Piff manipulated the rules of a Monopoly game to show even lower class people began to take on the traits of the wealthy when provided with unfairly favorable circumstances. Those given an unfair advantage surprisingly believed they deserved to win the game. They attributed their successes to their own individual skills and talents, rather than their highly favorable circumstances. A higher class person put in an unfavorable position, on the other hand, began to take on the traits of the poor.
“If I take someone who is rich and make them feel psychologically a little less well-off, they become way more generous, way more charitable, way more likely to offer help to another person,” Piff explained. “Not just in this game of Monopoly, but in a whole bunch of other experiments that we’ve run where we make rich people feel poor or poor people feel rich.”
I couldn't help thinking of Dan Akroyd and Eddie Murphy in the movie
Trading Places.
I seriously question the objectivity of the guy who did this study. It seems to me he started with the preconception that those with wealth have less compassion. Who does he think are the formers and major contributors to charitable organizations? The wealthy.
I've met wealthy people who are status-driven self-absorbed pricks, and I've also met many wealthy people who are generous in donations and with their personal time.
In my personal life, I would say that I'm actually more generous when I have it to spare. And I would say that compassion comes from being in contact with and aware of those less fortunate, than simply not having wealth.
