Research has previously shown that upper-class individuals are more likely to behave unethically than lower-class people. But, says David Dubois, lead researcher of a new paper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, it’s not that simple: both groups behave unethically in different contexts.

Dubois’ research group found that people with higher socioeconomic status (SES) were more likely to behave unethically when the behavior benefitted themselves, while lower-SES people were more likely to be unethical to benefit other individuals. "Many people think of unethical behaviour in terms of selfish behavior—violating moral standards to give yourself an advantage," explains Jared Piazza, who was not involved with the research. "But the researchers here draw a distinction between violating a moral standard like 'it’s wrong to steal' to benefit others, and violating a moral standard to benefit yourself."

This distinction is important, says Dubois. Previous research has only tested unethical behavior that is selfish—it turns out that when unselfish unethical behavior is tested too, lower-SES individuals are just as likely to be unethical.

Spotting cheaters

To look into this issue, the researchers conducted a series of experiments manipulating different variables. In the first, they surveyed 151 participants to determine their social class. These individuals then participated in a computer-based die-rolling game, where the goal was to achieve a total of more than 14 from rolling a die five times. Winners were told they would be entered into a lottery for a $50 gift card. The virtual die was programmed to always add up to 12, but participants were not monitored, so they were able to lie about their results—any participant who reported rolling a total of more than 14 was clearly cheating.

Participants were split into two groups: in the first group, they were told that they would enter the gift-card lottery directly. In the second group, they were able to indicate the name and email address of another person who would receive the gift card if they won. The results showed that higher-class individuals were significantly more likely to cheat to win the gift card themselves, while lower-class individuals were more likely to cheat if someone else would be getting the gift card.

Obviously, social class is a complex mix of factors, and the researchers wanted to tease out which of two primary facets of class (income and education) had more bearing on the results. They surveyed 81 participants on their annual household income and education, and then presented them with a series of scenarios describing unethical behavior with either selfish or unselfish goals, asking which of those behaviors the respondents would be likely to engage in.

Selfish behavior was more likely overall than unselfish behavior. Although education didn’t affect the results, higher income was more strongly associated with selfish behavior, while low income more associated with unselfish behavior.

Why income? The cause suggested by the researchers is power. Power is often described as a momentary state, says Dubois. It’s true that people can shift between high- and low-power positions, sometimes in the course of a single day. However, it’s becoming increasingly clear, Dubois explains, that high SES results in people experiencing a regular flow of high power situations, while low SES results in an accumulation of low power experiences.

“The fact that income, a difference in resources, was more influential than education provides indirect support for our proposition that social class affects unethical behavior through power,” write the authors. However, this research only showed that power and selfish unethical behavior coincided, and couldn’t prove that enhanced feelings of power were actually causing the selfishness.

Power to the selfish

To get at cause and effect, the researchers created an experiment that affected the power experienced by 122 new participants: each individual was assigned to either a boss or employee role. They were told that the computer would automatically assign the next task, either a boring, repetitive task (if the computer displayed “1”), or a fun, creative task (“2”). One group was told that they would have to complete this task themselves, while the other group was told that the task would be for the next participant.

After the experimenter left the room, the computer would display “1” and then freeze, displaying no number. This guaranteed that, when the experimenter returned and asked what the number was, anyone answering “2” would be lying. Once again, high-power participants—those who were told they were in the boss role—lied for themselves more, and low-power participants more frequently did so for the benefit of others.

“So far we’ve only thought about behavior in a uniform way, but this suggests people have different reasons for unethical behavior, predicted by different things,” says Dubois. Power is one reason, but behavior is complex enough that it's not likely to be the only one. “We want to reinforce the point that social class cannot be distilled to power,” write the authors of the study. “Power might be but one pathway by which social class can impact people’s thoughts and behaviors.”

There are some questions to be raised about the methods and reporting used in the study, says Dr Tom Farsides, who researches altruism and selfishness and was not involved in this research. For instance, the paper mentions that the participants were approached by a researcher in a public place, but it isn’t clear whether that researcher knew the hypothesis, which could have led to subtle biases in who was chosen to participate, or the participants' answers.

While the overall sample sizes were reasonable, when they’re broken down by class and condition they become quite small, sometimes as low as six or seven people. This makes it unwise to extrapolate to an entire social class, Farsides notes. And finally, the researchers use terms and measures “not well-validated beyond the confines of this paper,” he explains—it’s not clear how “power” relates to well-defined concepts such as self-efficacy and self-confidence, whether it involves power over other individuals or society as a whole, and whether it varies between situations, such as home and work. “Very compelling evidence is required if researchers want to seriously make very bold and sweeping claims,” he says.

There's also a question about what actually counts as wrong in people's minds, Piazza notes. Past research has shown that powerless people think that working for the welfare of others is the highest moral value, while powerful people care more about rules and order. "It may be that powerless individuals are less inclined to view actions that help others as actual transgressions even though a moral rule has been violated," he suggests.

Beyond clarifying these points, there are questions to follow up in the future, Dubois adds. For one, this paper didn’t look at the effect of power or SES on the amount of unethical behavior. That is, the researchers looked at how people would behave in a single test, but not at whether a certain group was more likely to be unethical more of the time. There’s also the possibility that different cultures with different moral codes and ideas about power and responsibility might respond differently.

It could have useful application in persuasion, he adds: communicating with different audiences about ethical behavior could emphasize different consequences, either for the self or for others, to discourage the behavior.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2015. DOI: 10.1037/pspi0000008 (About DOIs).