Individuals with lower socioeconomic status (SES) tend to be more empathetic, attentive to others, and prosocial than those with higher SES (Kraus et al. Reference Kraus, Piff, Mendoza-Denton, Rheinschmidt and Keltner2012; Piff & Moskowitz Reference Piff, Moskowitz, Seppala, Doty, Worline, Cameron, Brown and Simon-Thomas2017; Piff et al. Reference Piff, Stancato, Horberg, Van Prooijen and van Lange2016). The prosocial tendencies of lower-SES individuals, who have fewer resources and reduced rank relative to upper-SES individuals, may seem irrational. We propose, however, that lower-SES individuals' other-regarding tendencies reflect adaptive responses to low personal control and greater vulnerability to environmental threat. From this perspective, lower-SES individuals' seemingly irrational tendencies may reflect a deeper adaptive logic.

Pepper & Nettle (P&N) propose that lower SES relates to low personal control, which shapes a contextually appropriate constellation of risky behaviors: Due to reduced perceived control of future outcomes, it is contextually adaptive to exert control over the present, prioritizing short-term gains over long-term objectives. Here, we extend this framework of contextually appropriate responses beyond risk taking to recent findings in social psychology indicating that SES differences in control underlie divergent patterns of prosocial responding.

Increased material resources and relative rank afford higher-SES individuals greater personal control and autonomy and reduced vulnerability to social and environmental threats (Johnson & Krueger Reference Johnson and Krueger2005; Reference Johnson and Krueger2006; Kraus et al. Reference Kraus, Piff and Keltner2009) – factors that give rise to an internal, self-oriented focus (i.e., greater attention to one's internal states and goals). By contrast, lower-SES individuals inhabit more threatening social environments (e.g., unstable jobs, unpredictable home lives; Evans et al. Reference Evans, Gonnella, Marcynyszyn, Gentile and Salpekar2005), and limited resources constrain their ability to exercise personal control to buffer against threats. Because their lives are more susceptible to external influences, lower-SES individuals develop an external, other-oriented focus (i.e., greater vigilance to external contexts and individuals within them).

We have proposed and empirically tested the idea that reduced personal control causes lower-SES individuals to be more attuned to others' attitudes, intentions, and interior states. For instance, when explaining life outcomes (e.g., poverty, obesity), lower-SES individuals refer more to uncontrollable external forces, relative to higher-SES individuals. Those of lower SES are also more likely to factor third parties' emotions into attributions for a focal individual's emotions, reflecting a heightened attention to the social context. These SES-based patterns of social attribution are driven by SES differences in feelings of personal control (Kraus et al. Reference Kraus, Piff and Keltner2009).

Lower-SES individuals' attentiveness to others is further evidenced by studies of visual attention and empathic processes. Individuals with lower SES spend more time looking at other human beings (Dietze & Knowles Reference Dietze and Knowles2016), show more intense empathic responses to others' pain (Varnum et al. Reference Varnum, Blais, Hampton and Brewer2015), and display more physiological signs of concern and report higher levels of compassion when exposed to others' suffering (Stellar et al. Reference Stellar, Manzo, Kraus and Keltner2012). In interactions with strangers, people of lower SES show more signs of engagement – such as making eye contact and nodding – compared to higher-SES individuals, who exhibit more disengagement (e.g., checking their cellphones; Kraus & Keltner Reference Kraus and Keltner2009).

Increased attentiveness to others leads lower-SES individuals to prioritize others' needs more in social interactions (Piff Reference Piff2014). In studies of prosocial behavior, individuals of lower SES volunteered more personal time to help a stranger in distress, and they donated more points (redeemable for cash) to an anonymous partner, compared to higher-SES individuals (Piff et al. Reference Piff, Kraus, Côté, Cheng and Keltner2010). Children from lower-SES families donated more prize tokens to an anonymous sick child than those from higher-SES households (Miller et al. Reference Miller, Kahle and Hastings2015). Other studies find that higher-SES individuals are more likely to attempt to maximize self-interest by taking valued goods from others, lying in negotiations, and cheating to increase their chances of winning a prize (Piff et al. Reference Piff, Stancato, Côté, Mendoza-Denton and Keltner2012a), whereas lower-SES individuals will cheat in a game to increase another person's chances of winning (Dubois et al. Reference Dubois, Rucker and Galinsky2015).

Importantly, SES differences in prosocial behavior are observed when SES is measured and manipulated. For example, individuals made to feel lower in SES by comparing themselves to someone at the very top of the socioeconomic ladder endorse increased charitable donations relative to individuals primed to feel relatively higher in SES by comparing themselves to someone at the very bottom of the social ladder (Piff et al. Reference Piff, Kraus, Côté, Cheng and Keltner2010). The effect of manipulated SES appeared alongside an independent effect of measured SES (income) in the same study. These findings converge with P&N's account that contextual perceptions of relative deprivation (or advantage) are a proximal psychological mechanism underlying SES differences in behavior.

Why might lower-SES individuals be more prosocial? We posit that increased other-regard is an adaptive, contextually appropriate consequence of lower SES. Uncertainty and feelings of reduced personal control – both associated with lower SES – cause stress and prompt people to seek other sources of stability (e.g., Jonas et al. Reference Jonas, McGregor, Klackl, Agroskin, Fritsche, Holbrook and Quirin2014; Piff et al. Reference Piff, Stancato, Martinez, Kraus and Keltner2012b). Affiliative behaviors can serve as adaptive responses to reduced personal control and uncertainty (e.g., Hogg et al. Reference Hogg, Sherman, Dierselhuis, Maitner and Moffitt2007; Shuper et al. Reference Shuper, Sorrentino, Otsubo, Hodson and Walker2004). For example, experimentally inducing feelings of low personal control increased in-group identification and pro-group behavior, suggesting that collectives contribute to one's broader sense of control under personal uncertainty (Fritsche et al. Reference Fritsche, Jonas, Ablasser, Beyer, Kuban, Manger and Schultz2013). Turning to others for social support and normative guidance can mitigate the negative effects of reduced personal control.

Guided by this reasoning, increased social attentiveness and prosociality among lower-SES individuals may be adaptive responses to reduced personal control, helping build and sustain interdependent networks of mutual aid that are vital coping strategies (Lamont Reference Lamont2000). Ongoing research is examining whether prosocial tendencies serve compensatory control functions among lower-SES individuals; cooperative communities may provide a form of “collective control” over threatening environments. Thus, we propose that prosocial tendencies are not irrational but instead reflect a deeper logic that – like the risky behaviors discussed by P&N – serve as adaptive and contextually appropriate responses to lower SES.