Is greed the root of all evil? Or if not everything is bad, maybe it’s just a more unpleasant person? In 2012, a psychological article appeared in a scientific journal. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences proved to be convincing evidence that the answer is yes.
In seven separate studies, some in the lab and others in the real world, researchers have reported discovery after discovery showing that wealthier people are higher-status—and even those who match it. think about being richer and of higher status behaved worse, more selfishly than those at the bottom of the spectrum of social class.
The first two studies concerned automobiles. In one, psychologists observed an intersection in California and rated the “status” of cars approaching it (prettier, newer, and better-maintained cars scored higher). In California, you are legally required to dodge cars entering the intersection in front of you. The researchers looked at how often cars violate this law by knocking down other cars. In fact, they found that higher status cars were more likely to do so.
Another study dealt with pedestrian crossings in the UK. Again, cars were judged by their status; This time, the observers were watching to see if the driver would dodge a pedestrian waiting to cross the street (pedestrians, secretly from the drivers, also worked for the investigators). As in the previous experiment, full-size cars were more likely to break the rules because their drivers drove right through the intersection.
It seemed to reinforce the stereotype of the clueless rich man traveling through life ignoring others and sometimes putting them in danger. Along with five other experiments – which lab tested the idea that “activating” the concept of financial status in people’s minds makes them behave more selfishly – it was a perfect scientific illustration of a scene from the 80s movie Years. Wall Streetwhere Michael Douglas’ Gordon Gekko justifies his unethical behavior by saying at a conference that “greed is good.”
The study was irresistible. It was covered in over 100 different news articles with headlines such as: “How Wealth Reduces Compassion”; “It’s Your Brain About Money”; and “Rich Idiots, Explained.” Unusually for a scientific study, the coverage continues for 11 years and is featured in a series of articles every few months. For example, last month he was quoted in an article designed to help authorities prosecute today’s most notorious wealthy man with dubious ethics: Donald Trump.
Although almost 1,300 other scientific papers have cited this article since its publication, it has caused confusion in the scientific community. For example, one researcher argued that this was unlikely. all seven The studies reported in the article are said to have successfully found the same effect. Even if the effect is real, one would expect it not to show up very often, simply due to random fluctuations. Simply put, the results seemed too perfect to be true.
These statistics were discussed, but the discussion drew attention to the fact that many of the statistical tests in the article were rather inconclusive. The only way to truly settle the dispute was Play: Some other scientists had to go and do the same experiment again.
And now they have. An article appeared earlier this year reporting two large-scale attempts to replicate two studies of driving a car. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Paper. They were also conducted in California and followed the instructions of the original study as closely as possible.
Both of them were quite convincing: in both cases there was no evidence of a link between social status and unethical behavior. Drivers with prettier cars cut themselves at least as often at intersections, if at all. more likely to be slower for a pedestrian (although the effect was far from statistically significant, so we can only conclude that there is nothing wrong with that).
Why didn’t they find the same effect? Could this be the original? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences The paper was somehow inaccurate, which means the results are unreliable? The author of the “too good to be true” review pointed out the possibility that the authors could have done more studies and not reported them by choosing the right ones. Or maybe they were just very lucky, but it was a stroke of luck that other researchers have been unable to replicate.
Perhaps there is a more mundane reason. Perhaps the replication attempt was too different from the original. For example, in the new study, the sex ratio differs from the original, which (for some reason) included more men in a later experiment. Could this—and perhaps more importantly, the fact that more than 10 years have passed since the original study—explain why trying to replicate produced different results?
Maybe. But, as the authors of a later paper put it, “Research results are most useful when they have robust predictive power that goes beyond the narrow specifics of the original research environment.”
In other words, if psychologists can only find results in a very specific place and time, what does that tell us about human nature? All in all? Not that the original study said its results only made sense in a very specific context: they were written as if they applied to everyone, everywhere. Her loud conclusion that “the pursuit of self-interest is the more fundamental pursuit among society’s elite” sounds a little less impressive when one adds “…on certain certain streets in California where there aren’t that many men, only in 2012” . .
Keep in mind, however, that the studies based on driving behavior weren’t the only ones. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Paper. Perhaps other studies still suggest that high society people are more unethical? Unfortunately, they also did not succeed in replication attempts.
For example, in the 2018 study, one of the same laboratory experiments was performed as in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences papers and found no evidence that upper-class people were more likely to lie. An attempt at replication in 2017 showed that the same applies to the upper class. less probably reported unethical behavior or did not show any difference compared to people from poorer backgrounds, and there was no evidence that “indoctrination” into them with the idea that “greed is good” affected their behavior.
As far as I know, no one has tried to experiment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences A document in which participants who were made to think they were higher in social class than others tended to take more candy from the bowl when they left the lab.
In general, everything is not so simple Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences The paper would make us believe. It’s not that higher social class makes us unethical in all situations. Ethical and unethical behavior comes in many different forms and is highly context and character dependent. As the authors of the new article point out, there are plenty of examples of wealthier upper-class individuals acting incredibly pro-social: think of billionaire philanthropists or historical evidence that wealthier people in Nazi-occupied countries during the Holocaust in Europe were more willing to save Jews (even given the fact that they usually had large houses).
According to the data on Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences website, the study was tweeted over 7,000 times in 2012 in addition to numerous media articles. How much of this overblown discussion is a genuine attempt to get to the science and make sense of the numbers, and how much of the research is being used as a bludgeon to attack people with different political views? And will anyone be deterred by the fact that most of the research results cannot be replicated before being shared on social media?
You don’t need to know much about human psychology to know the answer to these questions.
Source: I News
With a background in journalism and a passion for technology, I am an experienced writer and editor. As an author at 24 News Reporter, I specialize in writing about the latest news and developments within the tech industry. My work has been featured on various publications including Wired Magazine and Engadget.