Scarcity or luxury: Which leads to adolescent greed? Evidence from a large-scale Chinese adolescent sample

Recalling experiences of scarcity reduces children's generosity relative to recalling abundance

Does a sense of having less or more than what one needs affect one's generosity? The question of how resource access influences prosocial behavior has received much attention in studies with adults but has produced conflicting findings. To better understand this relationship, we tested whether resource access affects generosity in the developing mind. In our preregistered investigation, we used a narrative recall method to explore how temporary, experimentally evoked states of resource abundance or scarcity affect children's sharing. In this study, 6- to 8-year-old American children (N = 148) recalled an experience of scarcity or abundance and then chose how many prizes to share with another child. We found that children in the scarce condition rated themselves as sadder, viewed their resource access as more limited, and shared fewer tokens than children in the abundant condition. Our results indicate that recalling past experiences of resource access creates distinct behavioral consequences for children and suggest that a sense of "having less" may encourage a strategy of resource conservation relative to a sense of "having more," even at a young age.

Why do people always want more? Perceived economic inequality leads people to be greedy by enhancing relative deprivation

Greedy phenomena have dramatically increased in societies. However, despite the universality of greedy behaviour, empirical research on the causes of greed is scarce. In this context, we propose that perceived economic inequality may be an important factor influencing greed. Study 1 provided primary evidence of a positive relationship between perceived economic inequality and greed, based on data from a large-scale social survey (CFPS 2018, N = 14,317). Employing well-established questionnaires, Study 2A (N = 200) and Study 2B (N = 399) revealed that perceived economic inequality positively predicts greed, with relative deprivation playing a mediating role. Study 3A (N = 200) and Study 3B (N = 200) manipulated perceived economic inequality to provide causal evidence of its effects on greed and to replicate the mediating effect of relative deprivation. Finally, Study 4 (N = 372), using a blockage manipulation design, showed that the effect of perceived economic inequality on greed significantly decreases when relative deprivation is suppressed. In summary, the results of these six studies consistently suggest that perceived economic inequality positively affects greed and that this effect is mediated by relative deprivation.

Greed: What Is It Good for?

What is greed good for? Greed is ubiquitous, suggesting that it must have some benefits, but it is also often condemned. In a representative sample of the Dutch population (N = 2,367, 51.3% female, Mage = 54.06, SD = 17.90), we examined two questions. First, inspired by Eriksson et al., we studied whether greedy people generate more personal and household income (economic outcomes), have more sexual partners, longer relationships, and more offspring (evolutionary outcomes), and are more satisfied in life (psychological outcomes). We found that greedy individuals had higher economic outcomes, mixed evolutionary outcomes, and lower psychological outcomes. Second, we compared greed and self-interest. We found that they differed in terms of economic outcomes, and partly in terms of evolutionary outcomes, but that they were similar in terms of psychological outcomes. This research provides insights into what greed is and does. Directions for further research are discussed.

The Founder: Dispositional Greed, Showbiz, and the Commercial Determinants of Health

Marketing unhealthy products by multinational corporations has caused considerable harm to individual health, collective wellbeing, and environmental sustainability. This is a growing threat to all societies and a significant contributor to the rising global burden of non-communicable diseases and early mortality. While there is growing consideration of the commercial determinants of health, this is largely focused on the methods by which unhealthy products are marketed and disseminated, including efforts to manipulate policy. Little attention has been paid to the underlying psychological traits and worldviews that are driving corporate greed. Here, we consider the role of "dispositional greed" in the commercial determinants of health with a focus on the historical attitudes and culture in the ultra-processed food industry-exemplified by "The Founder" of the McDonald's franchise. We argue that greed and associated psychological constructs, such as social dominance orientation and collective narcissism, permeate the commercial determinants of health at a collective level. This includes how a culture of greed within organizations, and individual dispositional greed, can magnify and cluster at scale, perpetuated by social dominance orientation. We also consider the ways in which "showbiz" marketing specifically targets marginalized populations and vulnerable groups, including children-in ways that are justified, or even celebrated despite clear links to non-communicable diseases and increased mortality. Finally, we consider how greed and exploitative mindsets mirror cultural values and priorities, with trends for increasing collective narcissism at scale, recognizing that many of these attitudes are cultivated in early life. A healthier future will depend on navigating a path that balances material prosperity with physical and spiritual wellbeing. This will require cultural change that places higher value on kindness, reciprocity, and mutualistic values especially in early life, for more equitable flourishing.

I Want More! The Role of Child, Family and Maternal Characteristics on Child Dispositional Greed and Sharing Behavior

Abstract

Greed is often regarded as a negative trait that impedes prosocial behavior in adults. Yet, relatively little is known about the development of greed and its effects on children. We examine the effect of dispositional greed on sharing behavior in 4-to-6-year-olds. In addition, we identified potential factors associated with child greed, including child, family, and maternal characteristics. This study with 63 mother–child dyads (Agechild = 5.11, SD = 0.88, 50.8% female) revealed that child greed was associated with less prosocial behavior in an observational sharing task. More specifically, children who were reported as greedier by their mothers shared less than less greedy children. Having fewer siblings, less mindful maternal parenting style, and high maternal trait anxiety was associated with higher dispositional greed in children. Additionally, their mother rated greedier children as having higher negative affectivity. These findings suggest that child greed is an important developmental trait that warrants further investigation.

Highlights

• 63 mother–child dyads revealed that child greed was associated with less pro-social behavior in an observational sharing task

• Child greed was associated with higher rates of child negative affectivity.

• Having fewer siblings, less mindful parenting style, high maternal trait anxiety predicted dispositional greed in 4-to-6-year-old children

Further tests of the scarcity and luxury hypotheses in dispositional greed: Evidence from two large-scale Dutch and American samples

A recent, large-scale study among Chinese adolescents found that childhood socioeconomic status (CSES) was positively related to dispositional greed (i.e., the “luxury hypothesis”), instead of negatively related (i.e., the “scarcity hypothesis”; Liu et al., 2019c). This relationship was found for only-children, not for children with siblings. The generalizability of these findings may be limited, due to China’s one-child policy and socioeconomic policies which may have led to fewer differences in wealth. We replicated this research in two other cultural contexts that represent markedly different socioeconomic policies in order to test its generalizability: the Netherlands (Study 1, N = 2367, 51.3% female, Mage = 54.06, SD = 17.90), and the USA (Study 2, N = 999, 50.1% female, Mage = 33.44, SD = 12.28). Hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted to test the association between CSES and greed. We mostly replicated the findings by Liu et al. (2019c): CSES was positively related to greed in both studies (“luxury hypothesis”) and there was a moderating effect of siblings in Study 1, but not in Study 2. Implications for theories on greed as well as future research on the association between CSES and greed are discussed.

The German Standard and Short Authentic and Hubristic Pride Scales

Abstract. The authentic and hubristic pride (A&HP) model is the domineering paradigm in pride research. Authentic pride (AP) comprises feelings of accomplishment and self-worth, whereas hubristic pride (HP) includes conceit and arrogance. We provide a German version of the A&HP scale ( Tracy & Robins, 2007 ), the GAHPS. We found a good fit for a two-factor solution. Internal consistencies were high. Nomological validity was supported for personality, self-esteem, and narcissism (Study 1, N = 569), status (Study 2, N = 565), and other emotions (Study 3, N = 204). In Study 4 ( N = 184), AP and HP had different associations with prosocial and antisocial behavior. We found high self-other agreement (109 dyads) for AP but not for HP. Further, people used different words to describe AP and HP when they described themselves and peers, thus suggesting that the two forms are associated with different linguistic styles. Finally, using an Ant Colony Optimization algorithm, we derived a short form for the scale. Researchers are advised to choose the standard or short scale, depending on the research purpose. This research broadens the validity testing of the A&HP model and, for the first time, provides linguistic correlates of the two forms of pride.

Dispositional Greed Scales

Abstract. In recent years, different scales have been developed to assess individual differences in dispositional greed. We report two studies ( N1 = 300, N2 = 1,000) on the comparative psychometric properties of these scales. We find that all scales are reliable and that they correlate highly, suggesting that all can be used to assess dispositional greed. Exploratory factor analyses, using the Empirical Kaiser Criterion, the Hull method, and Parallel Analysis as extraction methods, were done on the separate scales and all items together. These analyses reveal that there is quite some consistency in the scales, as in both studies a one-factor solution seems to describe the data best. These results imply that these different scales all assess dispositional greed, although the results also suggest that some items may be deleted from the scales.