“From rags to riches” is a much-cited motto that is symptomatic of the “American Dream of Life”. Researchers in the USA are now taking on people who have walked this path and asking about their level of compassion.
Social climbers are less empathetic than people who have inherited their wealth. This is the result of researchers in a study from the USA, which is reported in the journal “Social Psychological and Personality Science”. It is questionable whether the study results can also be transferred to other countries.
From rags to riches: In the USA in particular, stories about social advancement from modest backgrounds are often told, especially by those who have made this ascent, as a study showed in 2020. But are these self-made rich also popular? Earlier US polls suggested that the rich are generally not admired by the majority there, but that opinion changes when it comes to social climbers.
One reason could be that in the case of the climbers, there is the impression that they deserve their wealth in the truest sense of the word. A team led by psychologist Hyunjin Koo from the University of California is now investigating another thesis: Is it perhaps assumed that social climbers, due to their humble beginnings, have more connection to the everyday life of socially disadvantaged people and that they are more empathetic to them than the wealthy? And is this assumption even true?
To test these theories, Koo and her colleagues first interviewed over 700 Americans. They found that respondents actually judged people who got rich more positively than those who were born rich. Specifically, respondents expected the have-been-rich to provide greater support to those in need and to social welfare in general. Two follow-up studies, however, threw this notion on its head. For this, the scientists first interviewed almost 500 people with an annual income of more than 80,000 US dollars (around 75,500 euros) and then again more than 550 people with a minimum annual income of a good 142,000 US dollars (134,000 euros).
A significant difference emerged between those who were born rich and those who had become wealthy in the course of their lives: “Rich who have become rich find it less difficult to improve their socioeconomic conditions than those who were born rich , suggesting a less benevolent attitude towards those in need and towards redistribution,” summarizes lead author Koo in a statement. So the way someone got their wealth seems to have an impact on their worldview.
For their last study, the researchers invited almost 500 test persons to a mind game: they were asked to imagine having started in a company 15 years ago and either as someone who has worked their way up to an important position to date, or as someone who got this job right at the beginning of his career because it was his family’s company. The study participants were then asked to rate a fictitious employee who had started at the same time but had not made it to the present day. Again, those who saw themselves in the role of promoters were less sympathetic to their colleague’s difficulties than those who inherited their position.
For the authors of the study, their work is important not least because it compares the public perception of rich people with their actual attitudes – which could then play a role when they apply for political office, for example. “Just because someone’s been in your shoes doesn’t necessarily mean they’re interested in you,” says psychologist Koo. Overall, however, further research is needed here: “There are probably many wealthy people who do not correspond to the patterns we have documented and who sympathize with the needy and social welfare.”
Furthermore, only Americans were surveyed: given the unique place social mobility occupies in the ethos of the American Dream, there is reason to believe that the effects found may be weaker in other countries, the researchers write . In fact, it is difficult to assess whether the results of Koo and colleagues can be transferred to Germany, for example, where, according to the federal government’s current poverty and wealth report, upward social mobility has become more difficult.
In addition, wealth is often still considered taboo in this country, and public speaking about money or one’s own assets is rather unusual. And finally, the data contradict each other about how Germany’s rich got their money, whether through inheritance or income. But this very difference could be just as important as belonging to a social class as such.
“An ascent or descent in the socioeconomic hierarchy shapes attitudes in a way that is not taken into account in a simple assessment of the current class,” says the current work: “Ultimately, people’s social views are not only determined by their current class position, but also by the influence of the circumstances that brought them there.”
