Wealthier people are slightly more prosocial, according to large meta-analysis

Higher social class individuals are slightly more likely to act generously or cooperatively, according to a new meta-analysis published in Psychological Bulletin.

Researchers have debated how social class shapes people’s tendency to help others, whether through volunteering, sharing resources, or cooperating for the public good. Two main theories have offered opposing predictions. The risk management perspective argues that lower class individuals, facing greater life uncertainty and relying more on social networks, are more prosocial. In contrast, the resource perspective posits that higher class individuals, having more economic and social resources, are more able to engage in costly helping behaviors.

To resolve these conflicting claims, Junhui Wu and colleagues conducted a large-scale meta-analysis, compiling over 1,100 effect sizes from 471 independent studies conducted in 60 societies (including from North America, Europe, Asia, South America, Africa, and Oceania). These studies collectively involved more than 2.3 million participants. By comparing patterns across age groups, cultures, and study methods, the researchers aimed to clarify which theory better explains how socioeconomic status influences prosociality.

The research team searched both English and Chinese academic databases, collecting peer-reviewed articles, dissertations, preprints, and other sources. They included studies that measured either objective social class (e.g., income, education) or subjective social class (i.e., perceived social rank), and that assessed prosocial behaviors or intentions. The final dataset included studies conducted between 1968 and 2024.

Prosociality was measured in various ways, including charitable giving, volunteering, cooperation in economic games, and self-reported intentions to help others. The researchers also examined multiple moderators, such as whether the behavior occurred in public or private, the costliness of helping, and the cultural, economic, and demographic characteristics of the study population.

Contrary to the risk management perspective, the researchers found a small but consistent positive correlation between higher social class and prosociality (r = .065). This pattern held across age groups (children, adolescents, and adults) and did not significantly differ by country-level factors like income inequality, population density, or cultural tightness. In other words, the effect generalized across both Western and non-Western contexts.

Importantly, the association between social class and prosociality was stronger when the behavior required a real commitment of time or resources (r = .079) than when it involved only intention (r = .039), and it was more pronounced in public settings (r = .065) than in private ones (r = .016). These findings align with the idea that higher class individuals are more able to afford costly prosocial actions and may be more motivated to maintain a positive social image.

Of note is that most were conducted in WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) societies, which could limit generalizability. Additionally, many studies relied on correlational designs, which precludes causal conclusions.

The meta-analysis, “Social Class and Prosociality: A Meta-Analytic Review,” was authored by Junhui Wu, Daniel Balliet, Mingliang Yuan, Wenqi Li, Yanyan Chen, Shuxian Jin, Shenghua Luan, and Paul A. M. Van Lange.