Reflecting on Your Legacy Could Make You More Philanthropic, New Research Finds

People have a tendency to leave their wealth to family members and other loved ones. However, Andrew Carnegie, a famously wealthy industrialist, once said "I would as soon leave to my son a curse as the almighty dollar." Indeed, Carnegie donated over 90% of his fortune to charity. New research in Social Psychological and Personality Science shows that people can be spurred to look beyond close relationships in favor of philanthropy by having them reflect on their legacy. The researchers called this phenomenon the "Andrew Carnegie Effect".

"As society grapples with sustainability and intergenerational responsibility, our findings provide a suggestion for potential policy nudges or public campaigns," says lead author, Ph.D. Candidate Jessica Paek, of Duke University. "By harnessing legacy motivation, organizations and governments can potentially encourage individuals to support efforts that address broader, global issues."

Across four studies that involved 3,656 participants, Paek and her collaborators found that when people are prompted to consider how their lives will impact future generations, they allocate more of their wealth to collective causes like charities and less to family members.

While this might appear to have a minor impact, magnifying it across a large population could have major societal benefits.

"If a large number of people make small contributions driven by this legacy reflection, the collective impact can effect significant positive societal change," says  Paek. "This means that the average individual, upon reflecting on their legacy, can be inspired to engage in broader moral considerations, affecting not just their financial decisions but their daily actions and behaviors."

Paek cautions against overgeneralizing the current findings, which predominantly focused on White people in the United States. She also notes the potential short-term nature of the legacy reflection task and its focus on monetary allocations in the current paper, but welcomes future research to examine its long-term implications beyond just monetary allocations.

Looking ahead to future research, Paek proposes tracking participants over time to determine the enduring impact of legacy reflection on how they distribute their wealth. She explains that it is also important to consider that different cultures can have varying interpretations of what constitutes a legacy, and understanding these nuances could help make legacy reflection more effective.

"The 'Andrew Carnegie Effect' as highlighted in our studies does not suggest that individuals should exclusively prioritize societal contributions over familial or close relational beneficiaries," says Paek. "Instead, it reveals the potential of broadening our sense of responsibility and beneficence when made to think about the long-term impact of our actions."

--

Note: If you are a journalist who would like a copy of the full study, please email [email protected].

Author Contact: Jessica J.W. Paek, Duke University ([email protected]

Study: Paek, Jessica J.W.; Goya-Tocchetto, Daniela; Wade-Benzoni, Kimberly A. The Andrew Carnegie Effect: Legacy Motives Increase the Intergenerational Allocation of Wealth to Collective Causes. Social Psychological and Personality Science.

Wealthier People Have Higher Self-Esteem, But What Comes First?

Many studies have shown that people with higher incomes tend to also have higher self-esteem, but it has been challenging to figure out why. Which comes first? The income or the self-esteem?

On one hand, it is possible that making more money leads people to like themselves better. Like it or not, money is a symbol of personal value in our culture, and money affords more opportunities to do things that make people happy. So, perhaps wealthier people feel better because they make more money.

On the other hand, it is possible that having more self-esteem leads people to do things that make more money. For instance, people who like themselves better may be more confident and thus more likely to ask for a raise, take career risks, or perform better at their jobs so their income increases. Do people with higher self-esteem make more money because they feel better about themselves?

Sorting Out How Income and Self-Esteem Are Related

It's difficult to get to the bottom of this question. Researchers can't force some people to make more money or feel better about themselves and see what happens next. What's more viable is simply recording a person's income and self-esteem to see if they're related. But they can be related in two different ways. First, we could compare people to each other. Do the wealthiest people also tend to be the ones with higher self-esteem? This is how researchers often approach this question, and although it would provide useful information, we still wouldn't know what led to what.

The other way to see if these things are related is to compare people to themselves. By tracking people over time, we could observe how much people's incomes and self-esteem levels change and test whether one change usually comes before the other. In other words, if you make more money during the next year, can we expect you to increase in self-esteem during the following year?

Tracking Income and Self-Esteem Over Time

Together with our colleagues, we looked at a large, representative survey of people in the Netherlands over four years. Overall, 4000 people responded to surveys every year. Each time, they rated their personal self-esteem and how much money they made that year.

In general, when we compared people to each other, the people who made more money also had higher self-esteem, just as you'd expect based on all of the research that came before ours.

But the critical new finding came when we compared people to themselves. If someone made more money over time, that person typically ended up having higher self-esteem later on. The opposite pattern was less typical—increases in a person's self-esteem were followed by only modest increases in their income. These findings did not depend on people's gender, age, educational background, or their baseline income or self-esteem.

The Connection Between Self-Esteem and Status

One popular theory of self-esteem holds that it's a kind of barometer of how people are doing in life. People feel better about themselves when they have social feedback that they are doing well. For example, a person's sense of self-worth increases when someone tells them, "Good job!" Our findings support this theory. In Western cultures, income is a robust indicator that you are doing well, so it is not surprising that making more money would lead people to like themselves more.

Our study was conducted in the Netherlands, a country with unique social and economic norms. It is unclear whether we would get the same results in other parts of the world where income may say less about a person's social standing. However, this study provides the most convincing evidence so far that, generally speaking, making more money does tend to make people like themselves better.


For Further Reading

Bleidorn, W., Kretzschmar, A., Rauthmann, J. F., Orth, U., Denissen, J. J., & Hopwood, C. J. (2023). Self-Esteem and Income Over Time. Psychological Science, 34, 1163-1172. 10.1177/09567976231185129


Wiebke Bleidorn and Chris Hopwood are psychology professors at the University of Zurich interested in how people differ from one another and how people change over time.

Money and Status Fever in an Unequal World

We are often told that the world is becoming increasingly unequal. This is largely true. Today, the wealthiest 1% own nearly twice as much wealth as the rest, while over 820 million people still suffer from hunger. It is no wonder that United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres lamented the situation, stating that "billionaires joyriding to space while millions go hungry on Earth."

So, how does the gap between the rich and the poor affect people's psychology? Do people in an unequal society become more envious of the conspicuously affluent lifestyle of the rich, driving them to seek wealth and status more frantically? Or do they feel that this gap is too large to cross, leaving them without hope to attain wealth and status?

A crucial factor to consider here is people's position on the social ladder. This is because when the wealth gap is large, then it is possible that people from lower social class backgrounds (the poor) might feel more anxious since they have fewer resources to buffer the negative consequences of inequality. In contrast, people from higher social class backgrounds (the rich) might feel relatively secure due to their abundant resources, allowing them to avoid most inconveniences caused by inequality. As a result, the desire for wealth and status among the poor (rather than the rich) might increase to a greater extent in the face of higher inequality.

However, it is also possible that in an unequal society, the poor might feel futile in their struggle for a better life, leading them to give up their pursuit of wealth and status, whereas the rich might recognize the importance of wealth and status to their identity and well-being and feel the fear of falling from their privileged position. If this were true, then it should be the rich (rather than the poor) to have a greater desire for wealth and status in the context of elevated levels of economic inequality.

Intrigued by these questions, together with Jolanda Jetten and Niklas Steffens from The University of Queensland, I conducted studies to investigate the impact of economic inequality on people's desire for wealth and status. First, we devised a study where we manipulated people's perceived inequality. Participants were invited to start a new life in a fictitious society named "Bimboola," consisting of three income groups. Some participants were in the high-inequality condition, where the income differences between the three groups were large, meaning the low-, middle-, and high-income groups earned 3,000, 40,000, and 77,000 dollars a year. In contrast, in the low-inequality condition there were only modest income differences of 30,000, 40,000, and 50,000 dollars a year in the three income groups. Notably, in both conditions, participants were assigned to the middle-income group earning the same 40,000 dollars a year. Participants then completed tasks (i.e., choosing a house, a car, and a vacation) aiming to strengthen their experience of high (or low) inequality. Namely, participants were asked to choose a house to live in, a means of transport, and a vacation destination and they were allowed to choose items only that their group (that is, the middle-income group) could afford. In both conditions, the choices for the middle-income group were identical (ordinary houses, cars, and vacation options). However, in the high-inequality condition, the choices for the high-income group were significantly superior (palace-like mansions, luxurious sports cars, and expensive vacations), whereas the choices for the low-income group were significantly inferior (run-down shelters, rusty bicycles, and no vacation). In contrast, in the low-inequality condition, compared with choices for the middle-income group, choices for the high-income group were only slightly better, and choices for the low-income group were only slightly worse.

Afterwards, participants answered questions about their desire for wealth and status. We found that participants in the high-inequality condition had a heightened desire for wealth and status compared to those in the low-inequality condition.

To extend these findings, we then analyzed data from the real world—the World Values Survey dataset comprising over 141,000 participants across 73 countries and regions. Consistent with the findings from the first study, we found that in societies with a higher Gini coefficient (an objective index of economic inequality), people reported a greater desire for wealth and status. Moreover, this "higher inequality–heightened desire" link was stronger among people from lower than higher social class backgrounds.

To further examine how people's desire for wealth and status was related to social class in the context of economic inequality, in our next study we simultaneously manipulated both perceived inequality and social class. Participants were invited to start a new life in a fictitious world consisting of six countries, each with three groups differing in wealth. Participants were assigned to either the most unequal or the most equal country and then to either the wealthiest or the poorest group within that country. We also tried to distinguish the nature of people's desire for wealth and status, namely, whether they sought wealth and status by acquiring (a) "more than I have" or (b) "more than other people." We found that the effect of inequality on desire for "personal" wealth and status ("more than I have") was stronger among the lower class, whereas the effect on desire for "social" wealth and status ("more than other people") was stronger among the upper class.

In a world with rising inequality, our research helps explain people's concerns about material means and their anxieties about status. We believe that higher inequality creates an environment of restlessness in which both the poor and the rich feel compelled to seek more wealth and status, but for different reasons. For the poor, their heightened desire for wealth and status by acquiring "more than I have" indicates self-improvement and pragmatic concerns, such as to avoid "going hungry." However, for the rich, their heightened desire for wealth and status by acquiring "more than other people" reflects social comparison and showing-off concerns, such as to afford "joyriding to space." Overall, higher inequality triggers a money and status fever in everyone, leading to psychological consequences, such as prioritizing wealth and status over other aspects like family and leisure time, and also physical stress, such as working overtime to accumulate wealth and status.


For Further Reading

Wang, Z., Jetten, J., & Steffens, N. K. (2023). Restless in an unequal world: Economic inequality fuels the desire for wealth and status. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin49(6), 871–890. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221083747

Wang, Z., Jetten, J., & Steffens, N. K. (2020). The more you have, the more you want? Higher social class predicts a greater desire for wealth and status. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 360-375. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2620

Walasek, L., & Brown, G. D. A. (2019). Income inequality and social status: The social rank and material rank hypotheses. In The Social Psychology of Inequality (pp. 235–248). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28856-3_15
 

Zhechen Wang is an Associate Research Fellow in the School of Social Development and Public Policy at Fudan University (China). His research focuses on the study of social class, economic inequality, and motivation.

Jolanda Jetten is an ARC Laureate Fellowship and Professor in the School of Psychology at University of Queensland (Australia). Her research focuses on the social psychology of inequality, conspiracy beliefs, and identity change.

Niklas Steffens is a DECRA research fellow and Associate Professor in the School of Psychology at University of Queensland (Australia). His research focuses on the social psychology of leadership, group processes, and identity change.

Having Money May Be Good for Happiness

If you think money is important for living a good life, is this good or bad for your well-being?

In our research, nearly 4,000 Americans reported what was most important for living a good life. They did this by checking five (out of 17) choices, for example:

  • Feeling good—"enjoyment of life's pleasures" and "relaxation, peacefulness, contentment"
  • Feeling connected to others—"positive relationships with family" and "positive relationships with friends"
  • Good health—"physical fitness and strength" and "the absence of illness"
  • Focus on oneself—"loving and caring for myself" and "autonomy, being self-reliant"
  • Having money—"enough money to meet basic needs" and "extra money/disposable income"

By having to select only five items, people had to weigh what they think is most important, not simply what they think is helpful for living a good life.

People also reported on their annual household income and answered questions about different aspects of their well-being, such as how frequently they experienced positive or negative emotions, how satisfied they were with their lives, and whether they felt purposeful.

We were especially interested in people who selected the money items. If people think having enough or extra money is important for a good life, is their well-being better or worse? And how does this fit into past research that typically suggests having more money is connected to better well-being?

The Money Items

More people selected having enough money as important for a good life than having extra money. So, people agreed that meeting basic needs was more essential for a good life than having disposable income. Extremely few people selected both categories as important, meaning people typically made the choice between enough or extra money as important.

The money items were tied in opposite ways to their household income: people who said having enough money to meet basic needs made $17,000 less than those who did not think it was important, while people who said having extra money was important made nearly $9,000 more than those who did not think it was important.

In other words, people who think having enough money is important for a good life typically have less money, while people who think having extra money is important for a good life typically have more money.

Money is important—it puts food on the table and keeps the lights on. However, with more money comes more opportunities: disposable income means travel, adventures, hobbies, and, overall, making life less stressful, more enjoyable, and easier. But, what do people's perceptions of money and their actual amount of money earned mean for well-being?

Having higher household income was associated with better well-being across all well-being aspects. Yet, believing money is important for a good life was associated with poorer well-being across all well-being aspects. These negative effects were more dramatic in those who said extra money was important for a good life relative to enough money. People who believed money was important for a good life had worse well-being, especially when they had lower incomes, while people who did not believe money was important for a good life had better well-being, especially when they had higher incomes.

Does Money Buy Happiness?

When considering whether money buys happiness, our research highlights that, yes, having more money is connected to feeling more positive emotions, feeling more satisfied with one's life, feeling more purposeful, and a slew of other aspects of better well-being. However, people's perception of money has implications for their well-being, too: thinking money is important for a good life can negate some of the positive influence that having it may impart.

So, as you think about what may make you happy, recognize the role that money plays: it gives you more opportunities to do what you need and want to do. However, money is better used as a tool in the pursuit of happiness than as a destination for happiness itself.


For Further Reading

Killingsworth, M. A. (2021). Experienced well-being rises with income, even above $75,000 per year. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(4), e2016976118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2016976118

Pfund, G. N., Willroth, E. C., Mroczek, D. K., & Hill, P. L. (2023). Valuing versus having: The contrary roles of valuing and having money and prestige on well-being. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 19485506231166048. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506231166048


Gabrielle N. Pfund is a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Medical Social Sciences at Northwestern University. Her work focuses on the connection between sense of purpose, well-being, and health across the adult lifespan, with specific focuses on the within-person processes of sense of purpose in the short- and long-term, and the implications of purpose for cognitive aging.

White Americans Who Believe White People Are Poor Are More Likely to Support Welfare Policies

White Americans who think that White people are poor are more likely to believe that welfare recipients are hardworking, and to support welfare policies, according to new research in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

Previous studies on this subject have focused on White Americans' beliefs that poor people are Black and the resulting dehumanization of the poor. The new research, led by Dr. Erin Cooley of Colgate University and Dr. Jazmin Brown-Iannuzzi of the University of Virginia focuses on White Americans' beliefs that White people are poor and how that influences their attitudes toward the poor.

"We find that White Americans' beliefs about White poverty predict the humanization of the poor and welfare policy support," say Drs. Brown-Iannuzzi and Cooley. "These effects are strongest among White Americans who feel the most status threat from Black people, which further suggests that these processes may be motivated to maintain the racial status quo."

Across two survey studies and an experiment, researchers asked representative samples of non-Hispanic White and Black Americans about their attitudes toward the poor, beliefs that Black and White people are poor, as well as their opinions on welfare policies. White Americans were more likely than Black Americans to think that White people are poor, but equally as likely to think that Black people are poor.

"Some White Americans feel as if Black people's status gains equate to White people's status losses," Drs. Brown-Iannuzzi and Cooley explain. "Among these White Americans, we find that beliefs that White people are poor predict humanizing the poor as a means to justify welfare policies that are likely to help other White people."

The authors warned against interpreting their findings as demonstrating that beliefs about Black poverty are not important predictors of White Americans' attitudes toward the poor and welfare policy. Indeed, they replicated prior work to find that beliefs about Black poverty also shaped welfare beliefs. The aim of this research is only to emphasize that beliefs about White poverty may be an overlooked and important consideration when predicting opinions about policy.

Drs. Brown-Iannuzzi and Cooley note that, at a time of growing populist movements and far-right political extremism tied to the plight of poor White people, their research illuminates some of the political consequences of beliefs about White poverty.

"These findings highlight the role of White identity, and perceptions of Whites' losing status, on policy attitudes in the United States," they explain.

The researchers plan to continue exploring how beliefs about White poverty, combined with perceived status threats from other racial groups, relate to growing political extremism.

--

Author Contact: Erin Cooley ([email protected]); Jazmin Brown-Iannuzzi ([email protected])

Press may request an embargoed copy at [email protected].

Study: Cooley, Erin; Brown-Iannuzzi, Jazmin L.; Lei, Ryan F.; Cipolli, William; Philbrook, Lauren E. Beliefs That White People Are Poor, Above and Beyond Beliefs That Black People Are Poor, Predict White (But Not Black This prior work finds) Americans' Attitudes Toward Welfare Recipients and Policy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. The study is available here.

The Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (PSPB) is an official publication of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP), Inc. PSPB is an international outlet for the rapid dissemination of original contributions based on empirical data in all areas of personality and social psychology.

Who Has More Sympathy For the Poor?

"My father was a coal miner." In the United States, you often hear about the successful and powerful endear themselves to the general public by boasting of their humble origins. The upwardly mobile burnish their image of being self-made and highlight their common origins with the common folk—communicating the sentiment: Unlike other rich folks, I've been in your shoes and I understand your struggles. 

Does the general public indeed view those self-made individuals (the Became Rich) to be more sympathetic toward the rest than those born into wealth (the Born Rich)? More importantly, are the Became Rich actually more sensitive to the challenges of the poor than are the Born Rich? Here, we seek to answer both questions.

People Indeed View the "Became Rich" More Positively than the "Born Rich"

In two studies, we asked more than 600 adults in the U.S. their thoughts on the two rich groups, the Became Rich and the Born Rich. Corroborating the cultural narratives venerating the rags-to-riches stories, compared with the Born Rich, the Became Rich are seen as more moral, trustworthy, deserving of their socioeconomic conditions, and likable. Moreover, people expect the Became Rich to be more sympathetic toward the poor and supportive of social welfare than the Born Rich. 

Although people may assume the Became Rich to have more sympathy for the poor, does this comport with reality? Past research finds that having succeeded on a task can lead people to think of the task as less difficult, which reduces empathy toward those failing on that task. Based on this, it is plausible that the Became Rich who had moved up the socioeconomic ladder may think that it is less difficult for others to move up as well, relative to the Born Rich who have no such experience.

The Became Rich Might Say, "I Did It, So Why Can't They?"

To test this, we recruited approximately 1,000 wealthy individuals in the U.S. and examined their views on the poor and social welfare. And indeed, contrary to the beliefs we had documented, we found that compared to the Born Rich, the Became Rich thought it easier to improve one's socioeconomic conditions in the U.S. These beliefs, in turn, were associated with reduced sympathetic attitudes toward the poor and lower support for wealth redistribution. 

To test this out in another way, we asked people to imagine themselves experiencing upward mobility (versus beginning at the top and staying there) in a company. Supporting our previous findings, those who simply imagined having experienced upward mobility in the company thought it easier to move up in the company than participants who imagined themselves starting and staying at the top, which led those imagining having climbed the ladder to have reduced sympathy and support for those failing to move up in the company. 

Thus, what you believe about rich people may not be all true, at least when comparing people born rich to people who made their way up. Upward social mobility may be admirable, but it may also blunt the sympathy that the newly haves have for those who are still struggling.


For Further Reading

Koo, H. J., Piff, P. K., & Shariff, A. F. (2022). If I could do it, so can they: Among the rich, those with humbler origins are less sensitive to the difficulties of the poor. Social Psychological and Personality Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506221098921

Ruttan, R. L., McDonnell, M. H., & Nordgren, L. F. (2015). Having "been there" doesn't mean I care: When prior experience reduces compassion for emotional distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(4), 610-622. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000012 


Hyunjin J. Koo is a PhD student in Social/Personality Psychology at the University of California, Irvine. Her research focuses on how beliefs about social mobility shape everyday thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.

Paul Piff is an associate professor of psychological science at UC Irvine, where he also directs the Morality, Emotion, and Social Hierarchy Lab. Dr. Piff's research examines the psychological impacts of inequality, the origins of human kindness and cooperation, and the interconnections between the natural environment and sociality.

Azim Shariff is a professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia, where he directs the Centre for Applied Moral Psychology. His research covers a variety of topics including the psychology of religion, politics, economics, and emerging technological trends.

Rich People From Humble Origins Are Less Sensitive to the Challenges of Poverty Than Those Born Rich, Research Finds

People who become wealthy in the United States may tend to boast of their humble beginnings, but new research finds that they may, in fact, be less sympathetic to the difficulties of being poor than those who were born rich.

Prior research has focused on how beliefs about social mobility influence political and economic attitudes, but this new research, published in Social Psychological and Personality Science, examines how the experiences of upward mobility can shape a person's worldview.

"In the United States, we find that people expect those who became rich to be more sympathetic toward the poor and social welfare than those who were born rich," says lead author Hyunjin Koo of the University of California, Irvine. "However, the 'Became Rich' perceive improving one's socioeconomic conditions as less difficult relative to the 'Born Rich', which predicts less sympathetic attitudes toward the poor and redistribution."

In their first two studies, Koo, Piff, and Shariff surveyed 736 people in the U.S. and found that people viewed those who became rich (the Became Rich) more positively than those who were born rich (the Born Rich), and expected the Became Rich to be more supportive of the poor and social welfare. They went on to survey 1,032 relatively wealthy individuals in the U.S. (with annual incomes over $80,000 in one study and over $142,501 in another), discovering that those who became rich thought it was easier to improve one's socioeconomic status than people who were born rich, and this, in turn, predicted reduced sympathetic attitudes toward the poor.

"There are all sorts of stories and cultural narratives about the rich, what they're like and how they behave. Our findings suggest that not all rich people may be the same," says Koo, "what seems to make a difference is how they got rich."

Researchers focused their final study on simulating the experience of upward mobility using a thought experiment in order to see if imagining upward mobility would affect participants' view of those who had not advanced. Participants in the upwardly mobile group did think it was easier to get ahead, which led to reduced sympathy toward those struggling to move up. However, Koo warned that they cannot yet conclude that upward mobility changes the way people think until additional research is conducted. As a result, the researchers cautioned that it is too early to draw conclusions about the two rich groups or the experience of upward mobility.

"There are likely many wealthy people who do not match the patterns we document who are sympathetic toward the poor and social welfare. We are showing basic trends, but there are likely to be many exceptions to the patterns we document," says Koo. Koo would like to center future research on how race and gender could affect this perception and to conduct similar surveys outside the United States.

The current research, Koo notes, suggests that people should reconsider the cultural narratives surrounding the two wealthy groups in society, and that upward social mobility may have certain social downsides, causing those who have successfully achieved it to be less sympathetic toward others who are struggling.

"Just because someone has been in your shoes, doesn't necessarily mean they care about you," Koo says. "Overcoming a certain difficulty may, by its very nature, cause people to be less sympathetic toward those experiencing that same difficulty, because they overcame it."
--
Press may request an embargoed copy at [email protected]

Study: Koo, Hyunjin (contact); Piff, Paul; Shariff, Azim F. If I could do it, so can they: among the rich, those with humbler origins are less sensitive to the difficulties of the poor. Social Psychological and Personality Science.

Social Psychological and Personality Science (SPPS) is an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP), the Association for Research in Personality (ARP), the European Association of Social Psychology (EASP), and the Society for Experimental Social Psychology (SESP). Social Psychological and Personality Science publishes innovative and rigorous short reports of empirical research on the latest advances in personality and social psychology.