New Research In
Articles by Topic
- Agricultural Sciences
- Applied Biological Sciences
- Biophysics and Computational Biology
- Cell Biology
- Developmental Biology
- Environmental Sciences
- Immunology and Inflammation
- Medical Sciences
- Plant Biology
- Population Biology
- Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
- Sustainability Science
- Systems Biology
快乐十分玩法规则:No evidence that economic inequality moderates the effect of income on generosity
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Are the rich less generous than the poor? Results of studies on this topic have been inconsistent. Recent research that has received widespread academic and media attention has provided evidence that higher income individuals are less generous than poorer individuals only if they reside in a US state with comparatively large economic inequality. However, in large representative datasets from the United States (study 1), Germany (study 2), and 30 countries (study 3), we did not find any evidence for such an effect. Instead, our results suggest that the rich are not less generous than the poor, even when economic inequality is large. This result has implications for contemporary debates on what increasing inequality in resource distributions means for modern societies.
A landmark study published in PNAS [C?té S, House J, Willer R (2015) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:15838–15843] showed that higher income individuals are less generous than poorer individuals only if they reside in a US state with comparatively large economic inequality. This finding might serve to reconcile inconsistent findings on the effect of social class on generosity by highlighting the moderating role of economic inequality. On the basis of the importance of replicating a major finding before readily accepting it as evidence, we analyzed the effect of the interaction between income and inequality on generosity in three large representative datasets. We analyzed the donating behavior of 27,714 US households (study 1), the generosity of 1,334 German individuals in an economic game (study 2), and volunteering to participate in charitable activities in 30,985 participants from 30 countries (study 3). We found no evidence for the postulated moderation effect in any study. This result is especially remarkable because (i) our samples were very large, leading to high power to detect effects that exist, and (ii) the cross-country analysis employed in study 3 led to much greater variability in economic inequality. These findings indicate that the moderation effect might be rather specific and cannot be easily generalized. Consequently, economic inequality might not be a plausible explanation for the heterogeneous results on the effect of social class on prosociality.
- ?1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: .
Author contributions: S.C.S. and B.E. designed research; S.C.S. and M.K. analyzed data; and S.C.S. and B.E. wrote the paper.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. R.L. is a guest editor invited by the Editorial Board.
Data deposition: The data used in our studies 1 and 3, and the scripts for replicating our data analyses for all studies are archived in the Open Science Framework, https://osf.io/b6m2r/. The data used in our study 2 are deposited in the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) archive at www.diw.de/soep-re-analysis and may be obtained after signing a data distribution contract ( ).
This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1807942116/-/DCSupplemental.
Published under the PNAS license.