Subjective socioeconomic status and income inequality are associated with self-reported morality across 67 countries
United Nations. Goal 10: Reduce Inequality within and Among Countries, https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/inequality/ (2019).
United Nations. Sustainable Development Goals—17 Goals to Transform Our World, https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ (2021).
de Bruijn, E.-J. & Antonides, G. Poverty and economic decision making: a review of scarcity theory. Theory Decis. 92, 1–33 (2021).
Google Scholar
Madsen, J. K., Baekgaard, M. & Kvist, J. Scarcity and the mindsets of social welfare recipients: evidence from a field experiment. J. Public Administration Res. Theory muac043 (2022).
Krosch, A. R. & Amodio, D. M. Economic scarcity alters the perception of race. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 111, 9079–9084 (2014).
Google Scholar
Jachimowicz, J. M. et al. Higher economic inequality intensifies the financial hardship of people living in poverty by fraying the community buffer. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 702–712 (2020).
Google Scholar
Mullainathan, S. & Shafir, E. Scarcity: The True Cost of Not Having Enough (Penguin Books, 2014).
Schofield, H. & Venkataramani, A. S. Poverty-related bandwidth constraints reduce the value of consumption. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 118, e2102794118 (2021).
Google Scholar
Vieites, Y., Goldszmidt, R. & Andrade, E. B. Social class shapes donation allocation preferences. J. Consum. Res. 48, 775–795 (2022).
Google Scholar
Mani, A., Mullainathan, S., Shafir, E. & Zhao, J. Scarcity and cognitive function around payday: a conceptual and empirical analysis. J. Assoc. Consum. Res. 5, 365–376 (2020).
Google Scholar
Mani, A., Mullainathan, S., Shafir, E. & Zhao, J. Poverty impedes cognitive function. Science 341, 976–980 (2013).
Google Scholar
Shafir, E. Decisions in poverty contexts. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 18, 131–136 (2017).
Google Scholar
Shah, A. K., Mullainathan, S. & Shafir, E. Some consequences of having too little. Science 338, 682–685 (2012).
Google Scholar
Shah, A. K., Mullainathan, S. & Shafir, E. An exercise in self-replication: replicating Shah, Mullainathan, and Shafir (2012). J. Econ. Psychol. 75, 102127 (2019).
Google Scholar
Shah, A. K., Zhao, J., Mullainathan, S. & Shafir, E. Money in the mental lives of the poor. Soc. Cognition 36, 4–19 (2018).
Google Scholar
Griskevicius, V. et al. When the economy falters, do people spend or save? Responses to resource scarcity depend on childhood environments. Psychol. Sci. 24, 197–205 (2013).
Google Scholar
Huijsmans, I. et al. A scarcity mindset alters neural processing underlying consumer decision making. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 116, 11699–11704 (2019).
Google Scholar
Roux, C., Goldsmith, K. & Bonezzi, A. On the psychology of scarcity: when reminders of resource scarcity promote selfish (and generous) behavior. J. Consum. Res. 42, 615–631 (2015).
Oshri, A. et al. Socioeconomic hardship and delayed reward discounting: associations with working memory and emotional reactivity. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 37, 100642 (2019).
Google Scholar
Elbæk, C. T., Mitkidis, P., Aarøe, L. & Otterbring, T. Material scarcity and unethical economic behavior: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Research Square (Preprint). https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-800481/v2 (2021).
Curry, O. S., Whitehouse, H. & Mullins, D. Is it good to cooperate? Testing the theory of morality-as-cooperation in 60 societies. Curr. Anthropol. 60, 47–69 (2019).
Google Scholar
Haidt, J. The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science 316, 998–1002 (2007).
Google Scholar
Rai, T. S. & Fiske, A. P. Moral psychology is relationship regulation: moral motives for unity, hierarchy, equality, and proportionality. Psychol. Rev. 118, 57–75 (2011).
Google Scholar
Greene, J. D. The rise of moral cognition. Cognition 135, 39–42 (2015).
Google Scholar
Curry, O. S. & Chesters, M. J. & Van Lissa, C. J. Mapping morality with a compass: testing the theory of ‘morality-as-cooperation’with a new questionnaire. J. Res. Personal. 78, 106–124 (2019).
Google Scholar
Prediger, S., Vollan, B. & Herrmann, B. Resource scarcity and antisocial behavior. J. Public Econ. 119, 1–9 (2014).
Google Scholar
Aksoy, B. & Palma, M. A. The effects of scarcity on cheating and in-group favoritism. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 165, 100–117 (2019).
Google Scholar
Williams, E. F., Pizarro, D., Ariely, D. & Weinberg, J. D. The Valjean effect: visceral states and cheating. Emotion 16, 897–902 (2016).
Google Scholar
Yam, K. C., Reynolds, S. J. & Hirsh, J. B. The hungry thief: Physiological deprivation and its effects on unethical behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 125, 123–133 (2014).
Google Scholar
Radkani, S., Holton, E., de Courson, B., Saxe, R. & Nettle, D. Desperation and inequality increase stealing: evidence from experimental microsocieties. R. Soc. Open Sci. 10,221385 221385 (2023).
Korndörfer, M., Egloff, B. & Schmukle, S. C. A large scale test of the effect of social class on prosocial behavior. PLoS ONE 10, e0133193 (2015).
Google Scholar
Cui, F. et al. How resource sharing resists scarcity: the role of cognitive empathy and its neurobiological mechanisms. Cereb. Cortex 32, 5330–5342 (2022). bhac017.
Google Scholar
Gittell, R. & Tebaldi, E. Charitable giving: factors influencing giving in U.S. States. Nonprofit Voluntary Q. 35, 721–736 (2006).
Google Scholar
Hughes, P. & Luksetich, W. Income volatility and wealth: the effect on charitable giving. Nonprofit Voluntary Q. 37, 264–280 (2007).
Google Scholar
Lindqvist, A., Björklund, F. & Bäckström, M. The perception of the poor: capturing stereotype content with different measures. Nord. Psychol. 69, 231–247 (2017).
Google Scholar
Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., Mendoza-Denton, R., Rheinschmidt, M. L. & Keltner, D. Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: how the rich are different from the poor. Psychol. Rev. 119, 546 (2012).
Google Scholar
Piff, P. K., Kraus, M. W., Côté, S., Cheng, B. H. & Keltner, D. Having less, giving more: the influence of social class on prosocial behavior. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 99, 771–784 (2010).
Google Scholar
Piff, P. K., Stancato, D. M., Côté, S., Mendoza-Denton, R. & Keltner, D. Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 109, 4086–4091 (2012).
Google Scholar
Häusser, J. A. et al. Acute hunger does not always undermine prosociality. Nat. Commun. 10, 1–10 (2019).
Google Scholar
Van Doesum, N. J., Van Lange, P. A., Tybur, J. M., Leal, A. & Van Dijk, E. People from lower social classes elicit greater prosociality: Compassion and deservingness matter. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 1368430220982072 (2021).
Elbæk, C. T., Mitkidis, P., Aarøe, L. & Otterbring, T. Honestly hungry: acute hunger does not increase unethical economic behaviour. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 101, 104312 (2022).
Google Scholar
Piff, P. K. & Robinson, A. R. Social class and prosocial behavior: current evidence, caveats, and questions. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 18, 6–10 (2017).
Google Scholar
Pittarello, A., Motsenok, M., Dickert, S. & Ritov, I. When the poor give more than the rich: The role of resource evaluability on relative giving. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 36, 1–11 (2022).
Kraus, M. W. & Keltner, D. Signs of socioeconomic status: a thin-slicing approach. Psychol. Sci. 20, 99–106 (2009).
Google Scholar
Sector, I. Giving and Volunteering in the United States (Independent Sector, 2002).
Stamos, A., Lange, F., Huang, S.-C. & Dewitte, S. Having less, giving more? Two preregistered replications of the relationship between social class and prosocial behavior. J. Res. Personal. 84, 103902 (2020).
Google Scholar
Côté, S., House, J. & Willer, R. High economic inequality leads higher-income individuals to be less generous. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 112, 15838–15843 (2015).
Google Scholar
Nishi, A. & Christakis, N. A. Human behavior under economic inequality shapes inequality. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 112, 15781–15782 (2015).
Google Scholar
Kraus, M. W. & Callaghan, B. Social class and prosocial behavior: the moderating role of public versus private contexts. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 7, 769–777 (2016).
Google Scholar
Siemens, J. C., Raymond, M. A., Choi, Y. & Choi, J. The influence of message appeal, social norms and donation social context on charitable giving: investigating the role of cultural tightness-looseness. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 28, 1–9 (2020).
Google Scholar
Yarkoni, T. The generalizability crisis. Behav. Brain Sci. 45, 1–78 (2021).
Google Scholar
Van Bavel, J. J., Mende-Siedlecki, P., Brady, W. J. & Reinero, D. A. Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 113, 6454–6459 (2016).
Google Scholar
Bauman, C. W., McGraw, A. P., Bartels, D. M. & Warren, C. Revisiting external validity: concerns about trolley problems and other sacrificial dilemmas in moral psychology. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 8, 536–554 (2014).
Google Scholar
Benz, M. & Meier, S. Do people behave in experiments as in the field?—evidence from donations. Exp. Econ. 11, 268–281 (2008).
Google Scholar
Franzen, A. & Pointner, S. The external validity of giving in the dictator game. Exp. Econ. 16, 155–169 (2013).
Google Scholar
Gurven, M. & Winking, J. Collective action in action: prosocial behavior in and out of the laboratory. Am. Anthropologist 110, 179–190 (2008).
Google Scholar
Jackson, C. Internal and external validity in experimental games: a social reality check. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 24, 71–88 (2012).
Google Scholar
Balakrishnan, A., Palma, P. A., Patenaude, J. & Campbell, L. A 4-study replication of the moderating effects of greed on socioeconomic status and unethical behaviour. Sci. Data 4, 160120 (2017).
Google Scholar
Gray, K. & Graham, J. Atlas of Moral Psychology (Guilford Publications, 2019).
Aquino, K. & Reed, A. II The self-importance of moral identity. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 83, 1423–1440 (2002).
Google Scholar
Laham, S. M. Expanding the moral circle: Inclusion and exclusion mindsets and the circle of moral regard. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 45, 250–253 (2009).
Google Scholar
Van Bavel, J. J. et al. National identity predicts public health support during a global pandemic. Nat. Commun. 13, 517 (2022).
Google Scholar
Azevedo, F. et al. Social and moral psychology of COVID-19 across 69 countries. Sci. Data 10, 272 (2023).
Google Scholar
The World Bank. Gini Index (World Bank estimate), https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI (2020).
Cundiff, J. M., Smith, T. W., Uchino, B. N. & Berg, C. A. Subjective social status: construct validity and associations with psychosocial vulnerability and self-rated health. Int. J. Behav. Med. 20, 148–158 (2013).
Google Scholar
Di Domenico, S. I. & Fournier, M. A. Socioeconomic status, income inequality, and health complaints: a basic psychological needs perspective. Soc. Indic. Res. 119, 1679–1697 (2014).
Google Scholar
Singh-Manoux, A., Marmot, M. G. & Adler, N. E. Does subjective social status predict health and change in health status better than objective status? Psychosom. Med. 67, 855–861 (2005).
Google Scholar
Tan, J. J., Kraus, M. W., Carpenter, N. C. & Adler, N. E. The association between objective and subjective socioeconomic status and subjective well-being: a meta-analytic review. Psychol. Bull. 146, 970 (2020).
Google Scholar
Galvan, M. J., Payne, K., Hannay, J., Georgeson, A. & Muscatell, K. What does the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status Measure? Separating Economic Circumstances and Social Status to Predict Health. PsyArXiv. August 13. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/e9px3 (2022).
Wilkinson, R. G. & Pickett, K. E. Income inequality and population health: a review and explanation of the evidence. Soc. Sci. Med. 62, 1768–1784 (2006).
Google Scholar
Kondo, N., Kawachi, I., Subramanian, S., Takeda, Y. & Yamagata, Z. Do social comparisons explain the association between income inequality and health?: Relative deprivation and perceived health among male and female Japanese individuals. Soc. Sci. Med. 67, 982–987 (2008).
Google Scholar
Sommet, N., Elliot, A. J., Jamieson, J. P. & Butera, F. Income inequality, perceived competitiveness, and approach‐avoidance motivation. J. Personal. 87, 767–784 (2019).
Google Scholar
Buttrick, N. R. & Oishi, S. The psychological consequences of income inequality. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 11, e12304 (2017).
Google Scholar
Jachimowicz, J. M. et al. Inequality in researchers’ minds: four guiding questions for studying subjective perceptions of economic inequality. J. Econ. Surv. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12507 (2022).
Cheung, F. & Lucas, R. E. Income inequality is associated with stronger social comparison effects: the effect of relative income on life satisfaction. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 110, 332–341 (2016).
Google Scholar
Schmidt, U., Neyse, L. & Aleknonyte, M. Income inequality and risk taking: the impact of social comparison information. Theory Decis. 87, 283–297 (2019).
Google Scholar
Delhey, J. & Dragolov, G. Why inequality makes Europeans less happy: The role of distrust, status anxiety, and perceived conflict. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 30, 151–165 (2014).
Google Scholar
Payne, K. The Broken Ladder: How Inequality Affects the Way We Think, Live, and Die (Penguin Books, 2017).
Sands, M. L. & de Kadt, D. Local exposure to inequality raises support of people of low wealth for taxing the wealthy. Nature 586, 257–261 (2020).
Google Scholar
Matsumoto, D. & Van de Vijver, F. J. Cross-cultural Research Methods in Psychology (Cambridge University Press, 2010).
Bleidorn, W. et al. To live among like-minded others: exploring the links between person-city personality fit and self-esteem. Psychol. Sci. 27, 419–427 (2016).
Google Scholar
Hemphill, J. F. Interpreting the magnitudes of correlation coefficients. Am. Psychologist 58, 78–79 (2003).
Google Scholar
Cutler, J., Nitschke, J. P., Lamm, C. & Lockwood, P. L. Older adults across the globe exhibit increased prosocial behavior but also greater in-group preferences. Nat. Aging 1, 880–888 (2021).
Google Scholar
Van de Pol, M. & Wright, J. A simple method for distinguishing within-versus between-subject effects using mixed models. Anim. Behav. 77, 753 (2009).
Google Scholar
Callan, M. J., Shead, N. W. & Olson, J. M. Personal relative deprivation, delay discounting, and gambling. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 101, 955 (2011).
Google Scholar
Pepper, G. V. & Nettle, D. The behavioural constellation of deprivation: causes and consequences. Behav. Brain Sci. 40, e314 (2017).
Google Scholar
Zauberman, G. & Lynch, J. G. Jr Resource slack and propensity to discount delayed investments of time versus money. J. Exp. Psychol.: Gen. 134, 23 (2005).
Google Scholar
Andreoni, J., Nikiforakis, N. & Stoop, J. Higher socioeconomic status does not predict decreased prosocial behavior in a field experiment. Nat. Commun. 12, 4266 (2021).
Google Scholar
Boonmanunt, S., Kajackaite, A. & Meier, S. Does poverty negate the impact of social norms on cheating? Games Economic Behav. 124, 569–578 (2020).
Google Scholar
Côté, S., Piff, P. K. & Willer, R. For whom do the ends justify the means? Social class and utilitarian moral judgment. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 104, 490–503 (2013).
Google Scholar
Piff, P. K. Wealth and the inflated self: class, entitlement, and narcissism. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 40, 34–43 (2013).
Google Scholar
James, R. N. III & Sharpe, D. L. The nature and causes of the U-shaped charitable giving profile. Nonprofit Voluntary Sect. Q. 36, 218–238 (2007).
Google Scholar
Charities Aid Foundation. CAF World Giving Index 2021. https://www.cafonline.org/about-us/publications/2021-publications/caf-world-giving-index-2021 (2021).
Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K. & Keltner, D. Social Class as Culture: The Convergence of Resources and Rank in the Social Realm. Curr. Directions Psychological Sci. 20, 246–250 (2011).
Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. Moral Satisficing: Rethinking Moral Behavior as Bounded Rationality. Top. Cogn. Sci. 2, 528–554 (2010).
Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. & Vaish, A. Origins of human cooperation and morality. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 64, 231–255 (2013).
Google Scholar
Curry, O. S. in The Evolution of Morality (eds Shackelford, T. K. & Hansen, R. D.) 27–51 (Springer International Publishing, 2016).
Haidt, J. & Kesebir, S. in Handbook of Social Psychology (eds Fiske, S., Gilbert, D., & Lindzey, G.) 797-832. (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2010).
Sterelny, K. & Fraser, B. Evolution and moral realism. Br. J. Philos. Sci. 68, 981–1006 (2017).
Google Scholar
Kraus, M. W., Côté, S. & Keltner, D. Social class, contextualism, and empathic accuracy. Psychol. Sci. 21, 1716–1723 (2010).
Google Scholar
Funder, D. C. & Ozer, D. J. Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 2, 156–168 (2019).
Google Scholar
Greene, J. From neural’is’ to moral’ought’: what are the moral implications of neuroscientific moral psychology? Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 4, 846–850 (2003).
Google Scholar
Haidt, J. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics And Religion (Vintage, 2012).
Cialdini, R. B. We have to break up. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 4, 5–6 (2009).
Google Scholar
Maner, J. K. Into the wild: Field research can increase both replicability and real-world impact. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 66, 100–106 (2016).
Google Scholar
Oishi, S. & Graham, J. Social ecology: Lost and found in psychological science. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 5, 356–377 (2010).
Google Scholar
Salmon, C. Multiple methodologies: addressing ecological validity and conceptual replication. Evolut. Behav. Sci. 14, 373–378 (2020).
Google Scholar
Otterbring, T. & Folwarczny, M. Firstborns buy better for the greater good: birth order differences in green consumption values. Pers. Individ. Differ. 186, 111353 (2022).
Lovakov, A. & Agadullina, E. R. Empirically derived guidelines for effect size interpretation in social psychology. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 51, 485–504 (2021).
Google Scholar
Götz, F., Gosling, S. & Rentfrow, J. Small effects: the indispensable foundation for a cumulative psychological science. Perspect. Psychological Sci. 17, 205–215 (2021).
Google Scholar
Götz, F. M., Stieger, S., Gosling, S. D., Potter, J. & Rentfrow, P. J. Physical topography is associated with human personality. Nat. Human Behav. 1–10 (2020).
Abelson, R. P. A variance explanation paradox: when a little is a lot. Psychol. Bull. 97, 129 (1985).
Google Scholar
Bond, R. M. et al. A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature 489, 295–298 (2012).
Google Scholar
Matz, S. C., Gladstone, J. J. & Stillwell, D. In a world of big data, small effects can still matter: A reply to Boyce, Daly, Hounkpatin, and Wood (2017). Psychol. Sci. 28, 547–550 (2017).
Google Scholar
Primbs, M. et al. There are no ‘Small’or ‘Large’Effects: A Reply to Götz et al.(2021). Persp. Psychol. Sci.e https://doi.org/10.1177/174569162211004 (2022).
Anvari, F. et al. Not all effects are indispensable: psychological science requires verifiable lines of reasoning for whether an effect matters. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 18, 503–507 (2022).
Google Scholar
Prentice, D. A. & Miller, D. T. When small effects are impressive. Psychol. Bull. 112, 160 (1992).
Google Scholar
Rentfrow, P. J. et al. Divided we stand: Three psychological regions of the United States and their political, economic, social, and health correlates. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 105, 996 (2013).
Google Scholar
Hamilton, R. et al. The effects of scarcity on consumer decision journeys. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 47, 532–550 (2019).
Google Scholar
Blesch, K., Hauser, O. P. & Jachimowicz, J. M. Measuring inequality beyond the Gini coefficient may clarify conflicting findings. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 1525–1536 (2022).
Google Scholar
Halevy, R., Shalvi, S. & Verschuere, B. Being honest about dishonesty: Correlating self-reports and actual lying. Hum. Commun. Res. 40, 54–72 (2014).
Google Scholar
Zell, E., Strickhouser, J. E. & Krizan, Z. Subjective social status and health: a meta-analysis of community and society ladders. Health Psychol. 37, 979 (2018).
Google Scholar
Otterbring, T. Evolutionary psychology in marketing: deep, debated, but fancier with fieldwork. Psychol. Mark. 38, 229–238 (2021).
Google Scholar
Otterbring, T., Sundie, J., Jessica Li, Y. & Hill, S. Evolutionary psychological consumer research: Bold, bright, but better with behavior. J. Bus. Res. 120, 473–484 (2020).
Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D. & Funder, D. C. Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2, 396–403 (2007).
Google Scholar
Patel, J. et al. Poverty, inequality and COVID-19: the forgotten vulnerable. Public Health 183, 110 (2020).
Google Scholar
Yancy, C. W. COVID-19 and African Americans. JAMA 323, 1891–1892 (2020).
Google Scholar
Stellar, J. E., Manzo, V. M., Kraus, M. W. & Keltner, D. Class and compassion: socioeconomic factors predict responses to suffering. Emotion 12, 449–459 (2012).
Google Scholar
Simons, D. J., Shoda, Y. & Lindsay, D. S. Constraints on generality (COG): A proposed addition to all empirical papers. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12, 1123–1128 (2017).
Google Scholar
Statista. Gini’s concentration coefficient in Taiwan from 2008 to 2018, https://www.statista.com/statistics/922574/taiwan-gini-index/ (2019).
Frank, M. Cuba Grapples with Growing Inequality, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cuba-reform-inequality/cuba-grapples-with-grow-ing-inequality-idUSN1033501920080410 (2008).
Knoema. New Zealand—GINI index, https://knoema.com/atlas/New-Zealand/topics/Poverty/Income-Inequality/GINI-index (2018).
Knoema. Singapore—GINI index, https://knoema.com/atlas/Singapore/GINI-index (2018).
Arel-Bundock, V., Enevoldsen, N. & Yetman, C. countrycode: An R package to convert country names and country codes. J. Open Source Softw. 3, 848 (2018).
Google Scholar
Asparouhov, T. & Muthén, B. Multiple-group factor analysis alignment. Struct. Equ. Modeling: A Multidiscip. J. 21, 495–508 (2014).
Google Scholar
Pavlović, T. et al. Predicting attitudinal and behavioral responses to COVID-19 pandemic using machine learning. PNAS Nexus (Accepted) 1, pgac093 (2022).
Google Scholar
Waytz, A., Iyer, R., Young, L., Haidt, J. & Graham, J. Ideological differences in the expanse of the moral circle. Nat. Commun. 10, 1–12 (2019).
Google Scholar
Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G. & Ickovics, J. R. Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: preliminary data in healthy, White women. Health Psychol. 19, 586 (2000).
Google Scholar
Bratanova, B., Loughnan, S. & Gatersleben, B. The moral circle as a common motivational cause of cross‐situational pro‐environmentalism. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 42, 539–545 (2012).
Google Scholar
Danaher, J. Welcoming robots into the moral circle: a defence of ethical behaviourism. Sci. Eng. Ethics 26, 2023–2049 (2020).
Google Scholar
Graham, J., Waytz, A., Meindl, P., Iyer, R. & Young, L. Centripetal and centrifugal forces in the moral circle: Competing constraints on moral learning. Cognition 167, 58–65 (2017).
Google Scholar
Dubois, D., Rucker, D. D. & Galinsky, A. D. Social class, power, and selfishness: When and why upper and lower class individuals behave unethically. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 108, 436 (2015).
Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. B. lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J. Stat. Softw. 82, 1–26 (2017).
Google Scholar
de Rooij, M. & Weeda, W. Cross-validation: a method every psychologist should know. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychological Sci. 3, 248–263 (2020).
Google Scholar
Elbaek, C., Mitkidis, P., Aaroe, L. & Otterbring, T. Subjective Socioeconomic Status and Income Inequality is Associated with Self-Reported Morality Across 67 Countries. Open Science Framework (OSF). https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/DXVMK (2023).
