How can successful people share their goodness with the world: The psychological mechanism underlying the upper social classes’ redistributive preferences and the role of humility

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.01161

Abstract

Abstract:

A large number of studies conducted in Europe and America have explored the negative relationships between social class and redistributive preferences. However, few studies have addressed the cross-cultural consistency or explored the internal mechanism and intervention strategies of the effects of social class on redistributive preferences. The results showed that as in Western society, upper social-class Chinese individuals also tend to have lower redistributive preferences than those from lower social classes. In addition, the effects of social class on redistributive preferences could be partly mediated through the attributions for rich-poor gap. Compared with individuals from a subjectively lower class, upper-class individuals tended to attribute the gap between rich and poor to internal causes. That is to say, they tended to attribute the rich-gap to personal factors, such as abilities, efforts, and ambition. This attitude lowered upper-class individuals’ redistributive preferences even further. Finally, priming a humble state lowered upper-class individuals’ tendency to attribute the gap between rich and poor to internal causes, and further improved their redistributive preferences to a significant extent. These findings provide supporting data for the inequality maintenance model of social class and shed light upon social governance in promoting wealth redistribution and the sharing of developmental fruits.

Key words: social class, attributions for rich-poor gap, redistributive preferences, humility

BAI Jie, YANG Shenlong, XU Buxiao, GUO Yongyu. (2021). How can successful people share their goodness with the world: The psychological mechanism underlying the upper social classes’ redistributive preferences and the role of humility. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(10), 1161-1172.

Figures/Tables 4

References 55

[1]	Alesina A., & Angeletos G. M. (2005). Fairness and redistribution. American Economic Review, 95(4), 960-980. doi: 10.1257/0002828054825655 URL
[2]	Andersen R., & Curtis J. (2015). Social class, economic inequality, and the convergence of policy preferences: Evidence from 24 modern democracies. Canadian Review of Sociology, 52(3), 266-288. doi: 10.1111/cars.2015.52.issue-3 URL
[3]	Belmi P., & Laurin K. (2016). Who wants to get to the top? Class and lay theories about power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(4), 505-529. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000060 URL
[4]	Berg J. H., Stephan W. G., & Dodson M. (2006). Attributional modesty in women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5(s5), 711-727. doi: 10.1177/036168438100505s07 URL
[5]	Blickle G., Diekmann C., Schneider P. B., Kalthöfer Y., & Summers J. K. (2012). When modesty wins: Impression management through modesty, political skill, and career success—A two-study investigation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21(6), 899-922. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2011.603900 URL
[6]	Brown-Iannuzzi J. L., Lundberg K. B., Kay A. C., & Payne B. K. (2015). Subjective status shapes political preferences. Psychological Science, 26(1), 15-26. doi: 10.1177/0956797614553947 pmid: 25416138
[7]	Brown-Iannuzzi J. L., Lundberg K. B., & Mckee S. (2017). The politics of socioeconomic status: How socioeconomic status may influence political attitudes and engagement. Current Opinion in Psychology, 18, 11-14. doi: S2352-250X(17)30072-6 pmid: 29221505
[8]	Bullock H. E. (2017). Social class and policy preferences: Implications for economic inequality and interclass relations. Current Opinion in Psychology, 18, 141-146. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.08.021 URL
[9]	Cai F. (2020). Creation and protection: Why do we need more redistribution. World Economics and Politics, 1, 5-21.
[10]	Cohen S., Alper C. M., Doyle W. J., Adler N., Treanor J. J., & Turner R. B. (2008). Objective and subjective socioeconomic status and susceptibility to the common cold. Health Psychology, 27(2), 268-274. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.27.2.268 URL
[11]	Davis D. E., McElroy S., Choe E., Westbrook C. J., DeBlaere C., van Tongeren D. R., ... Placeres V. (2017). Development of the experiences of humility scale. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 45(1), 3-16. doi: 10.1177/009164711704500101 URL
[12]	Davis D. E., Worthington E. L., & Hook J. N. (2010). Humility: Review of measurement strategies and conceptualization as personality judgment. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(4), 243-252. doi: 10.1080/17439761003791672 URL
[13]	Durante R., Putterman L., & van der Weele J. (2014). Preferences for redistribution and perception of fairness: An experimental study. Journal of the European Economic Association, 12(4), 1059-1086. doi: 10.1111/jeea.12082 URL
[14]	Exline J. J., Campbell W. K., Baumeister R. F., Joiner T., & Krueger J. (2004) Humility and modesty. In C. Peterson, & M. P. Seligman (Eds.), Character strengths and virtues: A handbook of classification (pp. 461-475). New York: Oxford University Press.
[15]	Exline J. J., & Hill P. C. (2012). Humility: A consistent and robust predictor of generosity. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7(3), 208-218. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2012.671348 URL
[16]	Hayes A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
[17]	Hu X. Y., Guo Y. Y., Li J., & Yang S. L. (2016). Perceived societal fairness and goal attainment: The different effects of social class and their mechanism. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 48(3), 271-289. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2016.00271 URL
[18]	Hussak L. J., & Cimpian A. (2015). An early-emerging explanatory heuristic promotes support for the status quo. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(5), 739-752. doi: 10.1037/pspa0000033 URL
[19]	Kraus M. W., & Callaghan B. (2014). Noblesse oblige? Social status and economic inequality maintenance among politicians. PLoS One, 9(1), e85293. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085293 URL
[20]	Kraus M. W., Côté S., & Keltner D. (2010). Social class, contextualism, and empathic accuracy. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1716-1723. doi: 10.1177/0956797610387613 URL
[21]	Kraus M. W., Piff P. K., & Keltner D. (2009). Social class, sense of control, and social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 992-1004. doi: 10.1037/a0016357 URL
[22]	Krawczyk M. (2010). A glimpse through the veil of ignorance: Equality of opportunity and support for redistribution. Journal of Public Economics, 94(1-2), 131-141. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.10.003 URL
[23]	Kruse E., Chancellor J., & Lyubomirsky S. (2017). State humility: Measurement, conceptual validation, and intrapersonal processes. Self and Identity, 16(4), 399-438. doi: 10.1080/15298868.2016.1267662 URL
[24]	Laurison D. (2016). Social class and political engagement in the United States. Sociology Compass, 10(8), 684-697. doi: 10.1111/soc4.12390 URL
[25]	Leckelt M., Richter D., Schroder C., Kufner A. C., Grabka M. M., & Back M. D. (2019). The rich are different: Unravelling the perceived and self‐reported personality profiles of high‐net‐worth individuals. British Journal of Psychology, 110(4), 769-789. doi: 10.1111/bjop.12360 pmid: 30466138
[26]	Li J. (2014). Study on the tendency of attribution on the gap between the rich and the poor in different social classes. Guangzhou: World Publishing Corporation.
[27]	Li Q. B. (2012). China’s income redistribution: Determinants of preferences, policy formation and effects calculation (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). Nankai University, Tianjin, China.
[28]	Li W. Q., Yang Y., Wu J. H., & Kou Y. (2020). Testing the status-legitimacy hypothesis in China: Objective and subjective socioeconomic status divergently predict system justification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(7), 1044-1058. doi: 10.1177/0146167219893997 URL
[29]	Liu X. (2007). Class structure and the middle class location in urban China. Sociological Studies, 6, 1-14.
[30]	Lu X. Y. (Ed.). (2002) Contemporary Chinese social class research report. Beijing, China: Social Sciences Academic Press.
[31]	Martin S. R., Côté S., & Woodruff T. (2016). Echoes of our upbringing: How growing up wealthy or poor relates to narcissism, leader behavior, and leader effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 2157-2177. doi: 10.5465/amj.2015.0680 URL
[32]	Meltzer A. H. & Richard S. F. (1981). A rational theory of the size of government. Journal of Political Economy, 89(5), 914-927. doi: 10.1086/261013 URL
[33]	Miyamoto Y. (2017). Culture and social class. Current Opinion in Psychology, 18, 67-72. doi: S2352-250X(17)30045-3 pmid: 28826007
[34]	Page B. I., Bartels L. M., & Seawright J. (2013). Democracy and the policy preferences of wealthy Americans. Perspectives on Politics, 11(1), 51-73. doi: 10.1017/S153759271200360X URL
[35]	Pan C. Y., & He L. X. (2011). Pursuing self interests or distributive justice? An empirical study of the preference for redistribution of Chinese residents. Journal of Economic Review, 5, 20-29.
[36]	Piff P. K. (2014). Wealth and the inflated self: Class, entitlement, and narcissism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(1), 34-43. doi: 10.1177/0146167213501699 URL
[37]	Piff P. K., Kraus M. W., Cote S., Cheng B. H., & Keltner D. (2010). Having less, giving more: The influence of social class on prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(5), 771-784. doi: 10.1037/a0020092 URL
[38]	Piff P. K., Kraus M. W., & Keltner D. (2018) Unpacking the inequality paradox: The psychological roots of inequality and social class. In J. M. Olson (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 53-124). San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press.
[39]	Qiu L., Zheng X., & Wang Y. F. (2008). Revision of the positive affect and negative affect scale. Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology, 14(3), 249-254.
[40]	Reeves A., & de Vries R. (2016). Does media coverage influence public attitudes towards welfare recipients? The impact of the 2011 English riots. British Journal of Sociology, 67(2), 281-306. doi: 10.1111/bjos.2016.67.issue-2 URL
[41]	Rodriguez‐Bailon R., Bratanova B., Willis G. B., Lopez‐Rodriguez L., Sturrock A., & Loughnan S. (2017). Social class and ideologies of inequality: How they uphold unequal societies. Journal of Social Issues, 73(1), 99-116. doi: 10.1111/josi.2017.73.issue-1 URL
[42]	Rodriguez‐Bailon R., Sanchez‐Rodriguez A., Garcia‐Sanchez E., Petkanopoulou K., & Willis G. B. (2020). Inequality is in the air: Contextual psychosocial effects of power and social class. Current Opinion in Psychology, 33, 120-125. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.07.004 URL
[43]	Sakurai K., Kawakami N., Yamaoka K., Ishikawa H., & Hashimoto H. (2010). The impact of subjective and objective social status on psychological distress among men and women in Japan. Social Science and Medicine, 70(11), 1832-1839. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.01.019 pmid: 20303205
[44]	Sandel M. J. (2018). Populism, liberalism, and democracy. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 44(4), 353-359. doi: 10.1177/0191453718757888 URL
[45]	Sands M. L., & de Kadt D. (2020). Local exposure to inequality raises support of people of low wealth for taxing the wealthy. Nature, 586(7828), 257-261. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2763-1 URL
[46]	Tan J. J. X., & Kraus M. W. (2015). Lay theories about social class buffer lower-class individuals against poor self-rated health and negative affect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(3), 446-461. doi: 10.1177/0146167215569705 URL
[47]	Whitson J. A., & Galinsky A. D. (2008). Lacking control increases illusory pattern perception. Science, 322(5898), 115-117. doi: 10.1126/science.1159845 URL
[48]	Whyte M. K., & Han C. (2008). Popular attitudes toward distributive injustice: Beijing and Warsaw compared. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 13(1), 29-51. doi: 10.1007/s11366-008-9016-8 URL
[49]	Worthington E. L., & Allison S. T. (2018). Heroic humility: What the science of humility can say to people raised on self-focus. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
[50]	Wright J. C., Nadelhoffer T., Ross L. T., & Sinnott-Armstrong W. (2018). Be it ever so humble: Proposing a dual-dimension account and measurement of humility. Self and Identity, 17(1), 92-125. doi: 10.1080/15298868.2017.1327454 URL
[51]	Xie W., Ho B., Meier S., & Zhou X. (2017). Rank reversal aversion inhibits redistribution across societies. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(8), 0142. doi: 10.1038/s41562-017-0142 URL
[52]	Xu J. B., & Liu H. (2013). Social justice recognition, fluidity expectation and the preference of residence redistribution: An empirical study based on CGSS data. Journal of Yunnan University of Finance and Economics, 2, 48-56.
[53]	Xu J. B., Liu H., & Yin K. G. (2013). A research review about influence factors of residents’ redistributive preferences. Journal of Social Sciences Abroad, 2, 50-55.
[54]	Yang S. L., Guo Y. Y., Hu X. Y., Shu S. L., & Li J. (2016). Do lower class individuals possess higher levels of system justification? An examination from the social cognitive perspectives. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 48(11), 1467-1478. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2016.01467 URL
[55]	Yu. G. L., Zhao F. Q., Wang H., & Li S. (2020). Subjective social class and distrust among Chinese college students: The mediating roles of relative deprivation and belief in a just world. Current Psychology, 39, 2221-2230. doi: 10.1007/s12144-018-9908-5 URL

Variables	%/M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. gender	51.50	—
2. age	51.02	16.17	0.02
3. ethnicity	92.60	—	0.00	-0.03^**
4. religious belief	11.40	—	-0.08^***	-0.04^***	-0.22^***
5. political status	90.20	—	0.02	0.02	0.00	0.00
6. marital status	20.60	—	-0.03^**	0.03^**	0.01	0.02	-0.02
7. objective social class	0.00	0.86	-0.15^***	-0.40^***	-0.10^***	0.07^***	-0.03^**	0.00
8. subjective social class	4.35	1.61	0.03^*	0.00	-0.04^***	0.00	0.02	0.06^***	0.25^***
9. family relative economic status	2.67	0.72	-0.01	-0.07^***	-0.05^***	0.00	0.00	0.07^***	0.31^**	0.45^***
10. personal relative economic status	1.73	0.59	-0.02^*	0.00	-0.05^***	0.01	0.00	0.05^***	0.25^***	0.40^***	0.55^***
11. redistributive preferences	3.78	0.93	0.02	0.10^***	0.03^*	-0.03^*	0.02	0.00	-0.12^***	-0.06^***	-0.08^***	-0.06^***

Variables	%/M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. gender	51.50	—
2. age	51.02	16.17	0.02
3. ethnicity	92.60	—	0.00	-0.03^**
4. religious belief	11.40	—	-0.08^***	-0.04^***	-0.22^***
5. political status	90.20	—	0.02	0.02	0.00	0.00
6. marital status	20.60	—	-0.03^**	0.03^**	0.01	0.02	-0.02
7. objective social class	0.00	0.86	-0.15^***	-0.40^***	-0.10^***	0.07^***	-0.03^**	0.00
8. subjective social class	4.35	1.61	0.03^*	0.00	-0.04^***	0.00	0.02	0.06^***	0.25^***
9. family relative economic status	2.67	0.72	-0.01	-0.07^***	-0.05^***	0.00	0.00	0.07^***	0.31^**	0.45^***
10. personal relative economic status	1.73	0.59	-0.02^*	0.00	-0.05^***	0.01	0.00	0.05^***	0.25^***	0.40^***	0.55^***
11. redistributive preferences	3.78	0.93	0.02	0.10^***	0.03^*	-0.03^*	0.02	0.00	-0.12^***	-0.06^***	-0.08^***	-0.06^***

variables	%/M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. gender	41.70	—
2. age	32.73	8.73	-0.04
3. ethnicity	94.20	—	0.00	-0.05
4. household	60.20	—	-0.05	-0.11^**	-0.05
5. political status	19.00	—	0.13^**	-0.08^*	-0.04	0.20^***
6. religious belief	90.30	—	-0.07	-0.07	0.32^***	0.02	0.12^**
7. marital status	61.80	—	0.13^***	0.49^***	-0.08^*	-0.10^*	-0.04	-0.14^***
8. objective social class	0.01	0.76	-0.14^***	-0.18^***	0.10^*	-0.30^***	-0.27^***	0.12^**	-0.26^***
9. subjective social class	4.15	1.88	0.04	-0.07	-0.02	-0.13^**	-0.04	-0.03	-0.02	0.30^***
10. internal attributions	0.27	1.05	0.02	0.00	-0.01	0.10^*	0.11^**	-0.05	0.00	-0.07	0.22^***
11. redistributive preferences	5.35	1.00	0.03	0.23^***	0.05	0.02	0.03	0.14^***	0.09^*	0.01	-0.21^***	-0.15^***

variables	%/M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. gender	41.70	—
2. age	32.73	8.73	-0.04
3. ethnicity	94.20	—	0.00	-0.05
4. household	60.20	—	-0.05	-0.11^**	-0.05
5. political status	19.00	—	0.13^**	-0.08^*	-0.04	0.20^***
6. religious belief	90.30	—	-0.07	-0.07	0.32^***	0.02	0.12^**
7. marital status	61.80	—	0.13^***	0.49^***	-0.08^*	-0.10^*	-0.04	-0.14^***
8. objective social class	0.01	0.76	-0.14^***	-0.18^***	0.10^*	-0.30^***	-0.27^***	0.12^**	-0.26^***
9. subjective social class	4.15	1.88	0.04	-0.07	-0.02	-0.13^**	-0.04	-0.03	-0.02	0.30^***
10. internal attributions	0.27	1.05	0.02	0.00	-0.01	0.10^*	0.11^**	-0.05	0.00	-0.07	0.22^***
11. redistributive preferences	5.35	1.00	0.03	0.23^***	0.05	0.02	0.03	0.14^***	0.09^*	0.01	-0.21^***	-0.15^***

dependent variables	R²	β	SE	t	95% CI
internal attributions as dependent variable	0.09
age		0.03	0.05	0.64	[-0.06, 0.12]
household		0.09	0.04	2.32^*	[0.01, 0.17]
political status		0.16	0.04	3.76^***	[0.08, 0.25]
religious belief		-0.06	0.04	-1.44	[-0.13, 0.02]
marital status		-0.07	0.05	-1.46	[-0.17, 0.02]
subjective social class		0.24	0.04	6.11^***	[0.16, 0.32]
redistributive preferences as dependent variable	0.14
age		0.25	0.04	5.77^***	[0.17, 0.34]
household		0.03	0.04	0.78	[-0.05, 0.11]
political status		0.01	0.04	0.19	[-0.08, 0.09]
religious belief		0.15	0.04	3.82^***	[0.07, 0.22]
marital status		-0.02	0.05	-0.38	[-0.11, 0.08]
subjective social class		-0.17	0.04	-4.20^***	[-0.24, -0.09]
internal attributions		-0.11	0.04	-2.85^*	[-0.19, -0.04]