I think her point was that once someone gets a little better off than most of the rest of the population they get haughty. And then they see the poorer people as stealing half their money in taxes. And become against taxes and business regulations. Because it affects them more directly.
And holding conservative fiscal values leads to adopting the social ones because it comes back to welfare scapegoating. And who you are rubbing elbows with. The echo chamber.
It’s well known with psych research that being more wealthy (even in a pretend game) makes people less charitable and less likely to help out others.
People start to see themselves as better than rest. And likely because of the fundamental attribution bias, believe they are better off because they are deserving. Which means those not doing well, deserve their place too.
My friend was giving a theory on how this trend works to change mindsets.
We were discussing why it is that people who come from poverty and become wealthy, often have no problem exploiting the people from their own background. When you would expect more sympathy.
Your arguments have a few flaws. The most likely explanation is that selfish people continue to be selfish- whether poor or well-off. This particular group simply looks out for their own interests, whether at the benefit or the cost of others, regardless of where they are in life. They don’t change and suddenly “get haughty”.
It’s well known with psych research that being more wealthy (even in a pretend game) makes people less charitable and less likely to help out others
You are confusing correlation with causation. Studies indicate those well-off donate less at a lower rate/incidence than the poor. There are several reasons to explain this other than to assume people change because of the money. For one, the personality and nature that often drives wealth accumulation is directly related to a lack of charity. For two, income directly relates to an uptake of religion… hence charitable giving and a desire to give to community.
I’m not talking about correlation studies only.
I’m talking about experiments.
Together they both show more wealth equates to being less charitable.
It makes sense if you understand that most people ascribe in the fundamental attribution error.
To put simply.
"If I do well it’s cause I deserve it and worked for it. If other people do well it’s because they got lucky or circumstances out of their control.
If I do poorly it’s because of circumstances out of my control. If other people do poorly it’s because they aren’t trying hard enough. "
Both of these papers give background reviews of the literature on this topic. There are literally thousands of studies on this topic. Some correlation and some experimental.
6 figure incomes aren’t suddenly turning republican. That’s not what happens.
I think her point was that once someone gets a little better off than most of the rest of the population they get haughty. And then they see the poorer people as stealing half their money in taxes. And become against taxes and business regulations. Because it affects them more directly.
And holding conservative fiscal values leads to adopting the social ones because it comes back to welfare scapegoating. And who you are rubbing elbows with. The echo chamber.
It’s well known with psych research that being more wealthy (even in a pretend game) makes people less charitable and less likely to help out others.
People start to see themselves as better than rest. And likely because of the fundamental attribution bias, believe they are better off because they are deserving. Which means those not doing well, deserve their place too.
My friend was giving a theory on how this trend works to change mindsets.
We were discussing why it is that people who come from poverty and become wealthy, often have no problem exploiting the people from their own background. When you would expect more sympathy.
Your arguments have a few flaws. The most likely explanation is that selfish people continue to be selfish- whether poor or well-off. This particular group simply looks out for their own interests, whether at the benefit or the cost of others, regardless of where they are in life. They don’t change and suddenly “get haughty”.
You are confusing correlation with causation. Studies indicate those well-off donate
lessat a lower rate/incidence than the poor. There are several reasons to explain this other than to assume people change because of the money. For one, the personality and nature that often drives wealth accumulation is directly related to a lack of charity. For two, income directly relates to an uptake of religion… hence charitable giving and a desire to give to community.I’m not talking about correlation studies only. I’m talking about experiments.
Together they both show more wealth equates to being less charitable.
It makes sense if you understand that most people ascribe in the fundamental attribution error.
To put simply. "If I do well it’s cause I deserve it and worked for it. If other people do well it’s because they got lucky or circumstances out of their control.
If I do poorly it’s because of circumstances out of my control. If other people do poorly it’s because they aren’t trying hard enough. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
The better off you are. The more you see others below you as just lazy and undeserving.
Again. This is a trend. Not true for everyone.
Just because you don’t fit that trend does not make it untrue.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20649364/ Having less, giving more: the influence of social class on prosocial behavior (Correlation study)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35409667/ Social Class Priming Effect on Prosociality: Evidence from Explicit and Implicit Measures (Experimental effect)
Both of these papers give background reviews of the literature on this topic. There are literally thousands of studies on this topic. Some correlation and some experimental.