This Charming Man (and woman)

Much has been made of the ‘feral’ children of the poor and, increasingly, disgust at the ‘feral rich’ too, as the shockwaves of the 2008 economic crash continue to reverberate.  Now, a scientific study suggests there may be evidence that the upper-class think that they are above the law, wilfully lying and cheating.  It doesn’t apply just to aristocrats – being in a higher social class through self-attainment can also lead to unethical behaviour; consider the venality of certain politicians, journalists and, especially, financiers.

Scientists are forever searching for ways to justify grant-funding and newspapers eat up with abandon some of the more ludicrous postulations.  This can be dangerous, as with the scare over the MMR vaccination jab for children (which was subsequently and utterly discredited), but mostly it’s for fun, mocking ‘wacky boffins’.  This is often because the process of peer review is long and arduous and that a press release by a group of scientists doesn’t equate with a breakthrough in our approach to knowledge.  No-one reports on the analysis of peer review or how the calculations used arrived at the stated conclusion, outside of the publications devoted to the discipline.

This study though does have the air of truth inflating it.  Topicality and gut instincts are worthless attributes to the validity of a ‘discovery’.  Yet it demonstrates why bad men (and women) often get to the top.  Psychologists at the University of Berkeley, California, openly admit this could help explain the reckless behaviour of bankers leading up to ‘The Great Recession’.

One task involved asking those taking part to pretend to be an employers conducting a job interview to test whether they would lie or sidestep awkward facts in pay negotiation, namely that the job position would soon become redundant. Would they conceal this information from the interview candidate?

Another task was a little risible. It involved rolling dice in an online game in which participants they were asked to report their own score, thinking they would be in line for a cash prize for a higher score – and that no one was checking.  Who gives away any amount of money in a game without checking it is deserved?  The betting industry would go out of business overnight from a wave of unscrupulous gamblers.

The authors of the study also carried out a series of observations at a traffic junction in San Francisco. Different drivers’ social status was assessed on the basis of what car they were driving as well as visible details such as their age. Those deemed to be better off appeared more likely to cut up other drivers and less likely to stop for pedestrians.  I wonder what measurements they used here.  SUV drivers probably feel less inclination to adhere to the rest of the world because they feel their vehicle is practically indestructible in a non-war zone.  Cyclists can be equally disrespectful of traffic law as motorists.  Are the former high achievers too?

A fourth examination observed people at work taking about being unethical and whether they would actually follow through on the proposed action.  Michael J Fox as Marty McFly in the Back to the Future Part II got fired for inappropriate action, though he only succumbed to amorality from peer pressure rather than through being a high-flier.  In all examples of human interaction, having a ‘control’ sample, as one would in a laboratory, is incredibly tricky.

The team leader of the process, Dr Paul Piff, summarised “On the one hand, lower-class individuals live in environments defined by fewer resources, greater threat and more uncertainty.  It stands to reason, therefore, that lower-class individuals may be more motivated to behave unethically to increase their resources or overcome their disadvantage.

“A second line of reasoning, however, suggests the opposite prediction: namely, that the upper class may be more disposed to the unethical.  Greater resources, freedom, and independence from others among the upper class give rise to self-focused social cognitive tendencies, which we predict will facilitate unethical behaviour.”

Dr Piff added “Religious teachings extol the poor and admonish the rich with claims like, ‘It will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven’.”  Actually, the quote from each of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke is “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”  In the manner that the higher-ups accrued their wealth (and/or power) and in their overall disposition therefore, this magnifies the truth of what was recorded of Jesus, no matter one’s religious viewpoint.  What can be done about curbing the immorality of the better-offs is moot, compounded by the fact that in most cases their ruthlessness has led them to be in a position to control or influence the levers of government.  Looking at the negative and polarising impact on American politics by the super-rich is a case in question.  The study though is useful input into the public discourse.