Who feels they contribute to U.S. society? Helping behaviors and social class disparities in perceived contributions.

IF 6.4 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Ellen C Reinhart,Rebecca M Carey,Hazel Rose Markus
{"title":"Who feels they contribute to U.S. society? Helping behaviors and social class disparities in perceived contributions.","authors":"Ellen C Reinhart,Rebecca M Carey,Hazel Rose Markus","doi":"10.1037/pspa0000411","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Americans in lower (vs. higher) social class contexts are less likely to believe they contribute to society. Helping others by giving one's time is an important way of contributing to others that also varies with social class. Five studies (N = 7,326) investigated whether one source of the social class disparity in perceived contributions is a default model that considers helping distant others (i.e., bridging help, e.g., volunteering) as more of a contribution than helping close others (i.e., bonding help, e.g., caring for family members). In Study 1, Americans in lower (vs. higher) social class contexts perceived they contribute less to society (i.e., self-perceived contributions, Part A) and believed others perceive them as contributing less (i.e., metaperceived contributions, Part B). Studies 2-4 provide evidence for a default model of social good: Americans across social class contexts and even helpers themselves perceived bridging help as more of a contribution than bonding help, in part, because bridging help is perceived as reflecting more choice to help. With a representative sample (Midlife Development in the United States), Study 5 finds that Americans in lower (vs. higher) social class contexts engaged in relatively less bridging help and more bonding help. However, bridging help served as a stronger pathway to feelings of contributing than bonding help did. Together, these studies suggest that people in lower social class contexts may experience a psychological inequality, in part, because some of the forms of help that are most accessible, familiar, and practiced are widely perceived as less of a contribution. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of personality and social psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000411","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Americans in lower (vs. higher) social class contexts are less likely to believe they contribute to society. Helping others by giving one's time is an important way of contributing to others that also varies with social class. Five studies (N = 7,326) investigated whether one source of the social class disparity in perceived contributions is a default model that considers helping distant others (i.e., bridging help, e.g., volunteering) as more of a contribution than helping close others (i.e., bonding help, e.g., caring for family members). In Study 1, Americans in lower (vs. higher) social class contexts perceived they contribute less to society (i.e., self-perceived contributions, Part A) and believed others perceive them as contributing less (i.e., metaperceived contributions, Part B). Studies 2-4 provide evidence for a default model of social good: Americans across social class contexts and even helpers themselves perceived bridging help as more of a contribution than bonding help, in part, because bridging help is perceived as reflecting more choice to help. With a representative sample (Midlife Development in the United States), Study 5 finds that Americans in lower (vs. higher) social class contexts engaged in relatively less bridging help and more bonding help. However, bridging help served as a stronger pathway to feelings of contributing than bonding help did. Together, these studies suggest that people in lower social class contexts may experience a psychological inequality, in part, because some of the forms of help that are most accessible, familiar, and practiced are widely perceived as less of a contribution. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
谁认为自己对美国社会做出了贡献?助人行为与社会阶层对贡献认知的差异。
社会阶层较低(与社会阶层较高)的美国人较少认为自己对社会做出了贡献。通过奉献自己的时间来帮助他人是为他人做贡献的一种重要方式,这种方式也因社会阶层而异。五项研究(N = 7,326)调查了社会阶层贡献感差异的一个来源是否是一种默认模式,即认为帮助远处的他人(即桥梁式帮助,如志愿服务)比帮助近处的他人(即纽带式帮助,如照顾家庭成员)更有贡献。在研究 1 中,社会阶层较低(与较高)的美国人认为他们对社会的贡献较小(即自我认知贡献,A 部分),并认为他人认为他们的贡献较小(即元认知贡献,B 部分)。研究 2-4 为社会公益的默认模式提供了证据:不同社会阶层背景下的美国人,甚至帮助者本人,都认为衔接性帮助比结合性帮助更有贡献,部分原因是衔接性帮助被认为反映了更多的帮助选择。通过代表性样本(《美国中年发展》),研究 5 发现,社会阶层较低(与较高)的美国人提供的搭桥式帮助相对较少,而提供的纽带式帮助相对较多。然而,桥梁式帮助比纽带式帮助更能激发人们的贡献感。总之,这些研究表明,社会阶层较低的人可能会经历心理上的不平等,部分原因是一些最容易获得、最熟悉、最常用的帮助形式被普遍认为贡献较小。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
3.90%
发文量
250
期刊介绍: Journal of personality and social psychology publishes original papers in all areas of personality and social psychology and emphasizes empirical reports, but may include specialized theoretical, methodological, and review papers.Journal of personality and social psychology is divided into three independently edited sections. Attitudes and Social Cognition addresses all aspects of psychology (e.g., attitudes, cognition, emotion, motivation) that take place in significant micro- and macrolevel social contexts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信