Social Class and Prosociality: A Meta-Analytic Review.
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 persp...
| Publicado en: | Psychological Bulletin Vol. 151; no. 3; pp. 285 - 322 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
American Psychological Association
Mar2025
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=184139550&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 184139550 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00332909 PSB jtl: Psychological Bulletin issn: 00332909 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Mar2025 vid: 151 iid: 3 pid: 34 pub: American Psychological Association artinfo: ui: 184139550 10.1037/bul0000469 ppf: 285 ppct: 37 formats: tig: atl: Social Class and Prosociality: A Meta-Analytic Review. aug: au: Wu, Junhui Balliet, Daniel Yuan, Mingliang Li, Wenqi Chen, Yanyan Jin, Shuxian Luan, Shenghua Van Lange, Paul A. M. affil: State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Science and Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Anhui Agricultural University Department of Psychology, Nanjing University School of Psychology, University of Sussex Center for Social and Economic Behavior, University of Cologne su: Social classes Prosocial behavior Empirical research Sociocultural factors Scientific method Aggregation (Statistics) sug: subj: Social classes Prosocial behavior Empirical research Sociocultural factors Scientific method Aggregation (Statistics) keyword: culture meta-analysis prosociality social class socioeconomic status culture meta-analysis prosociality social class socioeconomic status ab: 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. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|