17) than did those in the lower-rank condition (M = 0.60), t(124) = 3.18, P < 0.01, d = 0.57. Furthermore, replicating the findings from study 3, those in the upper-rank condition also reported increased unethical decision-making tendencies (M = 4.29) than participants in the lower-class rank condition (M = 3.90), t(125) = 2.31, P < 0.03, d = 0.41. These results extend the findings of studies 1–3 by suggesting that the experience of higher social class has a causal relationship to unethical decision-making and behavior.

Study 5.

Study 5 focused on positive attitudes toward greed as one mediating mechanism to explain why people from upper-class backgrounds behave in a more unethical fashion. Participants took part in a hypothetical negotiation, assuming the role of an employer tasked with negotiating a salary with a job candidate seeking long-term employment (14). Participants were given several pieces of information, including the fact that the job would soon be eliminated. Participants reported the percentage chance they would tell the job candidate the truth about job stability. Participants also reported their social class using the MacArthur scale (2) and completed a measure of the extent to which they believed it is justified and moral to be greedy (18).

We first tested the associations between social class, attitudes toward greed, and probability of telling the job candidate the truth, while accounting for participant age, sex, and ethnicity, as well as religiosity and political orientation, variables that can influence unethical behavior (19). Social class negatively predicted probability of telling the truth, b = −4.55, SE b = 1.90, t(103) = −2.39, P < 0.02, and positively predicted favorable attitudes toward greed, b = 0.16, SE b = 0.04, t(103) = 3.54, P < 0.01. In addition, favorable attitudes toward greed negatively predicted probability of telling the truth, b = −12.29, SE b = 3.93, t(100) = −3.12, P < 0.01. Testing our mediational model, when social class and attitudes toward greed were entered into a linear regression model predicting probability of telling the job candidate the truth, social class was no longer significant, b = −2.43, SE b = 1.87; t(101) = −1.30, P = 0.20, whereas attitudes toward greed were a significant predictor, b = −11.41, SE b = 3.81; t(101) = −3.00, P < 0.01. Using the bootstrapping method (with 10,000 iterations) recommended by Preacher and Hayes (20), we tested the significance of the indirect effect of social class on probability of telling the truth through attitudes toward greed. The 95% confidence interval for the indirect effect did not include zero (range: −3.7356 to −0.6405), suggesting that upper-class individuals are prone to deception in part because they view greed in a more positive light.

Study 6.

Study 6 extended these findings to actual cheating behavior. Participants played a “game of chance,” in which the computer presented them with one side of a six-sided die, ostensibly randomly, on five separate rolls. Participants were told that higher rolls would increase their chances of winning a cash prize and were asked to report their total score at the end of the game. In fact, die rolls were predetermined to sum up to 12. The extent to which participants reported a total exceeding 12 served as a direct behavioral measure of cheating. Participants also completed the measures of social class (2) and attitudes toward greed (18) that we used in study 5.

Controlling for participant age, sex, ethnicity, religiosity, and political orientation, social class positively predicted cheating, b = 0.22, SE b = 0.11, t(181) = 1.98, P < 0.05, and more favorable attitudes toward greed, b = 0.06, SE b = 0.03, t(186) = 2.22, P < 0.03. In addition, attitudes toward greed predicted cheating behavior, b = 0.61, SE b = 0.29, t(180) = 2.36, P < 0.02. When social class and attitudes toward greed were entered into a linear-regression model predicting cheating behavior, social class was no longer a significant predictor, b = 0.16, SE b = 0.11, t(185) = 1.50, P = 0.14, whereas attitudes toward greed significantly predicted cheating, b = 0.68, SE b = 0.27, t(185) = 2.50, P < 0.02. The Preacher and Hayes (20) bootstrapping technique (with 10,000 iterations) produced a 95% confidence interval for the indirect effect that did not include zero (range: 0.0005–0.3821). These results further suggest that more favorable attitudes toward greed among members of the upper class explain, in part, their unethical tendencies.

Study 7.

To further understand why upper-class individuals act more unethically, study 7 examined whether encouraging positive attitudes toward greed increases the unethical tendencies of lower-class individuals to match those of their upper-class counterparts. When the benefits of greed were not mentioned, we expected that upper-class individuals would display increased unethical tendencies compared with lower-class individuals, as in the previous studies. However, when the benefits of greed were emphasized, we expected lower-class individuals to be as prone to unethical behavior as upper-class individuals. These findings would reveal that one reason why lower-class individuals tend to act more ethically is that they hold relatively unfavorable attitudes toward greed (and, conversely, that one reason why upper-class individuals tend to act more unethically is that they hold relatively favorable attitudes toward greed).

Participants listed either three things about their day (neutral prime) or three benefits of greed (greed-is-good prime). Participants then responded to a manipulation check assessing their attitudes toward greed before completing a measure of their propensity to engage in unethical behaviors at work, such as stealing cash, receiving bribes, and overcharging customers (21). Participants also reported their social class using the previously described MacArthur measure (2).

As expected, participants primed with positive features of greed expressed more favorable attitudes toward greed (M = 3.12) compared with participants in the neutral-prime condition (M = 2.42), t(87) = 2.72, P < 0.01, d = 0.58. Our central prediction was that the manipulation of attitudes toward greed would moderate the relationship between social class and unethical behavior. To test this theory, we regressed the measure of unethical behavior on social class, the greed manipulation, and their interaction, while controlling for age, ethnicity, sex, religiosity, and political orientation. Results yielded a significant effect for social class, such that upper-class participants reported more unethical behavior than lower-class participants, b = 0.13, SE b = 0.07, t(84) = 2.00, P < 0.05, and a significant effect for the greed manipulation, such that participants primed with positive features of greed reported more unethical behavior than neutral-primed participants, b = 0.38, SE b = 0.18, t(84) = 2.18, P < 0.04. These effects were qualified by the predicted significant interaction between social class and the greed manipulation, b = −0.24, SE b = 0.18, t(84) = −2.34, P < 0.03. As shown in Fig. 2, in the neutral-prime condition, upper-class participants reported significantly more unethical behavior relative to lower-class participants, t(45) = 2.04, P < 0.05. However, when participants were primed with positive aspects of greed, lower-class participants exhibited high levels of unethical behavior comparable to their upper-class counterparts, t(38) = −1.42, P = 0.17.

The relationship between social class and propensity for unethical behavior, moderated by the greed-is-good prime (from study 7).

Together, the findings we observed in study 7 indicate that priming the positive features of greed moderates class-based differences in unethical behavior. Importantly, lower-class individuals were as unethical as upper-class individuals when instructed to think of greed's benefits, suggesting that upper- and lower-class individuals do not necessarily differ in terms of their capacity for unethical behavior but rather in terms of their default tendencies toward it.

Discussion

The results of these seven studies provide an answer to the question that initiated this investigation: Is society's nobility in fact its most noble actors? Relative to lower-class individuals, individuals from upper-class backgrounds behaved more unethically in both naturalistic and laboratory settings. Our confidence in these findings is bolstered by their consistency across operationalizations of social class, including a material symbol of social class identity (one's vehicle), assessments of subjective SES, and a manipulation of relative social-class rank, results that point to a psychological dimension to higher social class that gives rise to unethical action. Moreover, findings generalized across self-report and objective assessments of unethical behavior and in both university and nationwide samples.

Why are upper-class individuals more prone to unethical behavior, from violating traffic codes to taking public goods to lying? This finding is likely to be a multiply determined effect involving both structural and psychological factors. Upper-class individuals’ relative independence from others and increased privacy in their professions (3) may provide fewer structural constraints and decreased perceptions of risk associated with committing unethical acts (8). The availability of resources to deal with the downstream costs of unethical behavior may increase the likelihood of such acts among the upper class. In addition, independent self-construals among the upper class (22) may shape feelings of entitlement and inattention to the consequences of one's actions on others (23). A reduced concern for others’ evaluations (24) and increased goal-focus (25) could further instigate unethical tendencies among upper-class individuals. Together, these factors may give rise to a set of culturally shared norms among upper-class individuals that facilitates unethical behavior.

In the present research we focused on a values account, documenting how upper-class individuals’ more favorable attitudes toward greed can help explain their propensity toward unethical behavior. Such attitudes among the upper class are likely to be themselves multiply determined as well. Our prior work shows that increased resources and reduced dependency on others shape self-focused social-cognitive tendencies (3, 5 –7), which may give rise to social values that emphasize greed as positive. Furthermore, economics education, with its focus on self-interest maximization, may lead people to view greed as positive and beneficial (26, 27). Upper-class individuals, who may be more likely to serve as leaders in their organizations (2), may also be more likely to have received economics-oriented training and to work in settings that hone self-interest. These factors may promote values among the upper class that justify and even moralize positive beliefs about greed.

The current findings should be interpreted within the confines of certain caveats and with suggested directions for future research. Importantly, there are likely to be exceptions to the trends we document in the current investigation. There are notable cases of ethical action among upper-class individuals that greatly benefited the greater good. Examples include whistle-blowing by Cynthia Cooper and Sherron Watkins, former Vice Presidents at Worldcom and Enron, respectively, and the significant philanthropy displayed by such individuals as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. There are also likely to be instances of lower-class individuals exhibiting unethical tendencies, as research on the relationship between concentrations of poverty and violent crime indicates (28). These observations suggest that the association between social class and unethicality is neither categorical nor essential, and point to important boundary conditions to our findings that should be examined in future investigations.

“From the top to the bottom of the ladder, greed is aroused,” Durkheim famously wrote (29). Although greed may indeed be a motivation all people have felt at points in their lives, we argue that greed motives are not equally prevalent across all social strata. As our findings suggest, the pursuit of self-interest is a more fundamental motive among society's elite, and the increased want associated with greater wealth and status can promote wrongdoing. Unethical behavior in the service of self-interest that enhances the individual's wealth and rank may be a self-perpetuating dynamic that further exacerbates economic disparities in society, a fruitful topic for the future study of social class.

Methods

Study 1.

Participants.

The behavior of 274 drivers of vehicles at a busy four-way intersection in the San Francisco Bay Area yielded the data for study 1.

Procedure.

Coding of driving behavior took place at a four-way intersection, with stop signs on all sides, on two consecutive Fridays in June 2011, from ∼3:00 PM to 6:00 PM. Two separate teams of two coders (blind to the hypotheses of the study) stationed themselves out of drivers’ sight at opposite corners of the intersection. From their respective highways, each coding team selected an approaching vehicle in a quasirandom fashion and coded the characteristics of the vehicle and driver before it reached the stop sign (a photo of the intersection is presented in Fig. 3). Coders rated each vehicle's status (1 = low status, 5 = high status) by taking into account its make (e.g., Mercedes, Toyota), age, and physical appearance (M = 3.16, SD = 1.07). A breakdown of the vehicles in the current study by vehicle status is presented in Table S1. Coders also noted the vehicle driver's perceived sex (0 = male, 1 = female; 175 female, 99 male) and age (1 = 16–35 y, 2 = 36–55 y, 3 = 56 y and up; M = 1.70, SD = 0.59), the time of day (M = 3:40 PM, SD = 38 min), and—to index the amount of traffic—the number of highways in the intersection with vehicles already stopped in them when the target vehicle arrived at the intersection. A maximum of three other highways could be coded as having cars in them (M = 2.69, SD = 0.50). Procedures for assessing the reliability of codes are presented in SI Text. Once the target vehicle came to a complete stop, coders observed whether or not the vehicle's driver cut in front of other vehicles at the intersection (0 = no cut, 1 = cut). California Vehicle Code states that vehicles approaching an intersection should yield the right-of-way to any vehicle that has already arrived at the intersection from a different highway (30). To reduce coding demands, each team produced one set of agreed-upon codes. The number of vehicles that did and did not cut off other vehicles as a function of vehicle status is presented in the left hand columns of Table S1. Zero-order and partial correlations between vehicle status and cutting off other vehicles are shown in Table S2.

Study 2.

Participants.

The behavior of 152 drivers of vehicles that approached a pedestrian crosswalk of a busy throughway in the San Francisco Bay Area provided the data for study 2.

Acknowledgments

We thank Pia Dietze, Nicholas Durant, Mikhaella Hodges, Sharon Hou, Nadine Lueras-Tramma, Matthew Lupoli, and Stacy Zhong for their help with data collection. P.K.P. was supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship.

Footnotes

References

1. Gino F, Pierce L. The abundance effect: Unethical behavior in the presence of wealth. Organ Behav Hum Dec. 2009;109:142–155. [Google Scholar]

2. Adler NE, Epel ES, Castellazzo G, Ickovics JR. Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy white women. Health Psychol. 2000;19:586–592. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

3. Kraus MW, Piff PK, Keltner D. Social class as culture: The convergence of resources and rank in the social realm. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2011;20:246–250. [Google Scholar]

4. Kraus MW, Piff PK, Keltner D. Social class, sense of control, and social explanation. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009;97:992–1004. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Kraus MW, Côté S, Keltner D. Social class, contextualism, and empathic accuracy. Psychol Sci. 2010;21:1716–1723. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Kraus MW, Keltner D. Signs of socioeconomic status: A thin-slicing approach. Psychol Sci. 2009;20:99–106. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Piff PK, Kraus MW, Côté S, Cheng BH, Keltner D. Having less, giving more: The influence of social class on prosocial behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010;99:771–784. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

8. Galperin BL, Bennett RJ, Aquino K. Status differentiation and the protean self: A social-cognitive model of unethical behavior in organizations. J Bus Ethics. 2011;98:407–424. [Google Scholar]

9. The Holy Bible. Matthew 19:23–24.

10. Independent Sector . Giving and Volunteering in the United States. Washington, DC: Independent Sector; 2002. [Google Scholar]

11. Shklar JN. The Faces of Injustice. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ Press; 1990. [Google Scholar]

12. Wang L, Murnighan JK. On greed. Acad Manage Ann. 2011;5:279–316. [Google Scholar]

13. Steinel W, De Dreu CKW. Social motives and strategic misrepresentation in social decision making. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004;86:419–434. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. Aquino K, Freeman D, Reed A, II, Felps W, Lim VK. Testing a social-cognitive model of moral behavior: The interactive influence of situations and moral identity centrality. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009;97:123–141. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

15. Frank RJ. Luxury Fever: Why Money Fails to Satisfy in an Era of Excess. New York, NY: Free Press; 1999. [Google Scholar]

16. Detert JR, Treviño LK, Sweitzer VL. Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: A study of antecedents and outcomes. J Appl Psychol. 2008;93:374–391. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Campbell WK, Bonacci AM, Shelton J, Exline JJ, Bushman BJ. Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. J Pers Assess. 2004;83:29–45. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. Yamagishi T, Sato K. Motivational bases of the public goods problem. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;50:67–73. [Google Scholar]

19. Kennedy EJ, Lawton L. Religiousness and business ethics. J Bus Ethics. 1998;17:163–175. [Google Scholar]

20. Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods. 2008;40:879–891. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Chen YJ, Tang TLP. Attitude toward and propensity to engage in unethical behavior: Measurement invariance across major among university students. J Bus Ethics. 2006;69:77–93. [Google Scholar]

22. Snibbe AC, Markus HR. You can't always get what you want: Educational attainment, agency, and choice. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2005;88:703–720. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. Fiske ST. Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. Am Psychol. 1993;48:621–628. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Galinsky AD, Magee JC, Gruenfeld DH, Whitson JA, Liljenquist KA. Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008;95:1450–1466. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. Guinote A. Power and goal pursuit. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2007;33:1076–1087. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

26. Frank RH, Gilovich T, Regan D. Does studying economics inhibit cooperation? J Econ Perspect. 1993;7:159–171. [Google Scholar]

27. Wang L, Malhotra D, Murnighan JK. Economics education and greed. Acad Manag Learn Educ. 2011;10:643–660. [Google Scholar]

28. Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW, Earls F. Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science. 1997;277:918–924. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

29. Durkheim E. Suicide: A Study in Sociology. New York, NY: Free Press; 1951. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America are provided here courtesy of National Academy of Sciences

Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior (original) (raw)

Paul K. Piff

Daniel M. Stancato

Stéphane Côté

Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton

Dacher Keltner

Abstract

Results

Studies 1 and 2.

Study 3.

Study 4.

Study 5.

Study 6.

Study 7.

Discussion

Methods

Study 1.

Participants.

Procedure.

Study 2.

Participants.

Procedure.

Study 3.

Participants.

Procedure.

Study 4.

Participants.

Procedure.

Study 5.

Participants.

Procedure.

Study 6.

Participants.

Design and procedure.

Study 7.

Participants.

Procedure.

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments

Footnotes

References