IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i7p3984-d780801.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social Class Priming Effect on Prosociality: Evidence from Explicit and Implicit Measures

Author

Listed:
  • Shan Zhang

    (Institute of Psychology and Behavior, Henan University, Kaifeng 475004, China)

  • Xinlei Zang

    (Institute of Psychology and Behavior, Henan University, Kaifeng 475004, China)

  • Sainan Zhang

    (Institute of Psychology and Behavior, Henan University, Kaifeng 475004, China)

  • Feng Zhang

    (Institute of Psychology and Behavior, Henan University, Kaifeng 475004, China)

Abstract

Although abundant research has explored the relationship between social class and prosociality, it remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the effect of social class priming on prosociality among college students. Experiment 1 was an explicit experiment in which we employed the MacArthur scale to prime participants’ social class and then used a donation task. The results showed that students in a low social class priming group had more donation behaviors compared to ones in a high social class priming group. Experiment 2 was an implicit experiment in which we used a single category implicit association test (SC-IAT) to investigate the relationship between the self-concepts of different social classes and prosociality after priming participants’ social class. The results indicated that students in a low social class priming condition had a stronger connection between self-concepts and prosocial inclinations than ones in a high social class priming condition. Thus, our study demonstrated that students primed with low social class were more prosocial than those primed with high social class, and supported the empathy-altruism theory of prosocial behavior. These findings are of great practical significance to promote prosocial behavior of individuals of different social classes.

Suggested Citation

  • Shan Zhang & Xinlei Zang & Sainan Zhang & Feng Zhang, 2022. "Social Class Priming Effect on Prosociality: Evidence from Explicit and Implicit Measures," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-9, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:7:p:3984-:d:780801
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/7/3984/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/7/3984/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephen Knack & Philip Keefer, 1997. "Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A Cross-Country Investigation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(4), pages 1251-1288.
    2. Peter Martinsson & Clara Villegas-Palacio & Conny Wollbrant, 2015. "Cooperation and social classes: evidence from Colombia," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 829-848, December.
    3. Andreoni, James, 1990. "Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(401), pages 464-477, June.
    4. Martin Korndörfer & Boris Egloff & Stefan C Schmukle, 2015. "A Large Scale Test of the Effect of Social Class on Prosocial Behavior," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-48, July.
    5. James Andreoni & Nikos Nikiforakis & Jan Stoop, 2021. "Higher socioeconomic status does not predict decreased prosocial behavior in a field experiment," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-8, December.
    6. Martin Korndörfer & Boris Egloff & Stefan C. Schmukle, 2015. "A Large Scale Test of the Effect of Social Class on Prosocial Behavior," Working Papers 1601, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    7. Martin Korndörfer & Boris Egloff & Stefan C. Schmukle, 2015. "A Large Scale Test of the Effect of Social Class on Prosocial Behavior," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 808, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fehr, Dietmar & Rau, Hannes & Trautmann, Stefan T. & Xu, Yilong, 2020. "Inequality, fairness and social capital," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    2. Antonio Tintori & Giulia Ciancimino & Rossella Palomba & Cristiana Clementi & Loredana Cerbara, 2021. "The Impact of Socialisation on Children’s Prosocial Behaviour. A Study on Primary School Students," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-14, November.
    3. Katarzyna Samson, 2018. "Trust as a mechanism of system justification," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-22, October.
    4. Yanli Wang & Chao Yang & Yanchi Zhang & Xiaoyong Hu, 2021. "Socioeconomic Status and Prosocial Behavior: The Mediating Roles of Community Identity and Perceived Control," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-11, September.
    5. Christian T. Elbæk & Panagiotis Mitkidis & Lene Aarøe & Tobias Otterbring, 2023. "Subjective socioeconomic status and income inequality are associated with self-reported morality across 67 countries," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.
    6. He, Ling & Tan, Chee-Seng & Pung, Pit-Wan & Hu, Jie & Tang, Hai-Bo & Cheng, Siew-May, 2023. "The role of parental rejection and poverty in the development of prosocial behavior among left-behind adolescents in rural China," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    7. Yilong Xu & Ginevra Marandola, 2023. "The (negative) effects of inequality on Social Capital," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(5), pages 1562-1588, December.
    8. Antinyan, Armenak & Baghdasaryan, Vardan & Grigoryan, Aleksandr, 2022. "Charitable giving, social capital, and positional concerns," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    9. Ashley V Whillans & Elizabeth W Dunn, 2018. "Agentic appeals increase charitable giving in an affluent sample of donors," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-10, December.
    10. R. Bret Leary & Rhiannon MacDonnell Mesler & Bonnie Simpson & Matthew D. Meng & William Montford, 2022. "Effects of perceived scarcity on COVID‐19 consumer stimulus spending: The roles of ontological insecurity and mutability in predicting prosocial outcomes," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(3), pages 1046-1061, September.
    11. James Andreoni & Nikos Nikiforakis & Jan Stoop, 2021. "Higher socioeconomic status does not predict decreased prosocial behavior in a field experiment," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-8, December.
    12. Ulf Liebe & Elias Naumann & Andreas Tutic, 2019. "Prosocial Behavior Across Professional Boundaries: Experimental Evidence From Hospitals," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(2), pages 21582440198, May.
    13. Vrolijk, Kasper, 2023. "How does globalisation affect social cohesion?," IDOS Discussion Papers 5/2023, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    14. Gereke, Johanna & Schaub, Max & Baldassarri, Delia, 2018. "Ethnic diversity, poverty and social trust in Germany: Evidence from a behavioral measure of trust," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 13(7), pages 1-15.
    15. Rockenbach, Bettina & Tonke, Sebastian & Weiss, Arne R., 2021. "Self-serving behavior of the rich causes contagion effects among the poor," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 289-300.
    16. Ting Wang & Xue Wang & Tonglin Jiang & Shiyao Wang & Zhansheng Chen, 2021. "Under the Threat of an Epidemic: People with Higher Subjective Socioeconomic Status Show More Unethical Behaviors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-14, March.
    17. Yujie Zhao & Xinyue Zhou, 2022. "Income and geographically constrained generosity," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(2), pages 766-787, June.
    18. Daria Denti & Alessandra Faggian, 2021. "Where do angry birds tweet? Income inequality and online hate in Italy," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 14(3), pages 483-506.
    19. Elisabeth Gsottbauer & Daniel Müller & Samuel Müller & Stefan T. Trautmann & Galina Zudenkova, 2020. "Social class and (un)ethical behavior: Causal versus correlational evidence," Working Papers 2020-10, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    20. Elisabeth Gsottbauer & Daniel Müller & Samuel Müller & Stefan T Trautmann & Galina Zudenkova, 2022. "Social Class and (Un)Ethical Behaviour: Causal and Correlational Evidence," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(647), pages 2392-2411.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:7:p:3984-:d:780801. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.