Detalhes bibliográficos
Ano de defesa: |
2017 |
Autor(a) principal: |
Vieites, Yan Bernardes |
Orientador(a): |
Goldszmidt, Rafael Guilherme Burstein |
Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
Idioma: |
eng |
Instituição de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição
|
Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Não Informado pela instituição
|
Departamento: |
Não Informado pela instituição
|
País: |
Não Informado pela instituição
|
Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
Link de acesso: |
https://hdl.handle.net/10438/18664
|
Resumo: |
The concept of noblesse oblige establishes that the differential in privileges between the rich and the poor should be balanced by a differential in duties towards those in need. However, the empirical findings regarding which are the most prosocial groups havebeenascontroversialasthisassertive. Whereasresearchintheso-calledpsychological framework has advocated a negative relationship between social class and prosocial behavior, the economic approach has claimed the opposite (i.e., positive) direction to be true. This article sought to disentangle conflicting findings from these strands of research across two different studies. In the first study, we conducted a series of focus groups in both wealthy and impoverished areas. Results suggested that research in the domain of social class has been circumscribed to an almost conventionalized few prosocial behaviors that are not representative neither of wealthy nor of poor individuals. In the second study, we conducted surveys in the same areas. Results revealed that, despite having less resources and opportunities to help others, lower social class individuals are more prosocial than their upper-class counterparts. Furthermore, prosociality differences cannot be explained by a different pattern of targets of help across the social spectrum. Implications for practice and research on prosociality are also discussed. |