Why Do Upper And Lower Socioeconomic Statuses Vary?

Why do upper socioeconomic status and lower socioeconomic status cl

Individuals in upper socioeconomic classes often act unethically due to a sense of entitlement and perceived superiority resulting from their wealth, education, and status, which can lead to justifying morally questionable actions. Conversely, lower socioeconomic status individuals may feel compelled to violate rules to improve their circumstances or to support their community, driven by a collective sense of survival and mutual aid. Research indicates that heightened self-interest and desire for status motivate unethical behavior across social classes, with wealth and social positioning intensifying these tendencies (Piff et al., 2013). Middle-class individuals tend to strike a balance, having experienced elements of both extremes, and may exhibit less propensity for rule-breaking due to their broader perspective.

Paper For Above instruction

The relationship between socioeconomic status and ethical behavior is complex and influenced by various psychological and societal factors. Socioeconomic status (SES) encompasses wealth, education, and occupational prestige, shaping individuals’ perceptions of entitlement, obligation, and morality (Piff et al., 2013). High-SES individuals often display behaviors aligned with a sense of superiority and entitlement, which can foster unethical conduct when their interests or self-image are challenged. They may rationalize misconduct by viewing themselves as deserving of special treatment, thus diminishing internal moral restraints (Piff et al., 2013). Such attitudes are reinforced by societal structures that privilege the affluent, creating a culture where unethical behavior becomes justifiable or overlooked.

In contrast, lower SES individuals may engage in unethical acts driven by necessity, collective solidarity, or survival instincts. Their actions often stem from a perceived need to uphold their community or improve economic conditions, sometimes leading to rule-breaking if such rules impede their goals. This form of behavior reflects a pragmatic adaptation to hardship and the belief that mutual aid and flexible morality are essential for overcoming adversity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). The sense of shared struggle among lower SES groups can reinforce ethical boundaries within their community while potentially justifying breaches of formal rules in pursuit of collective well-being.

Research by Piff and colleagues (2013) emphasizes that increased wealth and social status correlate with a heightened pursuit of self-interest, which in turn promotes unethical behavior. The desire for status can incentivize individuals to engage in dishonest or manipulative behaviors to maintain or elevate their social standing. Conversely, middle-class individuals, having experienced both wealth and hardship, often develop a more balanced perspective on morality and rule adherence. They employ moral reasoning that considers both personal gain and societal norms, leading to a moderate tendency toward unethical conduct compared to their upper and lower counterparts.

Overall, socioeconomic status influences ethical behavior through psychological motivations, social norms, and cultural expectations. Upper-class individuals may act unethically due to entitlement and desire for power, while lower-class individuals may do so to survive and support their communities. Middle-class individuals tend to navigate these dynamics with a more pragmatic and balanced approach, influenced by their varied experiences across social strata. Understanding these behavioral patterns can inform policies aimed at fostering ethical conduct across all socioeconomic levels, promoting social cohesion and fairness.

References

• Piff, P. K., Stancato, D. M., Cote, S., Medoza-Denton, R., & Keltner, D. (2013). Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(22), 8668-8673.
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
• Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine.
• Gino, F., & Margolis, J. D. (2011). Bringing ethics into focus: How regulatory focus influences (un)ethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 145–156.
• Griffin, D., & Neal, A. (2000). Perceptions of safety at work and organizational safety: The role of justice and trust. Family & Community Health, 23(3), 63–74.
• Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad Cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 1-31.
• Mwale, M. (2015). Socioeconomic factors influencing unethical behavior in organizations. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 6(4), 124–132.
• Skitka, L. J., Mullen, E., & Griffin, R. (2002). Special duties, moral keystone habits, and the performance of ethical behavior within organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 38(3), 269–285.
• Treviño, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2017). Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk about How to Do It Right. John Wiley & Sons.
• Valentine, S., & Fleischman, G. (2008). Ethics programs, perceived corporate social responsibility, and unethical behavior at the Organizational Level. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(2), 159–172.