Money on the Mind

In a series of startling studies, psychologists at the University of California at Berkeley have found that "upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals." Ongoing research is trying to find out what it is about wealth — or lack of it — that makes people behave they way they do. Paul Solman reports as part of his Making Sen$e series, more of which you can check out here: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/makingsense/ and http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2013/06/why-those-who-feel-they-have-less-give-more.html

In California, you're supposed to stop for a pedestrian at the crosswalk. And in a recent study, some 90% of drivers did- except for those driving luxury cars.

Like this BMW.

They were almost as likely to run the intersection as wait for the person to cross the street.

Piff: "Drivers of those BMW's, those Porsche's, those Mercedes, were anywhere from 3-4 times more likely

to break the law than drivers of less expensive, low-status cars."

In a country more and more polarized by inequality, U CAL Berkley's Paul Piff led a series of startling studies showing an apparent link between

wealth and well unseemly behavior.

Experimenter: "Oh and by the way there's candy there, its actually for children for another study but you're welcome to take a few pieces if you want to."

That's the script an experimenter recited to every subject, and the results?

Piff: "Wealthier participants took two times as much candy from children as did poor participants."

Another experiment tested honesty in reporting dice scores when cash was on the line.

Piff: "People all the way at the top, who made 150/200 thousand dollars a year,were actually cheating four times as much as

someone all the way at the bottom who made under 15,000 dollars a year, just to win credits for a $50 cash prize."

So, experimental evidence that rich people are more likely to break the law while driving, help themselves

to candy meant for children, cheat in a game of chance, also to lie during negotiations and endorse unethical behavior including stealing at work.

The academic paper that resulted made headlines everywhere.

The Wall Street journal article leading with the question "Ready the Pitchforks?"

Kiltner: "It is very clear that this study of social class touched a nerve."

Psychology professor, Dackerd Kiltner is Paul Piff's boss and co-author.

Kiltner: "We published these studies in relatively obscure scientific journals and literally the next day

we're getting hundreds of emails from around the world, and a lot quite hostile."

Piff: "I've got a lot of vitriol and hate email from people calling me out for junk science and having a liberal agenda."

Hey but wait, didn't those who complained have a point? That the research was done at famously, some might say "infamously", liberal university.

Narrator: "Hey, they're in Berkley what other results did you expect them to get?"

Piff: "I regularly hear the Berkly idiot scientist who is finding what they expect to find. Let me tell you

we did not expect to find this. Our findings apply to both liberals and conservatives, it doesn't matter who you are if you wealthy you're more likely to show these patterns of results."

Results consistent across thirty studies he's run on thousands of people all over the United States.

So what is it about wealth that might make people behave differently?

Narrator: "What are we doing here?"
Piff: "We're playing a game of Monopoly that's rigged."

This game is typical of another kind of experiment Piff likes to run. Instead of studying actual

rich people, Piff gets subjects to feel rich in the lab.

The designated Monopoly "money bags" starts with a few legs up: $2000 versus the poor mans $1000, an upscale playing piece, the "Roles", versus the "old shoe".

The right to toss two dice instead of just one.

Meaning I, assigned the role of rich person, get an extra turn.

Participant: "So I roll again because I got doubles..."
Piff: "Yep"

uh six, so, 1,2,3,4,5,6 and that's Tennessee Avenue and of course I'll buy that

Meanwhile poor Paul Piff..."I only get to roll one die and as it says here, when I pass go I collect the lower salary, I collect $100."

>"Here's your one die."
>"Thanks so much."

Piff: "I can't roll doubles, I don't get the opportunity to go very far on the board."

Piff has run this experiment with hundreds of people on the Berkley campus. The rich players

are determined randomly by coin toss. The game rigged so they cannot lose. And yet, says Piff, despite their presumably liberal bent going in,

Piff: "When we ask them afterwords, how much do you feel you deserved to win the game, the rich people felt entitled.

They felt they deserved to win the game. And that's a really incredible insight into what the mind does to make sense of advantage or disadvantage."

So even though a subject like myself is just "play acting", "you consistently find that I begin to attribute

success to myself even though it's a coin flip that got me on the board as opposed to that."

Piff: "You, like a real rich person, start to attribute success to your own individual skills and talents

and you become less attuned to all the other things that contributed to you being in the position that you're in."

Piff is part of a team headed by Dackerd Kiltner that studies the psychological affects of both absolute

and relative poverty and wealth. What they're studying is economic inequality.

Which as our viewers probably know is as high as its been in almost a century in this country.

Kiltner: "There are new data coming out on a daily basis from top laboratories showing no matter how you look at it, the affects of inequality are pernicious upon things like

bullying on the school playground, the quality of your physical health, how you handle disease..."

What's somewhat surprising, says Kiltner, is that even "the haves" suffer.

Kiltner: "One of the things that wealth and money does is it comes with a set of values and if you want a deeper ideology, and one of them is "generosity is for suckers and greed is good"

but it turns out there are a lot of new data that show if you are generous and charitable and altruistic,

you'll live longer, you'll feel more fulfilled, you'll feel more expressive of who you are as a person, you probably will feel more control and freedom in you life."

Of course they're are plenty of wildly generous rich folks, just look at the growing list of billionaires

who have pledged to give the bulk of their fortunes to charity.

But statistically speaking, there's a significant tendency to look out for number one if you're at the top.

(playing game)

And as Piff observed when he ran this experiment with hundreds of doggedly friendly Berkley types,

those in the role of "top dog" began to bark like one.

Narrator: "So I get 200 bucks, well give me 140 cause I'm going to buy Mediterranean."

Piff: "OK, done, now listen to the way you just spoke to me. It was very directive, but almost like a demand. But we found

consistently with people who were the rich players that they actually started to become, in their behavior, as if they were like rich people in real life.

They were more likely to eat from a bowl of pretzels that we positioned for players off to the side, more likely to eat with their mouths full, so a little ruder in their behavior to the other person..."

While I was thanking God no pretzels were present, Piff continued.

Those arbitrarily assigned the role of low dog, became more nearly man's best friend.

"If I take someone whose rich and make them feel psychologically less well off they become way more generous, way more charitable, way more likely to

offer help to another person."

Narrator: "So when people are playing this Monopoly game and they're in the poor personal role that you're playing, they, if they were more rich in real life

become more understanding, more compassionate?"

Piff: "Not just in this game of Monopoly but in a whole bunch of other experiments that we've run where we

make rich people feel poor or poor people feel rich, you find the same kinds of differences."

Differences that could conceivably help people understand their subconscious biases and perhaps even moderate the costly effects of

economic inequality. But until that happens, we'd suggest you look both ways before crossing.