Social Class and Power are empirical studies that assess the ethical behavior of people according to their socioeconomic standing. The study identifies unethical behaviors as lying, cheating, tax evasion and lying. One study found that wealthy people behave more unethically unilaterally. If you combine the two levels, there is a strong correlation. Heinz, an unsavory man, broke into the store to steal a $2,000 medication for his dying spouse. This case was a landmark in moral psychology (Kohlberg 1963).

This first experiment examines the hypothesis that higher social classes lead to unethical behaviors. This experiment tests the unethical behavior that cheating is. One of two conditions was given to the 151 participants. Participants were required to roll 5 dies on their own using a computer. The rules required that participants add up their five rolls to reach a total of 14 or more to be eligible to win a $50 lotto. It was set up so that the total of their rolls could not exceed 12, so cheating was possible. Participants were directed to enter the correct email address for the recipient of lottery winnings in the group that was other-beneficial. When self-beneficial, cheating was more likely to be predicted by a high social status than when it is less likely. Conversely, low social classes are associated with lower chances of cheating. The income was used to predict cheating in the second experiment. Randomly, 81 participants were given self-beneficial and non-beneficial situations. They were tested before being assigned. The participants were split into four educational and eight income groups. The income ranged from EUR71,000. Education was broken down into high school graduation, college graduate or postgraduate. Participants were asked to answer questions about their willingness and ability to engage the unethical behavior described by the pretest. These results were similar to experiment 1. Participants were asked how likely they were to cheat when it benefitted others. However, high-income individuals were more likely than low-income individuals to cheat when it benefits them.

The third experiment tests the effectiveness of power to explain unethical behavior. Randomly, 125 participants were divided into two groups: self and other-beneficial. Participants were exposed in the same way as in experiment 2, but were able to assess their feelings of power, status and ability by adapting scales from previous experiments. Social class was positively predictive of unethical self-benefitting behavior but not for other-benefitting behavior. The outcome of unethical behavior was not dependent on status but power. These findings do not establish causality.

Experiments 4 and 5 provide complementary evidence about the underlying power role. Experiments 4, 5, and 6 use the Experimental-Casual-Chain Approach. Experiment 4 was a manipulation of social class that measured the effect it has on people’s senses of power. Experiments 5 & 6 examined the effects of power on unethical behavior. These experiments were done to determine whether power, and not social classes, is what drives unethical behavior.

Experiment 4 used social class to measure the impact of it on power. Randomly, 150 participants were assigned to either high or low social classes, as well as baseline. Participants received EUR6 each for their 10-minute task. Participants had to complete a brief writing task and compare themselves with others at the top or bottom of the ladder. Baseline participants didn’t complete the writing task. On a scale of 1 to 7, participants power was measured. Participants with higher social class felt stronger than participants of lower social classes. Participants of low social classes felt significantly less powerful than their baseline condition.

Experiment 5, which directly altered power, expected that low-power behavior would benefit others and high-power behavior would be selfish. The 3 power levels were chosen by 121 participants. Participants completed an independent writing recall task. Participants were required to recall a specific time when they had high powers. The low power group was asked to recall a time when they had low power. Baseline participants described a time when the went to the grocery.

Participants were required to complete a second task that was portrayed as a decision making task. Participants were given three options in which they could lie about a topic. If caught, they were assured that their lying would not cause any harm. The participants’ likelihood of libel was assessed on a scale ranging from 1 to 9. This gave them an opportunity to show how powerful their feelings were after the writing task. Also, participants were asked to judge how happy and sad they felt following the task. Participants with low power were more likely than those with high power to lie to another person. While high power participants were less likely than baseline to lie to another person, they were still more likely to lie to themselves than low-power participants. Participants with low power were less likely to lie about themselves. These results support previous findings showing that selfishness is associated with high power, and unethical behavior in the service of others is associated with low power.

Experiment 6 aimed to determine if people would lie if they were presented with the opportunity. This was in contrast to hypothetical scenarios or scenario-based situations. Randomly, 122 participants were assigned to either a 2 or X (power: high.vs.low) pair. They were also compensated EUR6 each for their 10 minutes of task. Participants were asked to imagine their power as employees or bosses. The computer screen would show a number. One was for the participant, while the other represented the next participant. Task 1 was boring and repetitive. Task 2 was entertaining and interesting. The experiment was abandoned. The computers were set-up to freeze and there was no visible number. Participants were then asked to guess the number displayed on the screen by the experimenter when he returned. An answer of 2 was not true, as the default number was 1. The priming task was again checked by a manipulation check. This time, the scale ranged from 1 through 9. Participants with high power were 63% more likely to lie about themselves than they were for others. However, participants with low power were only 32% more likely than themselves to lie about their own affairs. Participants with high power were 63% more likely to tell lies for others. This links to experiment 5. It shows that power can lead to unethical behavior.

These experiments have shown that wealthy people are more inclined to be unethical to the benefit of others than they are to be ethical to themselves. However, selfishness is not a predictor of social class. While social class isn’t a reliable predictor of unethical driving, it is a strong predictor of feeling power. Three examples prove this. This is proven by 3 instances. It was not the status of your income that predicted unethical behavior. However, you can manipulate power to get significant results. Not “Are rich people more unethical than poor? “, but “When is the rich and poor unethical?”