The Influence of Social Class On Giving

16 And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.

 17 Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—

 18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.

 19 For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?

24 And again, I say unto the poor, ye who have not and yet have sufficient, that ye remain from day to day; I mean all you who deny the beggar, because ye have not; I would that ye say in your hearts that: I give not because I have not, but if I had I would give.

 25 And now, if ye say this in your hearts ye remain guiltless, otherwise ye are condemned; and your condemnation is just for ye covet that which ye have not received.

 26 And now, for the sake of these things which I have spoken unto you—that is, for the sake of retaining a remission of your sins from day to day, that ye may walk guiltless before God—I would that ye should impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants.

 27 And see that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength. And again, it is expedient that he should be diligent, that thereby he might win the prize; therefore, all things must be done in order.

 -Mosiah 4:16-19;24-27

What does the Lord say here about giving among those who have limited resources? He says they are guiltless if they can’t give much, so long as they acknowledge that they would give more if they had more. You can’t just say that and be excused from giving; your heart must truly believe it.

What does the Lord imply, and what can we infer about those who have much? The Lord says the more you have, the more you should give, whether that is of your time, your talents, your knowledge, or your resources. Where much is given, much is required.

Is that what really happens in society today? Do wealthy people actually give more of their time and resources?

I recently read a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology entitled "Having Less, Giving More: The Influence of Social Class on Prosocial Behavior". Shephane Cote and Bonnie Hayden Cheng from the University of Toronto, and Paul Piff, Michael Kraus, and Dacher Keltner from the University of California-Berkley conducted the study. Their purpose was to examine how social class influences prosocial behavior.

Researchers noted that lower classes have fewer economic resources, fewer educational opportunities, less access to social institutions, subordinate rank in society, increased stress in relationships, and more violence in their homes. The poor attribute these factors as major reasons that there are rich and poor people in the United States. Meanwhile the wealthy can buffer themselves more easily from life’s disruptions by using their material wealth and access. The wealthy are more likely to believe that the rich and poor divide comes from internal traits and efforts. The poor orient to the external social environment, while the wealthy to internal characteristics.

Because the poor orient more towards social environment, the researchers hypothesized lower class individuals would be more concerned with the needs of others relative to upper class individuals, and, guided by this concern, would act in a more prosocial fashion to improve others’ welfare.

To test the hypothesis, the researchers performed four experiments that would test generosity, charitable donations, trust, and helping behavior.

The first experiment was designed to test the generosity levels classes. One week prior to the experiment, the participants received an email where they were asked to answer an online questionnaire about personal information. The week between was designed to reduce the likelihood that the questions would bias their actions during the actual task. The day of the experiment, the participants began by completing tasks unrelated to what the researchers were actually testing. The last task was the actual experiment. In the last task, the participants were informed that they had been paired with an anonymous person in another room. Participants were given 10 points and their task was to decide how many of those points they wanted to keep for themselves, and how many they would give away. Their partner would have no input, and the responses would remain anonymous. Their cash payout for participating would correlate with how many points they had at the end. Higher allocations to the anonymous partner reflected higher levels of altruism because it represented sacrificing their own material interests for the well being of another.

 The researchers found that, as predicted, lower class individuals allocated a larger portion of their points to their partner than upper class participants did.

The second study was designed to test support for charitable donations. Participants were manipulated by the experimenters into feeling they were one social class or the other. After the manipulation, participants were asked to allocate an annual salary into different spending categories including food, housing, gifts, and charitable donations. Finally, participants were asked to provide personal information including salary.

Participants induced to feel less wealthy believed that a greater portion of income should go to charitable donations (4.65%) than those induced to feel wealthy (2.95%).

The third study was designed to test trust among the social classes. In this online study, participants first filled out information about themselves. Each individual was then told they were being remotely paired with another participant. The participant was told they had 30 points to allocate between themselves and their partner. The points they gave to the partner would then be tripled, and the partner would have to opportunity to give points back. For this game trusting meant that one would be willing to allocate points to their partner, despite the risk that their partner might night reciprocate.

As predicted, lower class participants allocated more of their points to their partner in the trust game than wealthy participants did.

The fourth study was designed to test prosocial helping behavior. For this test participants were secretly assigned to a neutral prime or a compassion-inducing prime. The participants were told they would complete a series of tasks with a partner. The first participant was told that the second participant was running late, so the first participant was told to watch a short video clip, and remember as much as they could for a memory test. The neutral prime group watched a clip from the movie All the Presidents Men, while the compassion prime group watched a clip on child poverty. After the video, participants filled out the memory form. A second female actress would then enter the room showing signs of distress. She would ask if she could still participate, even though she was late. The moderator would say that she could, but that some of planned tasks would have to be eliminated due to time. The moderator would then hand the list of tasks to the participant, telling them allocate four tasks to themselves and five to the female participant. The total number of minutes each task would take was listed, and varied from task to task. The more minutes each participant took on themselves, the more willing to help they were.

Participants induced to feel more compassion reported more compassionate feelings, and exhibited more compassionate behavior in the study. Compassion moderates the tendency for lower class individuals to express more prosocial behavior than upper class individuals.

The conclusion of the study is that less affluent people are more attuned to the needs of others because they are more dependent on others to achieve their desired life outcomes. This makes them more aware of people in their same situation. Affluent people can use their wealth and internal talent to fortify them better from the storms of life, and are less attuned to seeking out people who struggle. Affluent people aren’t intentionally stingier, they just have to be primed to recognize problems and to see people struggling around them. Once they are primed, affluent people are just as likely to give as less affluent people.

What is the takeaway? Where much is given, much is required. The Lord expects those with more to give more. If this doesn’t come naturally, you can ‘prime’ yourself by putting yourself in situations where you see suffering around you. Then you are likely to give because you realize you have been given much.