| Sumario: | Two theoretical perspectives (i.e., the risk management perspective and the resource perspective) offer competing predictions that higher class individuals—relative to lower class individuals—tend to be less versus more prosocial, respectively. Different predictions can also be drawn from each perspective about how the class–prosociality association varies across sociocultural contexts. To date, each perspective has received mixed empirical support. To test these competing perspectives, we synthesized 1,106 effect sizes from 471 independent studies on social class and prosociality (total N = 2,340,806, covering the years 1968–2024) conducted within 60 societies. Supporting the resource perspective, we found higher class individuals to be slightly more prosocial (r =.065, 95% confidence interval [.055,.075]); this association held for children, adolescents, and adults and did not significantly vary by any sociocultural variable. In testing the methodological moderators, we found no significant difference in the class–prosociality association in studies measuring objective social class (r =.066) and those measuring or manipulating subjective social class (r =.063). Nevertheless, the observed class–prosociality association was stronger when assessing prosocial behavior involving actual commitment of material or nonmaterial resources (r =.079) compared to prosocial intention (r =.039), and stronger under public (r =.065) than private (r =.016) circumstances. These findings generally support the resource perspective on class-based differences in prosociality—that the relatively higher cost of prosocial behavior, combined with heightened experience of deprivation, results in lower levels of prosociality among individuals with a lower social class background. Public Significance Statement: This meta-analysis demonstrates that higher class, compared to lower class, individuals tend to be slightly more prosocial, and this small effect generalizes across different age groups, societies, continents, and cultural zones, and does not significantly vary with any theory-driven sociocultural variable. Notably, the positive class–prosociality association is more pronounced when assessing costly prosocial behavior than prosocial intention. This cumulative evidence can be accounted for by a resource perspective—that scarce resources and deprivation make prosocial behaviors relatively more costly to lower class individuals. By addressing the structural barriers to prosociality among lower class individuals, this research can inform policy makers and practitioners about potential interventions that can foster cooperation and prosocial behavior across diverse social classes.
|
|---|