Imagine reading a story about Tyler, a man who volunteers twice a week. Tyler enjoys hanging out with friends and follows his favorite artists on social media. Most people would praise Tyler for spending his free time volunteering. But imagine he receives $12,000 a year in government assistance. Do you think more or less of his volunteering? What about if he earns $85,000? 

You might say income and employment status don’t matter because they are giving their time to help others. But research suggests otherwise. 

A 2020 study led by Jenny Olsen of Indiana University and Brent McFerran of Simon Fraser University found that volunteering may only be highly praised if the individual has a high income and doesn’t receive government assistance. Why would that be? 

As it turns out, income and employment status affect the way people perceive prosocial behavior. Prosocial behavior is the intent to benefit others like donating to a charity or helping out at a soup kitchen for example. In this study, volunteering is the prosocial behavior being referred to. 

In this edition of Consumer Behavior Insights, we look at new research about how judgments towards prosocial acts are influenced by socioeconomics. 

Methodology: Perception of Prosocial Behavior 

The study had 400 participants reflect on the same story about Tyler as you did above. They were asked to think of the first 3-5 words that came to their mind about Tyler. Their 3-5 word responses were categorized as negative or positive. Two hundred additional adults evaluated Tyler on a 7-point semantic scale to assess his morality. 

Another part of this study provided 200 participants with a passage about “Steve” who needs help picking activities for 60 hours of his free time. The activities included pursuing better employment opportunities, taking complimentary enrichment classes at the community center, volunteering at a homeless shelter, spending time with family members, hanging out with friends, watching TV or playing video games, going to the gym, going to coffee shops, reading news articles online and browsing and posting on social media. How would you rank these activities for Steve? Would that change depending on his employment status and income? 

The third reading passage was about “Nick” who has 15 hours of free time. There were two financial versions of Nick: receiving government aid and not receiving the aid. In addition, the story had Nick either spend his 15 hours volunteering or sending out resumes. Participants reacted to the story on a 7-point scale to express how strongly they felt irritated, upset, bothered, angry, happy, and proud. 

This study also explored how aid recipients should be spending their time in a survey where 104 Americans, 191 British, 104 German adults read a description of policy efforts for individuals receiving aid which described the activities required to receive this aid. 

The Results and Implications of Prosocial Behavior and Moral Judgement on Consumer Behavior 

Overall, this research defends that government-aided and low-income individuals are more negatively judged for prosocial behavior than income earners because they are expected to be spending their time to explore employment opportunities. 

Circle back to the Tyler story. There was a positive response when Tyler earned his income, but a neutral response when Tyler received welfare benefits. When other participants were asked to rate Tyler’s actions on a semantic scale, moral judgment varied depending on income, with mixed responses when responding about aid recipients.  

So what do people prefer low-income and government aid individuals to do with their free time? The Steve story results displayed a preference that Steve should use his time toward employment-related activities if he was receiving government aid. Further, participants showed increased anger when they read Nick’s story when he received unemployed government aid and chose to volunteer rather than use their time to send out resumes. 

This research contributes to a body of work suggesting that income is a major factor that has been found to drive moral judgment on other people’s actions. For example, one study found that buying organic food is only perceived as ethical if the individual has a high income. This study contributes and expands the current research by looking at non-financial resources such as time. 

In the beginning, you may not have thought that you’d think less of Tyler because he receives government aid, but perhaps you do now.

Your Pop Neuro Consumer Behavior Insights: 

• Moral judgment varies depending on income status

• Mixed moral judgment when responding to stories of government aid recipients 

• Government aid recipients are more negatively judged for prosocial behavior than income earners because they are expected to be spending their time to explore employment opportunities 

• Increased anger toward unemployed government aid recipients who chose to volunteer rather than use their time to send out resumes 

This is an exclusive, members-only post. To get access to more posts like this, sign-up for the Consumer Behavior Insights Magazine here

References

How income shapes moral judgments of prosocial behavior—ScienceDirect. (n.d.). Retrieved September 8, 2020, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167811620300586

Olson, J. G., McFerran, B., Ketcham, A., & Dahl, D. W. (2016). Wealth and welfare: Divergent moral reactions to ethical consumer choices. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(6), 879–896. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucv096