In a world of rising economic inequality, exploring factors that contribute to a more equal society is vital. The extent to which people are generous towards those around them can help reduce local...Show moreIn a world of rising economic inequality, exploring factors that contribute to a more equal society is vital. The extent to which people are generous towards those around them can help reduce local inequalities. While previous literature has established a link between economic mobility and preferences for redistribution, the impact on individual giving remains unclear. Therefore, this study examined the influence of economic mobility on giving behavior and whether meritocratic beliefs mediate this effect. The sample included 301 participants, predominantly from Global South countries. Participants were randomly assigned to ranks on a 5-rank ladder resembling socioeconomic classes and to conditions of low or high economic mobility. First, participants played a game in which they estimated the number of dots in a picture. Those with high economic mobility could earn 3 points, and those with low economic mobility could earn 1 point per round. In a dictator game, they could indicate how many points they want to give to reach rank. Results showed that the high economic mobility condition had significantly stronger meritocratic beliefs about the estimation game, aligning with the first hypothesis. However, contrary to the second hypothesis, participants in the high economic mobility condition gave significantly more to the ranks below them. Meritocratic beliefs about the estimation game did not mediate the effect. This suggests that inducing high economic mobility seems to increase generosity, particularly towards those with fewer resources. Policymakers and non-governmental organizations should promote high economic mobility to foster generosity in society.Show less
In-group bias, the tendency to protect and support one’s group member(s), is an important psychological phenomenon that distorts access to jobs, reduces economic efficiency, and creates social...Show moreIn-group bias, the tendency to protect and support one’s group member(s), is an important psychological phenomenon that distorts access to jobs, reduces economic efficiency, and creates social segregation. The existing research on in-group bias and culture has focused on one aspect – individualism versus collectivism. This paper deals with the relationship between in-group bias and power distance, which represents the acceptance of power and influences the interaction between people, groups, organizations, and nations. The present paper will use the economic Dictator Game to investigate the interplay between power distance and in-group bias. The hypothesis that is investigated assumes that higher power distance is positively associated with in-group bias. The results of the experiment, however, report no relationship between in-group bias and power distance. The unexpected result is analyzed in more detail and followed with future suggestions for research within this field. The critical analysis of the extent to which power distance is reliable as a measurement tool in future psychological research remains a useful contribution to an underdeveloped area of research.Show less
Ingroup bias is the inclination of people to favor members of their group compared to those of an outgroup. One possible underlying mechanism behind ingroup bias is individual differences in...Show moreIngroup bias is the inclination of people to favor members of their group compared to those of an outgroup. One possible underlying mechanism behind ingroup bias is individual differences in empathy levels. Individuals high in empathy are usually more prosocial towards others. Yet, they may still act more prosocially towards members of their own group than outgroup members, leading to a specific type of ingroup bias, termed intergroup empathy bias. It is a well-established fact that gender differences exist in how individuals show empathy. This study aimed to find whether there may also be gender differences in intergroup empathy bias. This question was investigated in a university population using the dot game to divide people into minimal groups, and the dictator game to compare ingroup and outgroup giving. The results demonstrated that ingroup bias can occur in the presence of minimal groups, and females have higher empathy levels compared to males. However, these results did not translate to gender differences in intergroup empathy bias. Despite not finding a link between intergroup empathy bias and gender, this research proposes novel ideas for further testing, such as using empathy questionnaires that distinguish between different facets of empathy. It attracts attention to the importance of gender differences in empathy, especially in today’s male-centered society.Show less
There have been few studies conducted into the effect of victimisation in the context of the bystander effect, wherein one person is mistreated while onlookers take no action to help. Previous...Show moreThere have been few studies conducted into the effect of victimisation in the context of the bystander effect, wherein one person is mistreated while onlookers take no action to help. Previous research indicates that potential impacts may include a feeling of ostracism or an adjustment of perceived social norms. This study explored how participants would react in a dictator game wherein they are given less money than their peers, in circumstances where the peers do or do not try to help, measured by their retaliation against the perpetrator, their psychological needs evaluation and ratings of fairness and justifiedness. No significant differences were found between the two conditions. However, as some research previously suggested, there are differences in coping strategies and responses to mistreatment between individuals. This study found that retaliators also had poorer psychological needs scores for control and self-esteem, rating the perpetrator’s behaviour as unjustified whilst their own vengeful retaliation was, according to them, justified. Future avenues for research are explored.Show less
Psychopaths are known for their lack of empathy and immoral behaviours, and have shown to be unable to distinguish moral from conventional violations. Research demonstrated that morality can be...Show morePsychopaths are known for their lack of empathy and immoral behaviours, and have shown to be unable to distinguish moral from conventional violations. Research demonstrated that morality can be influenced by empathy, as well as developmental changes. The current study therefore aimed to investigate differences in moral decision-making behaviours between healthy males and psychopathic males in the evaluation of complex social situations. A total of 39 participants took part in this study, with 20 healthy male controls and 19 psychopathic males. The participants observed and evaluated pictures depicting various social situations. These included offenders of intentional pain (IP), offenders of accidental pain (AP), victims of IP, and victims of AP. Participants were then instructed to distribute coins between themselves and a random target from the social situation. The results showed that the controls could differentiate between more conditions than the psychopaths. More specifically, the controls and psychopaths both showed most prosocial behaviour towards victims of IP, followed by victims of AP, and showed most punishing behaviour towards offenders of IP, followed by offenders of AP. However, the psychopaths showed less prosocial behaviour than the controls towards victims of IP and AP. No significant differences were found in punishing behaviour between the controls and psychopaths towards offenders of AP. Finally, no significant correlation was found between age and prosocial behaviour in both the controls and psychopaths towards victims. Taken together, these findings further support the notion that psychopaths’ lack of prosocial behaviour stems from an empathy deficiency, rather than an impairment in moral judgement.Show less
