The research mentioned in the post and discussed in the video is flawed. If the video bases it's argument solely on that research then it is a waste of time to watch it.

I enjoyed the broadcast. I feel that they are definitely on to something. What is interesting for sociologists to note is that Max Weber made a very similar point. See his "Foreword" to the collected essays on the sociology of religion, translated by Hans Gerth and included in the essays known as "Gerth and Mills (1958)." [But it really should be cited as Weber 1958!] The title they gave the essay: "The Social Psychology of the World Religions." Weber points out that those who are advantaged tend to seek justification for their advantages and rarely feel o.k. about just having health, wealth and long life. [He does not mention "happiness."] The discussion is in the context of the "elective affinity" (i.e. "association") between status groups and religious beliefs. Randall Collins argues that this too is part of Weber's "mature theory of [modern] capitalism". Cheers, Hans www.semioticsigns.com www.jihansbakker.com

It's a bit ironic that their study used a rigged game of Monopoly, because the entire point of the game - which was designed as a critique of capitalism - is that it is already "rigged" within the first few turns. The player who's lucky enough to acquire a capital advantage early on almost inevitably crushes everyone else over the course of the next hours. Even without any special adjustments, the game is notorious for turning the player with an upper hand in even the happiest family into a bit of a monster while they're playing. Whether that correlates to behaviors after the game is packed up and put away is hard to say.

While the correlation between wealth/high status and certain behavior patterns (greed, cheating, entitled attitudes, corruption, selfishness) is fairly persuasive, I'd like to see more investigation into causation in the other direction. All other things being equal (and there's the hard part to simulate), are people who are predisposed to those behaviors more likely to become wealthy?

Fascinating. Has anyone done a comparison with the results of the Stanford prison experiments? The Monopoly players here were also assigned randomly to a role of higher wealth, and some of the behaviors that were noted seem associated with a role of higher "power," suggesting support for a link between how we view wealth and power. Not a surprising connection, maybe, but a less obvious outcome since the focus was on money.

Based exclusively on watching this video clip, I wonder if the conclusion that wealth changes people’s intentions or moral views of what they deserve/ what behaviors are morally permissible is fully warranted. Both this blog and the video conflate the behavior changes with moral or ethical position changes by commenting on the assumed political implications and the idea of entitlement or deserving of advantages- the blog wonders notes that wealth makes people feel differently rather than just behave differently. As a disclaimer, I do feel like in fact entitlement and the feeling that privilege is deserved come with the territory of being rich (and white and male) in the United States, I’m just not sure that these examples demonstrate why people feel that way as accurately as watching the way we talk and legislate around economic issues.

In the video, people were shown engaging in different behaviors based on the perceived social class they were occupying, whether only for a moment in a game or in their real life in a luxury car. Perhaps people modify their behavior based on their experience around getting caught or even simply criticized regularly for their actions—a wealthy person is much less likely to have the experience of getting caught breaking laws or social taboos. The fact that poorer people are opposed to stealing from their workplace could relate more to the fact that they know they would get caught for taking something of minor value, while their boss probably has the regular experience of extracting resources for personal benefit (it could be off limits to take home office supplies for personal use while it is perfectly permissible to expense a gourmet meal and round of golf with a high end client). A rich person may take candy because they do not regularly have the experience of being judged by others, while a poor person frequently experiences being critiqued publicly and professionally. A hypothetical example to demonstrate that our feelings might not guide our actions could be to imagine that a white adult male who appears affluent may be more likely to choose to carry drugs while walking around New York City than a poor appearing black male. The black male may think that drugs are ethically permissible while the white male thinks they are morally wrong, but the black male’s behavior is likely to be modified by his expectation that he could be subjected to a police search, while the white male hasn't had to think through that element of making a decision to carry or not carry drugs. While the prior hypothetical is not part of this (or any?) experiment, I think this is what is likely going on in the crosswalk situation as well- we modify our behaviors when we are subject to critique or penalty.

In this way, our experiences of how vulnerable to criticism or penalty we are inform our moral judgments- wealthy folk may have blinders to some elements that would factor in to decision making for less advantaged folks- but they may not actually reflectively feel they deserve different things/ are morally entitled to advantages. It might be more universal the people will take whatever advantage we can get away with taking than a trait of wealth- the wealthy just get away with a lot more. This is kind of a small quibble in terms of what this experiment can reveal to a general audience, but it’s important in terms of engaging people on how we change our system of entitlement. Anecdotally (and looking at political viewpoints across different demographics), it’s clear that people who do not have wealth regularly apply the American Dream mythology that wealthy people must deserve it- we glorify wealthy men as more cunning and hardworking while viewing poverty as a personal failing. Looking at that attitude as it appears in political polls, it’s often the case that poorer people are more likely to believe the ‘deserves privilege’ rhetoric than wealthier people. To tackle how we ‘unlearn’ this myth, we need to acknowledge that the moral judgment component of deserving advantage does not always originate in actually experiencing the advantage. We need to think about whether poor people and rich people behave differently because of how they feel personally about the behavior (i.e. ‘do I deserve this?) or if they behave differently because ramifications of behaviors and other factors are different. I think it is more likely the latter, and addressing those factors
could help us modify our system.