Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • I want you to, for a moment,

  • think about playing a game of Monopoly,

  • except in this game, that combination

  • of skill, talent and luck

  • that help earn you success in games, as in life,

  • has been rendered irrelevant,

  • because this game's been rigged,

  • and you've got the upper hand.

  • You've got more money,

  • more opportunities to move around the board,

  • and more access to resources.

  • And as you think about that experience,

  • I want you to ask yourself,

  • how might that experience of being

  • a privileged player in a rigged game

  • change the way that you think about yourself

  • and regard that other player?

  • So we ran a study on the U.C. Berkeley campus

  • to look at exactly that question.

  • We brought in more than 100 pairs

  • of strangers into the lab,

  • and with the flip of a coin

  • randomly assigned one of the two

  • to be a rich player in a rigged game.

  • They got two times as much money.

  • When they passed Go,

  • they collected twice the salary,

  • and they got to roll both dice instead of one,

  • so they got to move around the board a lot more.

  • (Laughter)

  • And over the course of 15 minutes,

  • we watched through hidden cameras what happened.

  • And what I want to do today, for the first time,

  • is show you a little bit of what we saw.

  • You're going to have to pardon the sound quality,

  • in some cases, because again, these were hidden cameras.

  • So we've provided subtitles.

  • Rich Player: How many 500s did you have?

  • Poor Player: Just one.

  • Rich Player: Are you serious. Poor Player: Yeah.

  • Rich Player: I have three. (Laughs)

  • I don't know why they gave me so much.

  • Paul Piff: Okay, so it was quickly apparent to players

  • that something was up.

  • One person clearly has a lot more money

  • than the other person, and yet,

  • as the game unfolded,

  • we saw very notable differences

  • and dramatic differences begin to emerge

  • between the two players.

  • The rich player

  • started to move around the board louder,

  • literally smacking the board with their piece

  • as he went around.

  • We were more likely to see signs of dominance

  • and nonverbal signs,

  • displays of power

  • and celebration among the rich players.

  • We had a bowl of pretzels positioned off to the side.

  • It's on the bottom right corner there.

  • That allowed us to watch participants' consummatory behavior.

  • So we're just tracking how many pretzels participants eat.

  • Rich Player: Are those pretzels a trick?

  • Poor Player: I don't know.

  • PP: Okay, so no surprises, people are onto us.

  • They wonder what that bowl of pretzels

  • is doing there in the first place.

  • One even asks, like you just saw,

  • is that bowl of pretzels there as a trick?

  • And yet, despite that, the power of the situation

  • seems to inevitably dominate,

  • and those rich players start to eat more pretzels.

  • Rich Player: I love pretzels.

  • (Laughter)

  • PP: And as the game went on,

  • one of the really interesting and dramatic patterns

  • that we observed begin to emerge

  • was that the rich players actually

  • started to become ruder toward the other person,

  • less and less sensitive to the plight

  • of those poor, poor players,

  • and more and more demonstrative

  • of their material success,

  • more likely to showcase how well they're doing.

  • Rich Player: I have money for everything.

  • Poor Player: How much is that?

  • Rich Player: You owe me 24 dollars.

  • You're going to lose all your money soon.

  • I'll buy it. I have so much money.

  • I have so much money, it takes me forever.

  • Rich Player 2: I'm going to buy out this whole board.

  • Rich Player 3: You're going to run out of money soon.

  • I'm pretty much untouchable at this point.

  • PP: Okay, and here's what I think

  • was really, really interesting,

  • is that at the end of the 15 minutes,

  • we asked the players to talk about their experience during the game.

  • And when the rich players talked about

  • why they had inevitably won

  • in this rigged game of Monopoly --

  • (Laughter) —

  • they talked about what they'd done

  • to buy those different properties

  • and earn their success in the game,

  • and they became far less attuned

  • to all those different features of the situation,

  • including that flip of a coin

  • that had randomly gotten them into

  • that privileged position in the first place.

  • And that's a really, really incredible insight

  • into how the mind makes sense of advantage.

  • Now this game of Monopoly can be used

  • as a metaphor for understanding society

  • and its hierarchical structure, wherein some people

  • have a lot of wealth and a lot of status,

  • and a lot of people don't.

  • They have a lot less wealth and a lot less status

  • and a lot less access to valued resources.

  • And what my colleagues and I for the last seven years have been doing

  • is studying the effects of these kinds of hierarchies.

  • What we've been finding across dozens of studies

  • and thousands of participants across this country

  • is that as a person's levels of wealth increase,

  • their feelings of compassion and empathy go down,

  • and their feelings of entitlement, of deservingness,

  • and their ideology of self-interest increases.

  • In surveys, we found that it's actually

  • wealthier individuals who are more likely

  • to moralize greed being good,

  • and that the pursuit of self-interest

  • is favorable and moral.

  • Now what I want to do today is talk about

  • some of the implications of this ideology self-interest,

  • talk about why we should care about those implications,

  • and end with what might be done.

  • Some of the first studies that we ran in this area

  • looked at helping behavior,

  • something social psychologists call

  • pro-social behavior.

  • And we were really interested in who's more likely

  • to offer help to another person,

  • someone who's rich or someone who's poor.

  • In one of the studies, we bring in rich and poor

  • members of the community into the lab

  • and give each of them the equivalent of 10 dollars.

  • We told the participants

  • that they could keep these 10 dollars for themselves,

  • or they could share a portion of it,

  • if they wanted to, with a stranger

  • who is totally anonymous.

  • They'll never meet that stranger and the stranger will never meet them.

  • And we just monitor how much people give.

  • Individuals who made 25,000 sometimes

  • under 15,000 dollars a year,

  • gave 44 percent more of their money

  • to the stranger

  • than did individuals making 150,000

  • or 200,000 dollars a year.

  • We've had people play games

  • to see who's more or less likely to cheat

  • to increase their chances of winning a prize.

  • In one of the games, we actually rigged a computer

  • so that die rolls over a certain score

  • were impossible.

  • You couldn't get above 12 in this game,

  • and yet, the richer you were,

  • the more likely you were to cheat in this game

  • to earn credits toward a $50 cash prize,

  • sometimes by three to four times as much.

  • We ran another study where we looked at whether

  • people would be inclined to take candy

  • from a jar of candy that we explicitly identified

  • as being reserved for children --

  • (Laughter) —

  • participating -- I'm not kidding.

  • I know it sounds like I'm making a joke.

  • We explicitly told participants

  • this jar of candy's for children participating

  • in a developmental lab nearby.

  • They're in studies. This is for them.

  • And we just monitored how much candy participants took.

  • Participants who felt rich

  • took two times as much candy

  • as participants who felt poor.

  • We've even studied cars,

  • not just any cars,

  • but whether drivers of different kinds of cars

  • are more or less inclined to break the law.

  • In one of these studies, we looked at

  • whether drivers would stop for a pedestrian

  • that we had posed waiting to cross at a crosswalk.

  • Now in California, as you all know,

  • because I'm sure we all do this,

  • it's the law to stop for a pedestrian who's waiting to cross.

  • So here's an example of how we did it.

  • That's our confederate off to the left

  • posing as a pedestrian.

  • He approaches as the red truck successfully stops.

  • In typical California fashion, it's overtaken

  • by the bus who almost runs our pedestrian over.

  • (Laughter)

  • Now here's an example of a more expensive car,

  • a Prius, driving through,

  • and a BMW doing the same.

  • So we did this for hundreds of vehicles

  • on several days,

  • just tracking who stops and who doesn't.

  • What we found was that as the expensiveness

  • of a car increased,

  • the driver's tendencies to break the law

  • increased as well.

  • None of the cars, none of the cars

  • in our least expensive car category

  • broke the law.

  • Close to 50 percent of the cars

  • in our most expensive vehicle category

  • broke the law.

  • We've run other studies finding that

  • wealthier individuals are more likely to lie in negotiations,

  • to endorse unethical behavior at work

  • like stealing cash from the cash register,

  • taking bribes, lying to customers.

  • Now I don't mean to suggest

  • that it's only wealthy people

  • who show these patterns of behavior.

  • Not at all. In fact, I think that we all,

  • in our day-to-day, minute-by-minute lives,

  • struggle with these competing motivations

  • of when, or if, to put our own interests

  • above the interests of other people.

  • And that's understandable because

  • the American dream is an idea

  • in which we all have an equal opportunity

  • to succeed and prosper,

  • as long as we apply ourselves and work hard,

  • and a piece of that means that sometimes,

  • you need to put your own interests

  • above the interests and well-being of other people around you.

  • But what we're finding is that,

  • the wealthier you are, the more likely you are

  • to pursue a vision of personal success,

  • of achievement and accomplishment,

  • to the detriment of others around you.

  • Here I've plotted for you the mean household income

  • received by each fifth and top five percent of the population

  • over the last 20 years.

  • In 1993, the differences between the different

  • quintiles of the population, in terms of income,

  • are fairly egregious.

  • It's not difficult to discern that there are differences.

  • But over the last 20 years, that significant difference

  • has become a grand canyon of sorts

  • between those at the top and everyone else.

  • In fact, the top 20 percent of our population

  • own close to 90 percent of the total wealth in this country.

  • We're at unprecedented levels

  • of economic inequality.

  • What that means is that wealth is not only becoming

  • increasingly concentrated in the hands of a select group of individuals,

  • but the American dream is becoming

  • increasingly unattainable

  • for an increasing majority of us.

  • And if it's the case, as we've been finding,

  • that the wealthier you are,

  • the more entitled you feel to that wealth,

  • and the more likely you are to prioritize your own interests

  • above the interests of other people,

  • and be willing to do things to serve that self-interest,

  • well then there's no reason to think

  • that those patterns will change.

  • In fact, there's every reason to think

  • that they'll only get worse,

  • and that's what it would look like if things just stayed the same,

  • at the same linear rate, over the next 20 years.

  • Now, inequality, economic inequality,

  • is something we should all be concerned about,

  • and not just because of those at the bottom

  • of the social hierarchy,

  • but because individuals and groups

  • with lots of economic inequality do worse,

  • not just the people at the bottom, everyone.

  • There's a lot of really compelling research

  • coming out from top labs all over the world

  • showcasing the range of things

  • that are undermined

  • as economic inequality gets worse.

  • Social mobility, things we really care about,

  • physical health, social trust,

  • all go down as inequality goes up.

  • Similarly, negative things

  • in social collectives and societies,

  • things like obesity, and violence,

  • imprisonment, and punishment,

  • are exacerbated as economic inequality increases.

  • Again, these are outcomes not just experienced

  • by a few, but that resound

  • across all strata of society.

  • Even people at the top experience these outcomes.

  • So what do we do?

  • This cascade of self-perpetuating,

  • pernicious, negative effects

  • could seem like something that's spun out of control,

  • and there's nothing we can do about it,

  • certainly nothing we as individuals could do.

  • But in fact, we've been finding

  • in our own laboratory research

  • that small psychological interventions,

  • small changes to people's values,

  • small nudges in certain directions,

  • can restore levels of egalitarianism and empathy.

  • For instance, reminding people

  • of the benefits of cooperation,

  • or the advantages of community,

  • cause wealthier individuals to be just as egalitarian

  • as poor people.

  • In one study, we had people watch a brief video,

  • just 46 seconds long, about childhood poverty

  • that served as a reminder of the needs of others

  • in the world around them,

  • and after watching that,

  • we looked at how willing people were

  • to offer up their own time to a stranger

  • presented to them in the lab who was in distress.

  • After watching this video, an hour later,

  • rich people became just as generous

  • of their own time to help out this other person,

  • a stranger, as someone who's poor,

  • suggesting that these differences are not

  • innate or categorical,

  • but are so malleable

  • to slight changes in people's values,

  • and little nudges of compassion

  • and bumps of empathy.

  • And beyond the walls of our lab,

  • we're even beginning to see signs of change in society.

  • Bill Gates, one of our nation's wealthiest individuals,

  • in his Harvard commencement speech,

  • talked about the problem facing society

  • of inequality as being the most daunting challenge,

  • and talked about what must be done to combat it,

  • saying, "Humanity's greatest advances

  • are not in its discoveries,

  • but in how those discoveries are applied

  • to reduce inequity."

  • And there's the Giving Pledge,

  • in which more than 100 of our nation's

  • wealthiest individuals

  • are pledging half of their fortunes to charity.

  • And there's the emergence

  • of dozens of grassroots movements,

  • like We are the One Percent,

  • the Resource Generation,

  • or Wealth for Common Good,

  • in which the most privileged

  • members of the population,

  • members of the one percent and elsewhere,

  • people who are wealthy,

  • are using their own economic resources,

  • adults and youth alike, that's what's most striking to me,

  • leveraging their own privilege,

  • their own economic resources,

  • to combat inequality

  • by advocating for social policies,

  • changes in social values,

  • and changes in people's behavior,

  • that work against their own economic interests

  • but that may ultimately restore the American dream.

  • Thank you.

  • (Applause)

I want you to, for a moment,

Subtitles and vocabulary

Click the word to look it up Click the word to find further inforamtion about it