Abstract
How does economic inequality relate to prosocial behaviour? Existing theories and empirical studies from multiple disciplines have produced mixed results. Here we conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to systematically synthesize empirical studies. Results from 192 effect sizes and over 2.5 million observations in 100 studies show that the relationship varies from being negative to positive depending upon the study (95% prediction interval −0.450 to 0.343). However, on average, there is a small, negative relationship between economic inequality and prosocial behaviour (r = −0.064, P = 0.004, 95% confidence interval −0.106 to −0.021). There is generally no evidence that results depend upon characteristics of the studies, participants, the way prosocial behaviour and inequality were assessed, and the publication discipline. Given the prevalence of economic inequality and the importance of prosocial behaviour, this systematic review and meta-analysis provides a timely study on the relationship between economic inequality and prosocial behaviour.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
This meta-analysis was pre-registered on the Open Science Framework. The raw and processed data are publicly available on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/e3fzb/?view_only=8f4d58a84b694bba98b6173b879381d8).
Code availability
The code (written in R) used to analyse the relevant data is provided on the Open Science Framework website (https://osf.io/e3fzb/?view_only=8f4d58a84b694bba98b6173b879381d8). All materials needed to reproduce the analyses are available at this link. Note that the analysis was first transformed into Fisher’s z, then converted back to Pearson’s r, for ease of interpretation.
References
Batson, C. D. & Powell, A. A. in Handbook of Psychology: Personality and Social Psychology Vol. 5 (eds Millon, T. & Lerner, M. J.) 463–484 (John Wiley & Sons, 2003).
Evers, A. & Gesthuizen, M. The impact of generalized and institutional trust on donating to activist, leisure, and interest organizations: individual and contextual effects. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 16, 381–392 (2011).
Uslaner, E. M. & Brown, M. Inequality, trust, and civic engagement. Am. Polit. Res. 33, 868–894 (2005).
Anderson, L. R., Mellor, J. M. & Milyo, J. Inequality and public good provision: an experimental analysis. J. Socio-Econ. 37, 1010–1028 (2008).
Duquette, N. J. Inequality and philanthropy: high-income giving in the United States 1917–2012. Explor. Econ. Hist. 70, 25–41 (2018).
Longhofer, W., Negro, G. & Roberts, P. W. The changing effectiveness of local civic action: the critical nexus of community and organization. Adm. Sci. Q. 64, 203–229 (2019).
Costa, D. L. & Kahn, M. E. Understanding the American decline in social capital, 1952–1998. Kyklos 56, 17–46 (2003).
Costa, D. L. & Kahn, M. E. Civic engagement and community heterogeneity: an economist’s perspective. Perspect. Polit. 1, 103–111 (2003).
Damian, E. Formal volunteering in Europe: evidence across nations and time. Cross-Cult. Res. 53, 385–409 (2019).
Gesthuizen, M., van der Meer, T. & Scheepers, P. Education and dimensions of social capital: do educational effects differ due to educational expansion and social security expenditure? Eur. Sociol. Rev. 24, 617–632 (2008).
Gesthuizen, M., van der Meer, T. & Scheepers, P. Ethnic diversity and social capital in Europe: tests of Putnam’s thesis in European countries. Scand. Polit. Stud. 32, 121–142 (2009).
Okten, C. & Osili, U. O. Contributions in heterogeneous communities: evidence from Indonesia. Popul. Econ. 17, 603–626 (2004).
Rothwell, J. T. The effects of racial segregation on trust and volunteering in US cities. Urban Stud. 49, 2109–2136 (2012).
Rotolo, T. & Wilson, J. Social heterogeneity and volunteering in U.S. cities. Sociol. Forum 29, 429–452 (2014).
Tolsma, J., van der Meer, T. & Gesthuizen, M. The impact of neighbourhood and municipality characteristics on social cohesion in the Netherlands. Acta Polit. 44, 286–313 (2009).
Veal, A. J. & Nichols, G. Volunteering and income inequality: cross-national relationships. Volunt. Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit Organ. 28, 379–399 (2017).
Bielefeld, W., Rooney, P. & Steinberg, K. in Gifts of Money in Americas Communities (ed. Brooks, A.) 127–158 (Rowman & Littlefield Pub, 2005).
Chan, K. S., Mestelman, S., Moir, R. & Muller, R. A. The voluntary provision of public goods under varying income distributions. Can. J. Econ. 29, 54–69 (1996).
Payne, A. A. & Smith, J. Does income inequality increase charitable giving? Can. J. Econ. Can. D.économique 48, 793–818 (2015).
Chan, K. S., Mestelman, S., Moir, R. & Muller, R. A. Heterogeneity and the voluntary provision of public goods. Exp. Econ. 2, 5–30 (1999).
Hofmeyr, A., Burns, J. & Visser, M. Income inequality, reciprocity and public good provision: an experimental analysis. South Afr. J. Econ. 75, 508–520 (2007).
Sadrieh, A. & Verbon, H. A. A. Inequality, cooperation, and growth: an experimental study. Eur. Econ. Rev. 50, 1197–1222 (2006).
Schmukle, S. C., Korndörfer, M. & Egloff, B. No evidence that economic inequality moderates the effect of income on generosity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 9790–9795 (2019).
Van Dijk, E. & Grodzka, M. The influence of endowments asymmetry and information level on the contribution to a public step good. J. Econ. Psychol. 13, 329–342 (1992).
Mastromatteo, G. & Russo, F. F. Inequality and charity. World Dev. 96, 136–144 (2017).
Chernyak, N., Harvey, T., Tarullo, A. R., Rockers, P. C. & Blake, P. R. Varieties of young children’s prosocial behavior in Zambia: the role of cognitive ability, wealth, and inequality beliefs. Front. Psychol. 9, 2209 (2018).
Godfrey, E. B. & Cherng, H.-Y. S. The kids are all right? Income inequality and civic engagement among our nation’s youth. J. Youth Adolesc. 45, 2218–2232 (2016).
Oliver, J. E. The effects of metropolitan economic segregation on local civic participation. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 43, 186–212 (1999).
Smith, P. B. To lend helping hands: in-group favoritism, uncertainty avoidance, and the national frequency of pro-social behaviors. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 46, 759–771 (2015).
Clark, J. & Kim, B. The effect of neighborhood diversity on volunteering: evidence from New Zealand. BE J. Econ. Anal. Policy https://doi.org/10.1515/1935-1682.2971 (2012).
Pichler, F. & Wallace, C. Social capital and social class in Europe: the role of social networks in social stratification. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 25, 319–332 (2009).
Winterich, K. P. & Zhang, Y. Accepting inequality deters responsibility: how power distance decreases charitable behavior. J. Consum. Res. 41, 274–293 (2014).
Smith, A. The changing effects of community characteristics on volunteering in Canada. Can. Public Policy 38, 361–373 (2012).
Wright, M. Economic inequality and the social capital gap in the United States across time and space. Polit. Stud. 63, 642–662 (2015).
Schröder, J. M. & Neumayr, M. How socio-economic inequality affects individuals’ civic engagement: a systematic literature review of empirical findings and theoretical explanations. Socio-Econ. Rev. 21, 665–694 (2023).
Liu, C.-J. Expectation, commitment, and charitable giving: the mediating role of trust and the moderating role of social status. Volunt. Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit Organ. 30, 754–767 (2019).
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K. & Carter, N. T. Declines in trust in others and confidence in institutions among American adults and late adolescents, 1972–2012. Psychol. Sci. 25, 1914–1923 (2014).
Alesina, A. & La Ferrara, E. Who trusts others? J. Public Econ. 85, 207–234 (2002).
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L. & Cook, J. M. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu. Rev. Socio. 27, 415–444 (2001).
Brooks, A. C. Does social capital make you generous? Soc. Sci. Q. 86, 1–15 (2005).
Wang, L. & Graddy, E. Social capital, volunteering, and charitable giving. Volunt. Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit Organ. 19, 23–42 (2008).
Lancee, B. & Van de Werfhorst, H. G. Income inequality and participation: a comparison of 24 European countries. Soc. Sci. Res. 41, 1166–1178 (2012).
Solt, F. Economic inequality and democratic political engagement. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 52, 48–60 (2008).
Goodin, R. & Dryzek, J. Rational participation: the politics of relative power. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 10, 273–292 (1980).
Pateman, C. Political culture, political structure and political change. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 1, 291–305 (1971).
Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J. & Bushman, B. J. Psychological entitlement: interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. J. Pers. Assess. 83, 29–45 (2004).
Côté, S., House, J. & Willer, R. High economic inequality leads higher-income individuals to be less generous. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 15838–15843 (2015).
Major, B. in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 26 (ed. Zanna, M. P.) 293–355 (Academic Press, 1994).
Melita, D., Willis, G. B. & Rodríguez-Bailón, R. Economic inequality increases status anxiety through perceived contextual competitiveness. Front. Psychol. 12, 637365 (2021).
Delhey, J. & Dragolov, G. Why inequality makes Europeans less happy: the role of distrust, status anxiety, and perceived conflict. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 30, 151–165 (2014).
Meltzer, A. H. & Richard, S. F. A rational theory of the size of government. J. Polit. Econ. 89, 914–927 (1981).
Roberts, K. W. S. Voting over income tax schedules. J. Public Econ. 8, 329–340 (1977).
Romer, T. Individual welfare, majority voting, and the properties of a linear income tax. J. Public Econ. 4, 163–185 (1975).
Roberts, R. D. A positive model of private charity and public transfers. J. Polit. Econ. 92, 136–148 (1984).
Warr, P. G. Pareto optimal redistribution and private charity. J. Public Econ. 19, 131–138 (1982).
Bekkers, R. & Wiepking, P. A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 40, 924–973 (2011).
Fehr, E. & Schmidt, K. M. A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Q. J. Econ. 114, 817–868 (1999).
Juster, F. T. Rethinking utility theory. J. Behav. Econ. 19, 155–179 (1990).
Briggs, E., Peterson, M. & Gregory, G. Toward a better understanding of volunteering for nonprofit organizations: explaining volunteers’ pro-social attitudes. J. Macromarketing 30, 61–76 (2010).
Dubé, J.-P., Luo, X. & Fang, Z. Self-signaling and prosocial behavior: a cause marketing experiment. Mark. Sci. 36, 161–186 (2017).
Huang, W.-C. & Ray, S. C. Labor supply, voluntary work, and charitable contributions in a model of utility maximization. East. Econ. J. 12, 257–263 (1986).
Weisbrod, B. A. The Voluntary Nonprofit Sector: An Economic Analysis (Lexington Books, 1977).
Wiepking, P. & Handy, F. The Palgrave Handbook of Global Philanthropy (Springer, 2015).
Card, N. A. Applied Meta-Analysis for Social Science Research (Guilford Publications, 2015).
Ringquist, E. Meta-Analysis for Public Management and Policy (John Wiley & Sons, 2013).
Hui, B. P. H., Ng, J. C. K., Berzaghi, E., Cunningham-Amos, L. A. & Kogan, A. Rewards of kindness? A meta-analysis of the link between prosociality and well-being. Psychol. Bull. 146, 1084–1116 (2020).
Alvaredo, F., Chancel, L., Piketty, T., Saez, E. & Zucman, G. World Inequality Report 2018 (World Inequality Lab, 2018); https://wir2018.wid.world/files/download/wir2018-full-report-english.pdf
Musick, M. A. & Wilson, J. Volunteers: A Social Profile (Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press, 2008).
De Wit, A. & Bekkers, R. Exploring gender differences in charitable giving: the Dutch case. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 45, 741–761 (2016).
Eagly, A. H. The his and hers of prosocial behavior: an examination of the social psychology of gender. Am. Psychol. 64, 644–658 (2009).
Einolf, C. J. Gender differences in the correlates of volunteering and charitable giving. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 40, 1092–1112 (2011).
Bailey, P. E., Brady, B., Ebner, N. C. & Ruffman, T. Effects of age on emotion regulation, emotional empathy, and prosocial behavior. J. Gerontol. Ser. B 75, 802–810 (2020).
Matsumoto, Y., Yamagishi, T., Li, Y. & Kiyonari, T. Prosocial behavior increases with age across five economic games. PLoS ONE 11, e0158671 (2016).
Pearce, P. L. & Amato, P. R. A taxonomy of helping: a multidimensional scaling analysis. Soc. Psychol. Q. 43, 363–371 (1980).
Smithson, M. & Amato, P. An unstudied region of helping: an extension of the Pearce-Amato cognitive taxonomy. Soc. Psychol. Q. 45, 67–76 (1982).
Qu, H., Konrath, S. & Poulin, M. Which types of giving are associated with reduced mortality risk among older adults? Personal. Individ. Differ. 154, 109668 (2020).
Bekkers, R. & Wiepking, P. Accuracy of self-reports on donations to charitable organizations. Qual. Quant. 45, 1369–1383 (2011).
Duval, S. & Tweedie, R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 56, 455–463 (2000).
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M. & Minder, C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br. Med. J. 315, 629–634 (1997).
Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences 2nd edn (Erlbaum, 1988).
Chiang, Y.-S. & Chen, J. C. Does inequality cause a difference in altruism between the rich and the poor? Evidence from a laboratory experiment. Soc. Indic. Res. 144, 73–95 (2019).
Cherry, T. L., Kroll, S. & Shogren, J. F. The impact of endowment heterogeneity and origin on public good contributions: evidence from the lab. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 57, 357–365 (2005).
Haile, D., Sadrieh, A. & Verbon, H. A. A. Self-serving dictators and economic growth. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 67, 573–586 (2008).
Kroll, S., Cherry, T. L. & Shogren, J. F. The impact of endowment heterogeneity and origin on contributions in best-shot public good games. Exp. Econ. 10, 411–428 (2007).
Crowley, M. & Knepper, P. Strangers in their hometown: demographic change, revitalization and community engagement in new Latino destinations. Soc. Sci. Res. 79, 56–70 (2019).
Isaac, R. M. & Walker, J. M. Group size effects in public goods provision: the voluntary contributions mechanism. Q. J. Econ. 103, 179–199 (1988).
Gricevic, Z. Neighborhood level immigrant share, economic differences and charitable giving. DIW Berlin https://www.diw.de/documents/dokumentenarchiv/17/diw_01.c.594185.de/081_soep2018_ps15_paper_gricevic.pdf (2018).
Bardsley, N. Control without deception: individual behaviour in free-riding experiments revisited. Exp. Econ. 3, 215–240 (2000).
Conley, D. The racial wealth gap: origins and implications for philanthropy in the African American community. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 29, 530–540 (2000).
Johnson, L. T., Rutstrom, E. E. & George, J. G. Income distribution preferences and regulatory change in social dilemmas. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 61, 181–198 (2006).
Nakhaie, M. R., Smylie, L. K. & Arnold, R. Social inequalities, social capital, and health of Canadians. Rev. Radic. Polit. Econ. 39, 562–585 (2007).
Sirven, N. & Debrand, T. Social participation and healthy ageing: an international comparison using SHARE data. Soc. Sci. Med. 67, 2017–2026 (2008).
Heitzmann, K., Hofbauer, J., Mackerle-Bixa, S. & Strunk, G. Where there’s a will, there’s a way? Civic participation and social inequality. J. Civ. Soc. 5, 283–301 (2009).
Choshen-Hillel, S. & Yaniv, I. Agency and the construction of social preference: between inequality aversion and prosocial behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101, 1253–1261 (2011).
Gijsberts, M., van der Meer, T. & Dagevos, J. ‘Hunkering down’ in multi-ethnic neighbourhoods? The effects of ethnic diversity on dimensions of social cohesion. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 28, 527–537 (2012).
Brekke, K. A., Konow, J. & Nyborg, K. Framing in a threshold public goods experiment with heterogeneous endowments. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 138, 99–110 (2017).
Gaby, S. The civic engagement gap(s): youth participation and inequality from 1976 to 2009. Youth Soc. 49, 923–946 (2017).
Gilster, M. E. The spatial distribution of organizational resources and resident participation in civic life in Chicago neighborhoods. Soc. Serv. Rev. 91, 264–292 (2017).
Keser, C., Markstaedter, A. & Schmidt, M. Mandatory minimum contributions, heterogeneous endowments and voluntary public-good provision. Games Econ. Behav. 101, 291–310 (2017).
Kamei, K. Promoting competition or helping the less endowed? Distributional preferences and collective institutional choices under intragroup inequality. J. Confl. Resolut. 62, 626–655 (2018).
Heilman, R. M. & Kusev, P. Personal values associated with prosocial decisions. Behav. Sci. 10, 77 (2020).
Paarlberg, L. E., Hoyman, M. & McCall, J. Heterogeneity, income inequality, and social capital: a new perspective. Soc. Sci. Q. 99, 699–710 (2018).
Aksoy, O. Crosscutting circles in a social dilemma: effects of social identity and inequality on cooperation. Soc. Sci. Res. 82, 148–163 (2019).
Cardenas, J.-C. Wealth Inequality and Overexploitation of the Commons: Field Experiments in Colombia (Santa Fe Institute, 2002).
Cardenas, J.-C. Real wealth and experimental cooperation: experiments in the field lab. J. Dev. Econ. 70, 263–289 (2003).
Onder, M. A preliminary cross-national test of competing theories of nonprofits: does culture matter? Int. Rev. Public Adm. 16, 71–90 (2011).
Moshe, M. O. Peace Building: The Role of Social Work and Law in the Promotion of Social Capital and Political Integration. PhD dissertation, McGill Univ. (2004).
Swidler, A. Inequality and American culture: the persistence of voluntarism. Am. Behav. Sci. 35, 606–629 (1992).
Molinas, J. R. The impact of inequality, gender, external assistance and social capital on local-level cooperation. World Dev. 26, 413–431 (1998).
Tolbert, C. M., Lyson, T. A. & Irwin, M. D. Local capitalism, civic engagement, and socioeconomic well-being. Soc. Forces 77, 401–427 (1998).
Baland, J. M. & Platteau, J. P. The ambiguous impact of inequality on local resource management. World Dev. 27, 773–788 (1999).
Gold, R., Kennedy, B., Connell, F. & Kawachi, I. Teen births income inequality, and social capital: developing an understanding of the causal pathway. Health Place 8, 77–83 (2002).
Rupasingha, A., Goetz, S. J. & Freshwater, D. Social and institutional factors as determinants of economic growth: evidence from the United States counties. Pap. Reg. Sci. 81, 139–155 (2002).
Veenstra, G. Social capital and health (plus wealth, income inequality and regional health governance). Soc. Sci. Med. 54, 849–868 (2002).
Rupasingha, A., Goetz, S. J. & Freshwater, D. The production of social capital in US counties. J. Socio-Econ. 35, 83–101 (2006).
Zimmerman, F. J. & Bell, J. F. Income inequality and physical and mental health: testing associations consistent with proposed causal pathways. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 60, 513–521 (2006).
Mansyur, C., Amick, B. C., Harrist, R. B. & Franzini, L. Social capital, income inequality, and self-rated health in 45 countries. Soc. Sci. Med. 66, 43–56 (2008).
Masclet, D. & Villeval, M.-C. Punishment, inequality, and welfare: a public good experiment. Soc. Choice Welf. 31, 475–502 (2008).
Yamamura, E. The effects of inequality, fragmentation, and social capital on collective action in a homogeneous society: analyzing responses to the 2005 Japan Census. J. Socio-Econ. 37, 2054–2058 (2008).
Dahl, E. & Malmberg-Heimonen, I. Social inequality and health: the role of social capital. Sociol. Health Illn. 32, 1102–1119 (2010).
Vafaei, A., Rosenberg, M. W. & Pickett, W. Relationships between income inequality and health: a study on rural and urban regions of Canada. Rural Remote Health 10, 270–278 (2010).
Layte, R. The association between income inequality and mental health: testing status anxiety, social capital, and neo-materialist explanations. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 28, 498–511 (2012).
Lim, C. & Sander, T. Does misery love company? Civic engagement in economic hard times. Soc. Sci. Res. 42, 14–30 (2013).
Saltkjel, T. & Malmberg-Heimonen, I. Social inequalities, social trust and civic participation—the case of Norway. Eur. J. Soc. Work 17, 118–134 (2014).
Goetz, S. J., Davlasheridze, M. & Han, Y. County-level determinants of mental health, 2002–2008. Soc. Indic. Res. 124, 657–670 (2015).
Yang, T.-C. & Jensen, L. Exploring the inequality–mortality relationship in the US with Bayesian spatial modeling. Popul. Res. Policy Rev. 34, 437–460 (2015).
Hoyman, M., McCall, J., Paarlberg, L. & Brennan, J. Considering the role of social capital for economic development outcomes in US counties. Econ. Dev. Q. 30, 342–357 (2016).
Ransome, Y. et al. Social capital is associated with late HIV diagnosis: an ecological analysis. J. Acquir. Immune Defic. Syndr. 73, 213–221 (2016).
Liu, B., Wei, Y. D. & Simon, C. A. Social capital, race, and income inequality in the United States. Sustainability 9, 248 (2017).
Mackenbach, J. D. et al. The mediating role of social capital in the association between neighbourhood income inequality and body mass index. Eur. J. Public Health 27, 218–223 (2017).
Yang, T.-C., Chen, D. & Park, K. Perceived housing discrimination and self-reported health: how do neighborhood features matter? Ann. Behav. Med. 50, 789–801 (2016).
Johnson-Singh, C. M., Rostila, M., de Leon, A. P., Forsell, Y. & Engstrom, K. Ethnic heterogeneity, social capital and psychological distress in Sweden. Health Place 52, 70–84 (2018).
Acik-Toprak, N. Civic Engagement in Europe: A Multilevel Study of the Effect of Individual and National Determinants on Political Participation, Political Consumerism and Associational Involvement (Univ. Manchester, 2009).
Vincens, N., Emmelin, M. & Stafstrom, M. Social capital, income inequality and the social gradient in self-rated health in Latin America: A fixed effects analysis. Soc. Sci. Med. 196, 115–122 (2018).
Karaivanov, A. Heterogeneity, returns to scale, and collective action. Can. J. Econ. Rev. Can. Econ. 42, 771–807 (2009).
Gao, B., Li, X., Hou, S., Jia, D. & Du, M. Resolving public goods dilemma by giving the poor more support. Appl. Math. Comput. 362, 124529 (2019).
Ghosh, S., Karaivanov, A. & Oak, M. A case for bundling public goods contributions. J. Public Econ. Theory 9, 425–449 (2007).
Chadefaux, T. & Helbing, D. How wealth accumulation can promote cooperation. PLoS ONE 5, 1–7 (2010).
Ahmed, A. & Karlapalem, K. Inequity aversion and the evolution of cooperation. Phys. Rev. E 89, 1–6 (2014).
Putnam, R. D. E pluribus unum: diversity and community in the twenty-first century. The 2006 Johan Skytte prize lecture. Scand. Polit. Stud. 30, 137–174 (2007).
Kim, D. & Kawachi, I. U.S. state-level social capital and health-related quality of life: multilevel evidence of main, mediating, and modifying effects. Ann. Epidemiol. 17, 258–269 (2007).
Muntaner, C. et al. Economic inequality, working-class power, social capital, and cause-specific mortality in wealthy countries. Int. J. Health Serv. 32, 629–656 (2002).
Godoy, R. A. et al. Does village inequality in modern income harm the psyche? Anger, fear, sadness, and alcohol consumption in a pre-industrial society. Soc. Sci. Med. 63, 359–372 (2006).
Weaver, R. R. & Rivello, R. The distribution of mortality in the United States: the effects of income (inequality), social capital, and race. OMEGA J. Death Dying 54, 19–39 (2007).
Burns, J. & Visser, M. Income Inequality and the Provision of Public Goods: When the Real World Mimics the Lab (Univ. Cape Town, 2008).
Fieldhouse, E. & Cutts, D. Does diversity damage social capital? A comparative study of neighbourhood diversity and social capital in the US and Britain. Can. J. Polit. Sci. 43, 289–318 (2010).
Aida, J. et al. Income inequality, social capital and self-rated health and dental status in older Japanese. Soc. Sci. Med. 73, 1561–1568 (2011).
Nagaoka, K., Fujiwara, T. & Ito, J. Do income inequality and social capital associate with measles-containing vaccine coverage rate? Vaccine 30, 7481–7488 (2012).
Milfont, T. L. et al. On the relation between social dominance orientation and environmentalism: a 25-nation study. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 9, 802–814 (2018).
Njozela, L., Burns, J. & Langer, A. The effects of social exclusion and group heterogeneity on the provision of public goods. Games 9, 55 (2018).
Tu, J. Contribution inequality in the spatial public goods game: should the rich contribute more? Phys. Stat. Mech. Appl. 496, 9–14 (2018).
Young, Y. Social context and social capital. Int. J. Sociol. 44, 37–62 (2014).
Aquino, K., Steisel, V. & Kay, A. The effects of resource distribution, voice, and decision framing on the provision of public goods. J. Confl. Resolut. 36, 665–687 (1992).
Bagnoli, M. & Mckee, M. Voluntary contribution games: efficient private provision of public goods. Econ. Inq. 29, 351–366 (1991).
Armstrong, H. & Clark, J. Does higher social diversity affect people’s contributions to local schools? Evidence from New Zealand. N. Z. Econ. Pap. 47, 188–223 (2013).
Bennett, M. R. A Comparative Study of Volunteering and Giving (Univ. Oxford, 2013).
Brunner, E. J. An empirical test of neutrality and the crowding-out hypothesis. Public Choice 92, 261–279 (1997).
Buckley, E. & Croson, R. Income and wealth heterogeneity in the voluntary provision of linear public goods. J. Public Econ. 90, 935–955 (2006).
Camera, G., Deck, C. & Porter, D. Do economic inequalities affect long-run cooperation and prosperity? Exp. Econ. 23, 53–83 (2020).
Cha, M.-K., Yi, Y. & Lee, J. When people low in social class become a persuasive source of communication: social class of other donors and charitable donations. J. Bus. Res. 112, 45–55 (2020).
Charness, G. & Genicot, G. Informal risk sharing in an infinite‐horizon experiment. Econ. J. 119, 796–825 (2009).
Colasante, A. & Russo, A. Voting for the distribution rule in a Public Good Game with heterogeneous endowments. J. Econ. Interact. Coord. 12, 443–467 (2017).
Collins, C. R. & Guidry, S. What effect does inequality have on residents’ sense of safety? Exploring the mediating processes of social capital and civic engagement. J. Urban Aff. 40, 1009–1026 (2018).
Côté, S. & Willer, R. Replications provide mixed evidence that inequality moderates the association between income and generosity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 1–2 (2020).
Crosby, R. A. & Holtgrave, D. R. The protective value of social capital against teen pregnancy: a state-level analysis. J. Adolesc. Health 38, 556–559 (2006).
Crosby, R. A., Holtgrave, D. R., DiClemente, R. J., Wingood, G. M. & Gayle, J. A. Social capital as a predictor of adolescents’ sexual risk behavior: a state-level exploratory study. AIDS Behav. 7, 245–252 (2003).
Duquette, N. J. & Hargaden, E. P. Inequality and giving. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 186, 189–200 (2021).
Derin-Güre, P. & Uler, N. Charitable giving under inequality aversion. Econ. Lett. 107, 208–210 (2010).
Fehr, D., Rau, H., Trautmann, S. T. & Xu, Y. Inequality, fairness and social capital. Eur. Econ. Rev. 129, 103566 (2020).
Fladmoe, A. & Steen-Johnsen, K. Is ethnic diversity bad for any dimension of social capital? Trust, networks and voluntarism in norwegian communities. Scand. Polit. Stud. 41, 336–366 (2018).
García-Mainar, I. & Marcuello, C. Members, volunteers, and donors in nonprofit organizations in Spain. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 36, 100–120 (2007).
Georgantzıs, N. & Proestakis, A. Accounting for Real Wealth in Heterogeneous-Endowment Public Good Games (Department of Economic Theory and Economic History, Univ. Granada, 2011).
Godoy, R. et al. The role of community and individuals in the formation of social capital. Hum. Ecol. 35, 709–721 (2007).
Gonzalez, R., Fuentes, A. & Muñoz, E. On social capital and health: the moderating role of income inequality in comparative perspective. Int. J. Sociol. 50, 68–85 (2020).
Heap, S. P. H., Ramalingam, A. & Stoddard, B. V. Endowment inequality in public goods games: a re-examination. Econ. Lett. 146, 4–7 (2016).
Heap, S. P. H., Ramalingam, A. & Stoddard, B. V. Team competition when there is within-team inequality. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2020.101614 (2020).
Heap, S. P. H., Ramalingam, A., Ramalingam, S. & Stoddard, B. V. ‘Doggedness’ or ‘disengagement’? An experiment on the effect of inequality in endowment on behaviour in team competitions. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 120, 80–93 (2015).
Holtgrave, D. R. & Crosby, R. A. Social determinants of tuberculosis case rates in the United States. Am. J. Prev. Med. 26, 159–162 (2004).
Huisman, M. & Oldehinkel, A. J. Income inequality, social capital and self-inflicted injury and violence-related mortality. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 63, 31–37 (2009).
Hwang, H. & Paarlberg, L. E. The energy boom: boon or bane for local philanthropy? Soc. Sci. Q. 100, 1899–1915 (2019).
Inaba, Y., Wada, Y., Ichida, Y. & Nishikawa, M. Which part of community social capital is related to life satisfaction and self-rated health? A multilevel analysis based on a nationwide mail survey in Japan. Soc. Sci. Med. 142, 169–182 (2015).
Keser, C., Marksttdter, A., Schmidt, M. & Schnitzler, C. Social Costs of Inequality—Heterogeneous Endowments in Public-Good Experiments cege Discussion Papers No. 217 (Center for European, Governance and Economic Development Research, 2014); https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2504559
Kim, S. E. & Kim, Y. H. Measuring the growth of the nonprofit sector: a longitudinal analysis. Public Adm. Rev. 75, 242–251 (2015).
Kirkland, K., Jetten, J. & Nielsen, M. The effect of economic inequality on young children’s prosocial decision‐making. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 38, 512–528 (2020).
Korenok, O., Millner, E. L. & Razzolini, L. Are dictators averse to inequality? J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 82, 543–547 (2012).
Kreft, B. The Heritability of History: How Inherited Status Affects Cooperative Behaviour in Public Goods Games (Univ. Cape Town, 2019).
Markussen, T., Sharma, S., Singhal, S. & Tarp, F. Inequality, corruption and cooperation. Eur. Econ. Rev. 138, 103842 (2021).
Marwell, G. & Ames, R. E. Experiments on the provision of public goods. I. Resources, interest, group size, and the free-rider problem. Am. J. Sociol. 84, 1335–1360 (1979).
Maurice, J., Rouaix, A. & Willinger, M. Income redistribution and public good provision: an experiment. Int. Econ. Rev. 54, 957–975 (2013).
Msuya, E. F. (Historical) Income Inequality and Social Capital. MSc thesis, BI Norwegian Business School (2017).
Nguyen, C. V. The effect of inequality in stakes on sharing behavior: evidence from an experimental study. Econ. Lett. 184, 108638 (2019).
Nitta, K. Public Goods Experiments and a Theoretical Treatment of Efficient Bilateral Network. PhD dissertation, Univ. Hawaii at Manoa (2014).
Okten, C. & Osili, U. O. Ethnic Diversity and Charitable Giving (Indiana Univ., 2004); https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/d5d18256-0197-4101-b3b8-7ce79a99c0c5/content
Oto-Peralías, D. & Romero-Ávila, D. The consequences of persistent inequality on social capital: a municipal-level analysis of blood donation data. Econ. Lett. 151, 53–57 (2017).
Paarlberg, L. E. The Determinants of Community Generosity (European Research Network on Philanthropy, 2015).
Paarlberg, L. E. & Zuhlke, S. Revisiting the theory of government failure in the face of heterogeneous demands. Perspect. Public Manag. Gov. 2, 103–124 (2019).
Rapoport, A. & Suleiman, R. Incremental contribution in step-level public goods games with asymmetric players. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 55, 171–194 (1993).
Reese, G., Berthold, A. & Steffens, M. C. As high as it gets: ingroup projection processes in the superordinate group humans. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 50, 39–49 (2016).
Rosenbaum, S. M., Billinger, S., Twerefou, D. K. & Isola, W. A. Income inequality and cooperative propensities in developing economies: summarizing the preliminary experimental evidence. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 43, 1460–1480 (2016).
Saunders, P. Beware False Prophets: Equality, the Good Society and The Spirit Level (Policy Exchange, 2010).
Schaeffer, M. Ethnic Fractionalisation and Social Cohesion: The Relation between Immigration, Ethnic Fractionalisation and Potentials for Civic, Collective Action in Germany (Univ. Amsterdam, 2012).
Schechter, L. & Yuskavage, A. Inequality, reciprocity, and credit in social networks. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 94, 402–410 (2012).
Secilmis, I. E. & Guran, M. C. Income heterogeneity in the voluntary provision of dynamic public goods. Pac. Econ. Rev. 17, 693–707 (2012).
Semaan, S., Sternberg, M., Zaidi, A. & Aral, S. O. Social capital and rates of gonorrhea and syphilis in the United States: spatial regression analyses of state-level associations. Soc. Sci. Med. 64, 2324–2341 (2007).
Smith, N. D. L. & Kawachi, I. State-level social capital and suicide mortality in the 50 US states. Soc. Sci. Med. 120, 269–277 (2014).
Sokolowski, S. W. Effects of government support of nonprofit institutions on aggregate private philanthropy: evidence from 40 countries. Volunt. Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit Organ. 24, 359–381 (2013).
Stojcic, I., Kewen, L. & Xiaopeng, R. Does uncertainty avoidance keep charity away? Comparative research between charitable behavior and 79 national cultures. Cult. Brain 4, 1–20 (2016).
Teles, D. Do tax credits increase charitable giving? Evidence from Arizona and Iowa. Proc. Annu. Conf. Tax. Minutes Annu. Meet. Natl. Tax. Assoc. 109, 1–76 (2016).
Uler, N. Public goods provision, inequality and taxes. Exp. Econ. 14, 287–306 (2011).
Von Hermanni, H. & Tutic, A. Does economic inequality moderate the effect of class on prosocial behavior? A large-scale test of a recent hypothesis by Cote et al. PLoS ONE 14, e0220723 (2019).
Vorlaufer, T. & Vollan, B. How migrants benefit poor communities: evidence on collective action in rural Zambia. Land Econ. 96, 111–131 (2020).
Waichman, I. Liking wealth and punishment effectiveness: punishment and cooperation under congruent heterogeneities. Econ. Inq. 58, 86–103 (2020).
Chan, K. S., Godby, R., Mestelman, S. & Muller, R. A. Equity theory and the voluntary provision of public goods. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 32, 349–364 (1997).
Chan, K. S., Mestelman, S., Muller, R. A. & Moir, R. Communication, equity and the voluntary provision of a public good by heterogeneous groups. J. Socio-Econ. 41, 87–94 (2012).
Hargreaves Heap, S. P., Tan, J. H. W. & Zizzo, D. J. Trust, inequality and the market. Theory Decis. 74, 311–333 (2013).
Valentine, J. C. & Cooper, H. A systematic and transparent approach for assessing the methodological quality of intervention effectiveness research: the Study Design and Implementation Assessment Device (Study DIAD). Psychol. Methods 13, 130–149 (2008).
Oliver, M. B. & Hyde, J. S. Gender differences in sexuality: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 114, 29–51 (1993).
Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Keith Campbell, W. & Bushman, B. J. Egos inflating over time: a cross-temporal meta-analysis of the narcissistic personality inventory. J. Pers. 76, 875–902 (2008).
Henrich, J. The WEIRDest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2020).
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. The weirdest people in the world? Behav. Brain Sci. 33, 61–83 (2010).
Viechtbauer, W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J. Stat. Softw. 36, 1–48 (2010).
Assink, M. & Wibbelink, C. J. M. Fitting three-level meta-analytic models in R: a step-by-step tutorial. Quant. Methods Psychol. 12, 154–174 (2016).
Nyitrai, T. & Virág, M. The effects of handling outliers on the performance of bankruptcy prediction models. Socioecon. Plan. Sci. 67, 34–42 (2019).
Acknowledgements
Portions of this manuscript are based on the first author’s PhD dissertation. The first author was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, and the Research Funds of Renmin University of China (no. 23XNF005). The second author was supported by AmeriCorps (formerly, the Corporation for National and Community Service), the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the Notre Dame Institute of Advanced Study, and the Mind & Life Institute. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Y.Y. conceptualized the research questions, screened the literature, extracted the data, conducted data analysis and wrote the first draft of the paper. S.K. conceptualized the research questions, screened the literature, checked the data extraction, assisted with literature review, did reliability coding and revised the paper.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Human Behaviour thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Tables 1–5.
Supplementary Data
Characteristics of included studies and assessments of risk of bias for each included study.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Yang, Y., Konrath, S. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between economic inequality and prosocial behaviour. Nat Hum Behav 7, 1899–1916 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01681-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01681-y