Are Rich People More Unethical?

[Berkshire]

I hope the mods will give me a little latitude here. The topic of greed and corruption in Thailand comes up a lot, particularly as it relates to the more privileged Thais. Foreigners tend to argue that this is a uniquely Thai trait. But this article talks about the human nature aspect of it and why rich people--regardless of sex, age, ethnicity, religion, etc.--are typically more unethical. Note: This study was conducted in the USA. Below is an excerpt and the link to the entire article:

[A series of experiments conducted by psychologists at the University of California, Berkeley, suggests that people who are socially and financially better-off are more likely to lie, cheat, and otherwise behave unethically compared to individuals who occupy lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder.

"Elevated wealth status seems to make you want even more, and that increased want leads you to bend the rules or break the rules to serve your self-interest," says Paul Piff, the lead author of the study and a doctoral candidate in psychology at the university.]

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/27/health/rich-more-unethical/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1

Of course, there are many wealthy folks who are not corrupt. But just thought this article was interesting and somewhat outside-the-box in terms of traditional thinking.

[sparebox2]

Yes. Thaksin for an example.

[Semper]

"Elevated wealth status seems to make you want even more, and that increased want leads you to bend the rules or break the rules to serve your self-interest,"

Yes, this is the same behaviour a drug addict,alcoholic,compulsive gambler have. Nothing new here.

[manarak]

what does "elevated wealth" exactly mean? because you've got to afford that handgun...

[necronx99]

I don't think there is any great mystery here.

If your net worth is 2 dollars and you are presented with an opportunity to increase it by 1 more at the cost of your morals, there is little gain to be had.

If your worth is 2 million and you can increase it by 1 million more...

The greater your wealth the greater the opportunity and temptation.

[Replogle]

Regardless of what the study suggests, rich or poor, there are a few bad apples in every bunch. The ratio of good to bad in any sociological group may never be known given the multitude of external factors left out in the sample.

Personally, I'd rather live next door to rich folks who pretend to be down-'n'-out.

[Berkshire]

Regardless of what the study suggests, rich or poor, there are a few bad apples in every bunch. The ratio of good to bad in any sociological group may never be known given the multitude of external factors left out in the sample.

Personally, I'd rather live next door to rich folks who pretend to be down-'n'-out.

Of course I agree with you, that there are a few bad apples in every bunch. But that's what makes the article startling, to suggest that well-off people who would not seem to have a reason to lie and cheat do so more than those less fortunate.

I think the results would be vastly different if it was conducted on, say, self-made millionaires as opposed to those born with a silver spoon in their mouths (to explain the entitlement mentality).

[Sing_Sling]

I'd agree . . . the wealthy have the luxury to not be unethical . . . and I have known enough of those to be able to say that.

(Now, when you are looking at Asians . . . different story as many would have had to be unethical to get to where they are and have to still be so to stay)

[Kilgore Trout]

I read the article today as well. Doesn't surprise me, I remember a long time ago they did a similar study that showed people who drove Ford Taurus' tipped better (like 30% better) than people who drove Mercedes.

Hopefully the tradition of Americans allowing the rich to get away with crap (white collar crime etc.) are coming to an end (possibly the result of a long and hard fiscal recession) which saw the middle class get poorer while the rich benefited from people's misery and govt. bailouts.

I've always admired the British low/middle class "disdain" for the upper class or wealthy

[Berkshire]

I read the article today as well. Doesn't surprise me, I remember a long time ago they did a similar study that showed people who drove Ford Taurus' tipped better (like 30% better) than people who drove Mercedes.

Hopefully the tradition of Americans allowing the rich to get away with crap (white collar crime etc.) are coming to an end (possibly the result of a long and hard fiscal recession) which saw the middle class get poorer while the rich benefited from people's misery and govt. bailouts.

I've always admired the British low/middle class "disdain" for the upper class or wealthy

You would hope that it's "coming to an end." Unfortunately, I don't think so. The rich run America and make the laws. I don't see that changing any time soon. After the S&L crisis, people thought the same. Then came Enron. Then the Tech Bubble. Then Bear Stearns and the Financial Crisis. There will be another crisis soon.

And this is occurring in a country where there are regulators watching the regulators. For a country like Thailand, where there is little enforcement and most of the government officials barely making a living wage...well, pretty predictable.

[Fookhaht]

A common axiom: "Power corrupts."

And, money usually bestows power.

[villagefarang]

Sounds like reverse snobbery to me. A way to make the sheep feel better about themselves while concealing their secret wish to be shepherds.

[Moonrakers]

I don't think there is any great mystery here.

If your net worth is 2 dollars and you are presented with an opportunity to increase it by 1 more at the cost of your morals, there is little gain to be had.

If your worth is 2 million and you can increase it by 1 million more...

The greater your wealth the greater the opportunity and temptation.

Yet those with 2 dollars might be more desperate to push ethics aside while those with 2 million have less need for more money.

People are people, some are good, some not so good. Regardless of how much money they have.

[Payboy]

Are Rich People More Unethical?

Probably not, but its a good excuse for the poor.

[BookMan]

Those University experiments seemed fairly crap to me. Not even sure why it was worth publishing.

For my two bits...

I think, to become wealthy, you often have to bend your ethical values.

[xandreu]

Poor people are more likely to live in poor environments and have poor peers. This means that poor people tend to have stronger social bonds with their peers, which will ultimately make people more ethical and empathic towards others. You see it in poor areas all around the world, from the slums of India to the garbage dumps of Cambodia. and historically in the West as well. Poverty brings people together because you're more likely to help your friend out today if you think you may need your friends help tomorrow. It's ironic that the poverty of money can lead such a richness in social happiness. Some of the happiest people in the world live in abject poverty (by Western standards).

When people become wealthy, they tend to foster an "I'm alright Jack" attitude. Why help your friend today when it's unlikely you'll need his help tomorrow? And as people's wealth increases, this becomes more and more so until people gradually begin to lose that connection with society in return for concentrating on increasing their own wealth. This loss of empathy towards your fellow man inevitably leads to a loss of ethics. So what if you act unethically towards someone for personal gain? You're never likely to need his help and what's he ever done for you anyway?

The impact that wealth has on human behavior has been known since the dawn of the industrial revolution. That is why some countries chose to go down the Communist route as opposed to the "greed is good" Capitalist way. It's why Pol Pot tried to rid his country of social classes and even attempt to eradicate money altogether. It's why John Lennon sings "Imagine no possessions, it's easy if you can, no need for greed or hunger, a brotherhood of man".

The biggest surprise from this survey is that anyone is surprised by it's findings.

[Mirth]

Greed for material wealth is the culprit, don't have to be rich to be unethical. As long as an individual greed for material wealth and an opportuinity arises, he or she will seize it, regardless of being rich or poor.

[mrtoad]

I can think of a few very unethical individuals that aren't particularly wealthy and far from coming from higher up the social strata. As with many of these studies, it's often easy to get the results that you are looking for, to back up an opinion.

[Beetlejuice]

I like this thread.

The way I see it, is that people who are rich can behave anyway they like and others will still be queuing to kiss they’re backsides and be on the scene at their beck and call.

From my lifetime experience I have mostly found that people who have inherited wealth, or born into it are the most ethical and not too standoffish. It is those that originate from working class backgrounds and then worked they’re way to the top; I have found are the most unprincipled and full of arrogance. Aye, I am self made man and don`t U forget it laddy. A shiilin a week that’s all we ad, so think ya self lucky on the 10 quid a month I pay ya ta work for15 hour pa day.

Any one of wealth with nobility shows it in their character and they know how to conduct themselves well when interacting with all classes of people. It is those that have risen up through the ranks I find the most deplorable.

[MAJIC]

Elevated wealth status seems to make you want even more, and that increased want leads you to bend the rules or break the rules to serve your self-interest," says Paul Piff, the lead author of the study and a doctoral candidate in psychology at the university.]

The Dubai Fugitive is a prime example of the study findings.

Edited February 28, 2012 by MAJIC

[CarlBkk]

They're also more unethical in the following senses: happy to use cheap labour, don't care about the dodgy background of any product (or food) they're buying, happy to use name, notoriety and money to get what they want, do not treat people equally.

I have many wealthy customers in the UK who really care about the background of the product (Fairtrade etc.) and who also donate a fair bit to charity. When do you hear of rich Asians really donating to proper charities and not just at the Wat or for a Louis Vuitton at the Vogue/Tatler Annual Charity Dinner?

[melvinmelvin]

Regardless of what the study suggests, rich or poor, there are a few bad apples in every bunch. The ratio of good to bad in any sociological group may never be known given the multitude of external factors left out in the sample.

Personally, I'd rather live next door to rich folks who pretend to be down-'n'-out.

Of course I agree with you, that there are a few bad apples in every bunch. But that's what makes the article startling, to suggest that well-off people who would not seem to have a reason to lie and cheat do so more than those less fortunate.

I think the results would be vastly different if it was conducted on, say, self-made millionaires as opposed to those born with a silver spoon in their mouths (to explain the entitlement mentality).

similar studies have been conducted in several countries,

recently such a study was published in the country I come from, with quite similar findings

the reason for this was given as "rich people care less about what other people think of them"

[gregb]

What the study the OP cited implicitly ignores is the social period during which the study is taking place. There are many historical accounts of similar breakdown in morals taking place during the end of the Roman empire. (just google moral decline roman empire and read the millions of results) Just as now, the breakdown appeared to be most significant in the upper classes.

The reality is that during the decline of an empire, it becomes exceedingly difficult to remain at the top of the heap. Rather than being able to feast off flows of natural wealth percolating up from nature through the various classes, it becomes a much more cut throat environment where catabolic relationships are the only practical way to maintain relative positions. Those at the bottom have much less to gain by cheating and swindling, and everything to gain by trying to establish community which will help them survive. Meanwhile, those at the top are in a constant struggle with their peers to remain at the top, and with fewer and fewer elite positions available they need to be viscious.

I suspect at the peak of the American empire after WWII, these same experiments would have given different results, and would have shown pretty much the same ethics running through all the classes. With collapse of the American empire inevitable and accelerating, those with the most to lose face asymmetric pressure, and their morals not surprisingly suffer for it.

[Kilgore Trout]

I like this thread.

The way I see it, is that people who are rich can behave anyway they like and others will still be queuing to kiss they’re backsides and be on the scene at their beck and call.

From my lifetime experience I have mostly found that people who have inherited wealth, or born into it are the most ethical and not too standoffish. It is those that originate from working class backgrounds and then worked they’re way to the top; I have found are the most unprincipled and full of arrogance. Aye, I am self made man and don`t U forget it laddy. A shiilin a week that’s all we ad, so think ya self lucky on the 10 quid a month I pay ya ta work for15 hour pa day.

Any one of wealth with nobility shows it in their character and they know how to conduct themselves well when interacting with all classes of people. It is those that have risen up through the ranks I find the most deplorable.

Are you perpetuating the stereotype that Scots are tight?

[Berkshire]

From my lifetime experience I have mostly found that people who have inherited wealth, or born into it are the most ethical and not too standoffish. It is those that originate from working class backgrounds and then worked they’re way to the top; I have found are the most unprincipled and full of arrogance. Aye, I am self made man and don`t U forget it laddy.

That's an interesting observation. As a self-made guy myself, I would tend to respectfully disagree (and I do mean respectfully, as I appreciate your insight). Guys like Bill Gates, Sam Walton, and Steve Jobs come to mind. Small sampling, of course, but the article suggest that years of privileged upbringing and pampering can enforce a sense of entitlement. A good example are the kids of Middle East dictators, who often are even more corrupt and vicious than their fathers.

On the other side, I've met some sons of very wealthy Thai business folks who are genuinely decent people. But in all cases, their father was very tough on them and made sure that they were on the straight and narrow. So it's really complicated how people will turn out in life.

[toybits]

That feeling of entitlement causes people to be less humble.

[theblether]

Edit double post

Edited February 29, 2012 by theblether

[theblether]

Yes we are....I have to go now, one of my slaves has just collapsed, we'll need to go bury him.

He's not dead, but burying him is cheaper than medical treatment.

Next question?

Edited February 29, 2012 by theblether

[isanbirder]

Rich people? Just lead me to them.

And that dreadful fellow Bill Gates......

[IanForbes]

Poor people are more likely to live in poor environments and have poor peers. This means that poor people tend to have stronger social bonds with their peers, which will ultimately make people more ethical and empathic towards others. You see it in poor areas all around the world, from the slums of India to the garbage dumps of Cambodia. and historically in the West as well. Poverty brings people together because you're more likely to help your friend out today if you think you may need your friends help tomorrow. It's ironic that the poverty of money can lead such a richness in social happiness. Some of the happiest people in the world live in abject poverty (by Western standards).

When people become wealthy, they tend to foster an "I'm alright Jack" attitude. Why help your friend today when it's unlikely you'll need his help tomorrow? And as people's wealth increases, this becomes more and more so until people gradually begin to lose that connection with society in return for concentrating on increasing their own wealth. This loss of empathy towards your fellow man inevitably leads to a loss of ethics. So what if you act unethically towards someone for personal gain? You're never likely to need his help and what's he ever done for you anyway?

The impact that wealth has on human behavior has been known since the dawn of the industrial revolution. That is why some countries chose to go down the Communist route as opposed to the "greed is good" Capitalist way. It's why Pol Pot tried to rid his country of social classes and even attempt to eradicate money altogether. It's why John Lennon sings "Imagine no possessions, it's easy if you can, no need for greed or hunger, a brotherhood of man".

The biggest surprise from this survey is that anyone is surprised by it's findings.

Good post, xandreu. I believe roughly the same thing. During the second world war when Hitler was bombing London it was the poor helping the other poor and it brought people together. Many times I've been helped by Thais who didn't have pitance of what I have. As for myself I now get more pleasure out of helping others than having more for myself. As long as I have enough for my simple tastes I'm happy to share what extra I have. And, I want nothing in return. It just makes ME feel better.