Social class and prosociality: A meta-analytic review.

IF 17.3 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY
Junhui Wu, Daniel Balliet, Mingliang Yuan, Wenqi Li, Yanyan Chen, Shuxian Jin, Shenghua Luan, Paul A M Van Lange
{"title":"Social class and prosociality: A meta-analytic review.","authors":"Junhui Wu, Daniel Balliet, Mingliang Yuan, Wenqi Li, Yanyan Chen, Shuxian Jin, Shenghua Luan, Paul A M Van Lange","doi":"10.1037/bul0000469","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Two theoretical perspectives (i.e., the risk management perspective and the resource perspective) offer competing predictions that higher class individuals-relative to lower class individuals-tend to be less versus more prosocial, respectively. Different predictions can also be drawn from each perspective about how the class-prosociality association varies across sociocultural contexts. To date, each perspective has received mixed empirical support. To test these competing perspectives, we synthesized 1,106 effect sizes from 471 independent studies on social class and prosociality (total N = 2,340,806, covering the years 1968-2024) conducted within 60 societies. Supporting the resource perspective, we found higher class individuals to be slightly more prosocial (r = .065, 95% confidence interval [.055, .075]); this association held for children, adolescents, and adults and did not significantly vary by any sociocultural variable. In testing the methodological moderators, we found no significant difference in the class-prosociality association in studies measuring objective social class (r = .066) and those measuring or manipulating subjective social class (r = .063). Nevertheless, the observed class-prosociality association was stronger when assessing prosocial behavior involving actual commitment of material or nonmaterial resources (r = .079) compared to prosocial intention (r = .039), and stronger under public (r = .065) than private (r = .016) circumstances. These findings generally support the resource perspective on class-based differences in prosociality-that the relatively higher cost of prosocial behavior, combined with heightened experience of deprivation, results in lower levels of prosociality among individuals with a lower social class background. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":"151 3","pages":"285-321"},"PeriodicalIF":17.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000469","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Two theoretical perspectives (i.e., the risk management perspective and the resource perspective) offer competing predictions that higher class individuals-relative to lower class individuals-tend to be less versus more prosocial, respectively. Different predictions can also be drawn from each perspective about how the class-prosociality association varies across sociocultural contexts. To date, each perspective has received mixed empirical support. To test these competing perspectives, we synthesized 1,106 effect sizes from 471 independent studies on social class and prosociality (total N = 2,340,806, covering the years 1968-2024) conducted within 60 societies. Supporting the resource perspective, we found higher class individuals to be slightly more prosocial (r = .065, 95% confidence interval [.055, .075]); this association held for children, adolescents, and adults and did not significantly vary by any sociocultural variable. In testing the methodological moderators, we found no significant difference in the class-prosociality association in studies measuring objective social class (r = .066) and those measuring or manipulating subjective social class (r = .063). Nevertheless, the observed class-prosociality association was stronger when assessing prosocial behavior involving actual commitment of material or nonmaterial resources (r = .079) compared to prosocial intention (r = .039), and stronger under public (r = .065) than private (r = .016) circumstances. These findings generally support the resource perspective on class-based differences in prosociality-that the relatively higher cost of prosocial behavior, combined with heightened experience of deprivation, results in lower levels of prosociality among individuals with a lower social class background. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

社会阶层与亲社会性:一项元分析回顾。
两种理论视角(即风险管理视角和资源视角)提供了相互竞争的预测,即相对于较低阶层的个人而言,较高阶层的个人倾向于较低的亲社会性或较高的亲社会性。对于阶级与亲社会性之间的联系在不同的社会文化背景下如何变化,每种观点也可以得出不同的预测。迄今为止,每种观点都得到了不同的实证支持。为了检验这些相互竞争的观点,我们综合了在 60 个社会中进行的 471 项关于社会阶层和亲社会性的独立研究(总人数=2,340,806 人,时间跨度为 1968-2024 年)的 1,106 个效应大小。我们发现,阶级越高的人亲社会性越强(r = .065,95% 置信区间为[.055, .075]);儿童、青少年和成年人的亲社会性都与阶级有关,而且与社会文化变量的关系不大。在测试方法调节因子时,我们发现在测量客观社会阶层(r = .066)和测量或操纵主观社会阶层(r = .063)的研究中,阶层与前社会性的关联没有显著差异。然而,在评估涉及实际投入物质或非物质资源的亲社会行为时(r = .079),观察到的阶级-亲社会性关联比亲社会意图(r = .039)更强,在公共(r = .065)环境下比私人(r = .016)环境下更强。这些发现总体上支持了关于亲社会性中基于阶层差异的资源观点--即亲社会行为的成本相对较高,再加上更多的贫困经历,导致社会阶层背景较低的个人亲社会性水平较低。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 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
Psychological bulletin
Psychological bulletin 医学-心理学
CiteScore
33.60
自引率
0.90%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Psychological Bulletin publishes syntheses of research in scientific psychology. Research syntheses seek to summarize past research by drawing overall conclusions from many separate investigations that address related or identical hypotheses. A research synthesis typically presents the authors' assessments: -of the state of knowledge concerning the relations of interest; -of critical assessments of the strengths and weaknesses in past research; -of important issues that research has left unresolved, thereby directing future research so it can yield a maximum amount of new information.
×
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