Poverty Causes Harsher Moral Judgments

You might expect poor people to be more sympathetic toward criminals and other transgressors, since they experience some of the same economic and social stressors as the people they're judging. However, the present research finds low income people to be more harsh in their moral judgments. Two French psychologists, Marko Pitesa and Stefan Thau, propose an explanation for this result.

The authors suggest that people who lack financial resources feel more vulnerable to the potentially harmful behavior of others, since they are less able to cope with victimization. For example, in the case of theft, a poor person will have more difficulty replacing the stolen objects than a richer person. Their harsher moral judgments, then, can be seen as a self-protective response by which they hope to reduce the threat of their own victimization by punishing perpetrators severely. Notice this argument only applies to offenses that do real material harm to someone, but not to victimless actions.

Public Execution in Iran, 2013
© hriran.com

The hypothesis was tested in two studies. The first utilized data from over 85,000 residents of 56 countries participating in the World Values Survey. The respondents were asked to evaluate eight harmful behaviors, such as lying and cheating on taxes, on a scale from “1” (“never justifiable”) to “10” (“always justifiable”). The two measures of economic vulnerability were the participants' self-reported household income, and the rate of inflation in their country. The effects of five control variables were statistically eliminated: education, occupational status, subjective social class, religiosity and race.

Both economic variables had significant effects. Lower income people and people living in countries with high inflation were more negative in their judgments of people who misbehave. In addition, inflation only made a difference when the respondents were poor. The effect of inflation was only statistically significant for people whose incomes were in the bottom sixth of the income distribution.

Of course, these are all correlations, and uncontrolled variables could be responsible for them. What I like about this paper is that they followed up the survey with a controlled experiment. A representative sample of 203 Americans partcipated on the internet. The researchers subtly manipulated the participants' perception of their own wealth by having them indicate their monthly income on an 11-point scale. They varied the anchors on the scale. In the material-resources-lacking condition, “1” was labeled “$0-$1000” and “11” was labeled “over $500,000” (a month!). Obviously, most participants circled numbers near the low end. In the material-resources-not-lacking condition, the scale anchors were “$0-$50” and “over $500.” Most participants were at or near the high end of the scale.

Participants then read five scenarios of either harmful behaviors, i.e., assault, or victimless actions, i.e., masturbation, and rated how “wrong,” “blameworthy,” “inappropriate” and “unacceptable” they each were. The victimless actions were included to ensure that participants who felt economically deprived didn't simply become more negative toward all behaviors.

As expected, the subjects who felt subjectively poorer were harsher in their judgments of the harmful behaviors than those who felt relatively well off. However, there was no difference between the two groups in their evaluations of the victimless actions. A further analysis showed that the relationship between financial insecurity and harsher moral judgments was mediated by feelings of vulnerability (but not by any of the other mood and personality variables that were collected).

When I started reading this article, I thought it might shed some light on the psychology of religion. We know that religiosity is higher in the world's poorest nations, and feelings of vulnerability seem like a plausible explanation. However, I would expect religiosity to be associated with more punitive moral judgments of victimless transgressions as well as those with victims. The experiment finds that lack of material resources only causes harsher judgments of actions that do real harm to victims.

You may also be interested in reading:

Deadbeats for Self-Reliance

Football's Days Are Numbered

I had to write this post today because I was disgusted to see Chris Hayes, who just a week ago led an insightful discussion of football brain injuries, sign off this morning by telling his audience to “enjoy the game (the Super Bowl).” This was followed by the hopeless Melissa Harris-Perry wearing a football jersey. Yech! I can't put off this topic until next Fall.

Football is America's most popular sport. The National Football League (NFL) makes an estimated $9.5 billion a year. (No one knows the amount spent on gambling.) How can its days be numbered? I have a one-word answer: “Boxing.” I can remember when boxing was the fourth most popular sport in this country. It was on television almost every night, even though we only had a half-dozen channels. Sports fans knew the names of the champions of all the weight divisions. In the '60s, Muhammed Ali was said to be the most well-known celebrity in the world. Can you name a current boxing champion? Who's the last heavyweight champ you remember? (Mike Tyson effectively ended his career when he bit Evander Holyfield's ear in 1997.)

Muhammed Ali had more to do with boxing's decline than anyone else. The entire world has seen his struggle with Parkinson's disease, and we rightly attribute it to the blows to the head he took in the ring. I suspect many Americans decided that, if this is the consequence of being a boxer, not only would they not allow their children to box, they didn't want to be implicated in this self-destructive behavior by supporting the sport with their time and money.

We now know from studies of posthumous brain samples that football injuries can cause chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), whose symptoms include headaches, memory loss, lack of impulse control, depression and dementia. We don't yet know the percentage of former players who will suffer these symptoms because the samples came from former players who were known or suspected to have CTE. Boston University researcher Chris Nowinski suggests that 20% is a “conservative” estimate of the number of players in today's Super Bowl who are playing with incipient dementia. Ten percent of NFL players are diagnosed with concussions each year. We also don't know whether the risk is primarily due to concussions, or whether CTE is also caused by the cumulative effect of chronic routine hits.

But the situation is changing quickly. Researchers are now able to diagnose CTE in living patients (45 years and older) using PET scans. As these diagnoses gradually move forward in time, we may get answers to these important questions. How will these answers affect willingness to play the game?

 All rights reserved by Harry Funk

The argument is often made that the players know the risks they are taking, and that they are well-compensated for their services; therefore, they are responsible for their own victimization. The over 4000 retired players who have filed damage suits against the NFL point out that they never gave truly informed consent, since they were never advised of the risks of head injuries. At present, what the NFL knew about head injuries and when they knew it is contested. We may eventually find a coverup similar to the tobacco industry, but then again, we may not. Two things can be said about this debate:

• The present generation of players is much more aware of the risks, and it hasn't affected the ability of the NFL to recruit players. I suspect this has something to do with players' ability to rationalize that these negative consequences will not happen to them.
• The monetary argument does not apply at all to the far greater number of college and high school football players, who receive little or no compensation for the risks they are taking. And can football players under 18 legally give their informed consent?

What will happen in the next few years? I expect the NFL to lose some of the lawsuits filed by former players, but the settlements will amount to only chump change for this $9.5 billion institution. They will make a few public relations gestures, like the one announced yesterday. The NFL is spending $50 million to partner with General Electric to develop better brain imaging technology and safer helmets. There will be highly touted but minor rules changes in the name of safety. The NFL will make excessive claims about safety improvements, knowing that they may not be fully testable for decades. In the end, Dave Zirin is probably right when he says, “There is no making football safer.”

When real change comes, it will have to come from the bottom up—which is why it will take a while. I see two promising possibilities.

• President Obama has said, “I have to tell you, if I had a son, I would have to think long and hard before I would let him play football.” Change will come when more parents begin having this conversation with themselves and other parents. Willingness to let their sons play high school football will decline.

• Colleges football is a key step in the system. Some colleges and universities have medical schools. Almost all of them have biology and psychology departments. Their faculties will understand the latest head injury research and transmit it to the rest of the community. I expect them to start putting pressure on college administrations to reduce their involvement in football.

In the end, however, the meat grinder that is football depends on our willingness to watch. To quote Dave Zirin again, “If people are disgusted by the violence visited on these players, they should vote with their feet and stop watching.” If we would not play football ourselves, or let our sons play it, shouldn't we be embarrassed to watch young men from poor families take these risks merely because football offers them a small chance of getting rich?

Eventually, only the most callous and morally obtuse among us will be proud to call ourselves “Steeler fans.” I would rather be ahead of than behind that curve.