Does Wealth Reduce Compassion?
September 7, 2012 | Posted by Roshawn Watson under Personal Finance, psychology |
Most of us are familiar with Scrooge, the wealthy businessman who is high on ambition but short on compassion. Unfortunately, Scrooge isn’t a fictional anomaly; businessmen are frequently depicted negatively in Hollywood. Michael Medved found that since 1970, businessmen have been portrayed as “villains” twice as often as “good guys.” Could there be a legitimate reason for this depiction? If we are to believe one researcher’s assessment of recent data, the answer is YES! She concludes that wealth is inversely related to compassion: the more wealth one has, the less oriented towards others’ needs and feelings he will be. As with most data though, the devil is in the details. Let’s explore some recent findings and decide if they really indict the wealthy.
Fascinating Data Regarding Money and Compassion
The first studies the researcher cited were conducted by Berkeley psychologists, Paul Piff and Dacher Keltner. These studies explored the prevalence of unethical behavior amongst people from “upper” and “lower” social classes. Social class was measured as a composite of (wealth, education, and income). The investigators measured the behavior of the 2 classes in various ethical situations and “found 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.” The psychologists also studied a busy four-way intersection and found that luxury car drivers were more likely to cut off other motorists instead of waiting for their turn at the intersection, regardless of gender, time of day, amount of traffic, or eye contact with pedestrians.
Related Article: Do You Have the Courage to be Wealthy
Another series of studies cited by the author were done by Keltner and colleagues and explored the role of the environment and compassion and class. Social class was measured by asking participants questions about their family’s level of income and education. They found that the environments of lower-class individuals promoted greater concern for the pain or comfort of others. For example, less affluent individuals were more likely to report feeling compassion towards others on a regular basis. The less affluent would more frequently agree with the following statements: “I often notice people who need help,” and “it’s important to take care of people who are vulnerable;” these findings were independent of gender, ethnicity, spirituality, and other factors believed to influence compassion. Another study performed by the same team had subjects watch 2 videos and monitored their physiologic responses (i.e., heart rates). One of the videos was a compassion-inducing video (children with cancer). Subjects “on the lower end of the spectrum, with less income and education, were more likely to report feeling compassion while watching the video of the cancer patients. In addition, their heart rates (more frequently) slowed down while watching the cancer video—a response that is associated with paying greater attention to the feelings and motivations of others.”
Related Article: Creating Phenomenal Wealth Over Time
The Fallacy With that Data Interpretation
While the results are undoubtedly compelling, the biggest problem with concluding “wealth reduces compassion” from this research is that the studies cited do NOT evaluate wealth! Every study cited investigated “social class,” as measured by income, education, and luxury cars, NOT wealth. Even in the cases where wealth was considered a component of social class, it was part of a composite measure (lumped in with other factors) that was tested for a relationship with compassion rather than measured as an independent influencer of compassion. It would have been easy to look at wealth as an independent variable and test whether it directly caused diminished compassion or even was associated with less compassion. One must ask why wasn’t this done?
This may seem like splitting hairs, but the implications of are big. Extrapolating characteristics of the wealthy based on a biased and nonspecific variable, such as social class, can be troublesome and lead you to the wrong conclusions. One reason this occurs is because infinitely more difficult to build wealth, particularly lasting wealth, than it is to obtain a high income or high academic standing. Look no further than Evander Holyfield, who recently had a house go into foreclosure and a recent ex-wife filed for bankruptcy, or Mike Tyson who also filed bankruptcy after earning a whopping $300-$400 million throughout his professional boxing career. In both cases, their incomes were astronomical, but their wealth was fleeting. The same thing also happens on a daily basis to countless high income professionals. The financial courage, delayed gratification, and financial excellence required for most people to become and stay wealthy gives them distinct character attributes than most high-income earners.
Related Article: Becoming A Financial Champion
Simply stated, the income-statement affluent (high income earners without corresponding high net worth) and the balance-sheet affluent (high net worth individuals) are often not the same type of people. For example, they typically exhibit different spending orientations, savings and investing discipline, and overall lifestyle. Thus, wealth and class are not necessarily interchangeable. In fact, even the millionaire population is not homogenous. You will find great differences even among millionaires based on whether they favor luxury or more conservative brands (see Toyota Millionaires versus Mercedes Millionaires).
Thus, while one could certainly argue those with high social class, as assessed by the aforementioned variables, lack compassion relative to those with low social class, suggesting anything more seems like a stretch based on the data presented.
What About Inherent Character Flaws Independent of Wealth
Notwithstanding the flaws in the original conclusion by the commentator (not by the study authors), she does provide two reasons for why she believes “wealth” reduces compassion that warrant further exploration: independence and the “greed is good” philosophy. I find the independence rationale for lacking compassion fascinating. By definition, wealth makes you financially independent, which in turn means you are less beholden to your neighbors. Personally, I think independence is a GOOD thing. Independence is part of self-actualization, and according to the late Dr. Stephen Covey, marks an important state in our personal development. Moreover, I don’t want people being nice to me because of what they can get out of me or because I tell them false truths in a pathetic attempt to maintain their approval. Healthy relationships are not founded on leech-like or phony associations anyway. Thus, I question the harm in being financially independent, even if it means you do not have to play nice. If independence means you can be real, then I fail to see that as a bad thing.
Related Article: Toyota Millionaires versus Mercedes Millionaires
As far as embracing the “greed is good” philosophy, I think money only amplifies character traits and beliefs that are already present. In other words, if someone is rotten without money, she will be more rotten with money. The good fortune will only serve to make her a more exaggerated version of herself rather than change her altogether. Thus, how is wealth really the problem in itself? The greedy come in all shapes, sizes, and bank accounts. For example, some people piously claim to only want a little money for their families not realizing that this focus in itself is the embodiment of greed because they only care about themselves.
Money only amplifies character traits and beliefs that are already evident.
I am still convinced it is A LOT easier for most people to build significant wealth ethically by providing value to others through great service than by being greedy. Greed is rooted in the poverty mentality anyway: it is dominated by the fear of running out, which is not generally conducive to building wealth anyway. After all, it is hard to reap a significant harvest when you are afraid to sow into business and others.
Closing Thoughts
Compassion is a good thing. I hope we all are moved by compassion, regardless of income, wealth, or social standing. Because wealth gets such a bad reputation, sometimes it is good to remember that wealth clothes the naked, feeds the hungry, builds hospitals for the sick, retires abused school bus monitors, and does a lot of other good in the world. If future data ultimately indicate that wealth DOES indeed decrease compassion, then so be it. However, until researchers evaluate a real wealthy population, allegations of reduced compassion among the wealthy is simply not supported by facts and is little more than popular sentiment.
Lastly, if you like this article, please subscribe to my FREE email updates or RSS feed (reader), Retweet it, Like It on Facebook, Tipd it, Fark it, Stumble it, and tag it on Delicious. Also, click here to receive my eBook for FREE.
Related Articles
Do You Have the Courage to be Wealthy
Creating Phenomenal Wealth Over Time
Becoming A Financial Champion
Toyota Millionaires versus Mercedes Millionaires
Image Credit: striatic
[…] than it is to obtain a high income or high academic standing. … View original post here: Does Wealth Reduce Compassion? | Watson Inc ← Building Wealth With Smart Financial Decisions | Street Smart […]
Good points. I think the definition of compassion requires some thinking. Some people believe compassion means picking up a child everytime they scrap their elbow. These children grow up unable to function in the world. I've seen intersections where someone needs to make a decision, otherwise gridlock ensues. As you point out there are many subtleties in a study like this.
Also, the researchers probably don't understand that their frugal next door neighbors and fellow teachers are wealthy – not the people living in the McMansions.
Thanks so much Robert!
Your comment really addresses the core issues in a big way. I agree compassion can take many forms, and it is not always what people think… I won't use a political example, but you catch my drift. I think for the most part the issue is the second one that you pointed out: who is the Millionaire Next Door. The body of work Thomas Stanley created has forever changed how the PF community thinks about wealth, but outside of our niche, I still think people take their cues from media and bad teaching. When they look for the typical wealthy, they are thinking Kardashians, Michael Jordan, and Mariah Carey. In essence, they think of the Glittering Rich. What they forget is that, the people that they know that glitter don't have the same income or spending habits as these financial elite. They pass up real mufti-millionaires on a frequent basis because they are looking for the wrong people.
Compassion has nothing to do with money. Most compassionate people are not wealthy or even well off. I recall someone saying there are givers and takers. Compassionate people give expecting nothing in return.
Although I get that most compassionate people are not wealthy or even well off, do you think that could just be a function of most people not being well-off or wealthy? I definitely think that one doesn't have to be rich to be compassionate in the slightest, such as many members of the clergy. Great comment.
I agree with Krant. Really compassionate people aren't rich or wealthy. In fact some are even poor because they give so much of themselves to others. Compassionate people are really an inspiration to all of us about what really matters in life. – helping others and putting our needs second and making this world a better place.
I agree that compassionate people are an inspiration. I think we should all aspire to be more compassionate and to be moved by compassion. Just like you said, the world WOULD be a better place.
Excellent post Shawn. Compassion is not a function of money or lack thereof. It is a matter of character. I have personally known amazing compassionate wealthy people (using your definition–not high income earners only), as well as incredibly uncompassionate poor people.
Matters of the heart are far more complicated than most of us want to accept.
Yay!!! We agree that is is a character issue. I think the author/researcher who summarized this data only revealed her own biases. For one thing, she read into the data things that it clearly didn't say.
Reminds me of the bagel story from Freakonomics. The whiter the collar, the higher chance the bagel guy would get stiffed. The honor system didn't work as well higher up the income scale.
Awesome story Andrew. I'm unfamiliar, but that sounds about right (perfectly consistent with the studies cited above). It's interesting, and I think there is more to this story for sure!
I am trying SO hard not to make political comments about this post… but I'm sure you realize the issues you're skirting here without me pointing them out to you!
That said, as I was reading your "luxury cars cutting people off" example, I found myself saying, "But wait! Half the people in my neighborhood drive luxury cars, and they are definitely NOT wealthy!" I'm glad you pointed out those flaws in the research in the next paragraph.
Haha. I definitely only "flirt" with politics… allegedly. I'm sorry, but I'm tired of all of the hate mail, so I am not discussing political issues right now 🙂
Yeah, to the original researchers credit, they did look at class and stated clearly how they assessed class. The author of the article I am referring to really appeared to read more into data than what was supported. Who knows her motivation (was it really just an oversight that conveniently seemed to justify her own preconceived biases/agenda towards the wealthy)?
[…] work hard, but always keep your heart in the right place. Roshawn Watson from Watson Inc presents Does Wealth Reduce Compassion?, and says, “Is wealth inversely related to compassion: the more wealth one has, the less […]
I must say this post holds so much truth around us. I don’t know why wealth decreases our feelings of compassion. Wealth must be considered in the social class. All of us should sort out this issue. Thanks for sharing this point here.
Thanks for your comment.
[…] Does Wealth Reduce Compassion? It depends entirely on the person involved. There are wealthy people who really want to use the money to make the world a better place (Bill Gates comes to mind). (@ watson inc.) […]
I need to read the article because the other thought I have is this: high social status people I've known spend far more time around high social status people than lower social status people. Therefore, might it stand to reason that lower social status people would feel the affects of poverty more because they're confronted with it more often? Also, aren't higher social status people approached more often about scams, so their heart rate wouldn't necessarily lower as quickly as people who haven't been approached by scammers before? While it may make them jaded, these responses don't make them less compassionate.
Great and thorough job on the subject. Another Watson epic I'll be talking about with friends later today, I'm sure!
That's an interesting point. Not only are lowSES people more likely to need help, presumably, and thereby more likely to keep others in their good graces, but by their repeated exposure to other low people of low SES, they may have more empathy because povery is a larger part of their world. In terms of the physiologic data, that's certainly plausible.
[…] Does wealth reduce compassion? (Watson Inc). Fascinating article that seems to indicate more cash equals less consideration for others. Or does it? […]
[…] attainment research focuses on parental income, education, and occupation. As we discussed in Does Wealth Reduce Compassion?, there are many perils to ignoring wealth as a determinant of financial behavior. Income serves as […]
It’s no secret that State Farm Insurance is a huge insurance company in America. State Farm Insurance offers automobile, life, health, disability, long term care, business, boat, farm and ranch, volcano damage, personal, and community organization insurance policies. Of course, they offer home owner insurance as well, which branches out to mobile home owner insurance policies, renter insurance policies, and condo owner insurance policies.`
Remember to pay a visit to our own internet site
http://www.caramoan.ph/caramoan-lahus-island/
おすすめ ブランド 財布