Social class, power and selfishness is an empirical study aimed at comparing the unethical nature of people based on their socioeconomic status. Examples of unethical behaviors found in the study are cheating on a spouse, tax evasion, lying, falsifying expense reports, and so on. The study's findings find anecdotal evidence of wealthy people unilaterally acting more immorally. However, when we further define unethical behavior, we find a strong positive and negative correlation when including the two levels of behavior that benefit yourself and others respectively. A famous example of unethical behavior is that of a man named Heinz who breaks into a store to steal a $2,000 drug for his dying wife. This case literally founded moral psychology (Kohlberg 1963). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The first experiment tests the hypothesis that higher social class leads to more unethical behavior. This experiment is employed by the unethical behavior of cheating. 151 participants were placed in a virtual game and assigned to one of two conditions that benefited themselves or others. Participants completed a die rolling task alone on a computer for 5 rolls. They were told that to be eligible for a $50 lottery, the sum of their rolls had to add up to 14 or more. The game was programmed to only add up to 12, so anything higher than that was a sign of cheating. In the other benefits group, participants were asked to provide the specific email address to which their lottery winnings would be sent. High social class positively predicted cheating when it was beneficial to themselves, whereas low social class negatively predicted when it was beneficial to others. The second experiment uses income as a separating factor to predict cheating, rather than social class. 81 participants were randomly assigned to scenarios beneficial to themselves or others, which were pre-tested in advance to ensure they were viewed equally from a moral perspective. Participants were divided into 8 income categories and 4 education categories. Income categories ranged from <€11,000 to >€71,000, while education was dichotomized into not having finished high school, high school graduate, graduate, and postgraduate. Participants were asked to what extent they would engage in the unethical behaviors described in the pretest. The results replicate Experiment 1; low-income individuals were significantly more likely to cheat when it benefited others, while high-income individuals were significantly more likely to cheat when it benefited themselves. The third experiment tests power as a mechanism to explain change in unethical behavior, as well as sense of status. 125 participants were randomly assigned to self or other benefits. Participants were exposed to the same conditions in Experiment 2, however, they were assessed in terms of sense of power and status by adapting past scales. Social class positively predicted unethical behavior that benefits oneself, but negatively predicted unethical behavior that benefits others. Power, but not status, predicted unethical behavior at both the personal level and the level of benefit to others. These findings do not establish causality. Experiments 4, 5, and 6 seek to provide complementary evidence of the roleunderlying power. Experiments 4, 5, and 6 use the experimental-random-chain approach. Experiment 4 manipulated social class and measured how it affected people's sense of power. Experiments 5 and 6 manipulated power and examined its effects on unethical behavior that benefited oneself or others. The purpose of these experiments is to see if power is the driving factor in unethical behavior, not social class per se, as these two variables are closely related. Experiment 4 manipulated social class and measured its impact on sense of power. 150 participants were randomly assigned to high social class, low social class or basic level. Participants were awarded €6 for their 10-minute task. Participants had to complete a short writing task, comparing themselves to others at the bottom or top of the scale. Participants at baseline did not complete the writing task or were exposed to the scale. Participants' power was rated in their interpretation of how powerful they felt on a scale of 1 to 7. High social class participants felt significantly more powerful than low social class participants. Similarly, low social class participants felt significantly less powerful than in the baseline condition. Experiment 5 directly manipulated power and expected that low power would lead to unethical behavior that benefits others, whereas high power would predict unethical selfish behavior. 121 participants were assigned to one of 3 conditions, low power, high power, and baseline. Participants independently completed a writing recall task. The high-power group wrote about a time when they had high power, while the low-power group wrote about a time when they had low power. Participants at baseline wrote about a time when they went to the grocery store. Participants completed a second task, described as a decision-making task. They were presented with a series of three scenarios in which they had the opportunity to lie about something and were assured that lying would have no negative effects if caught. The DV, participants' likelihood of lying, was measured on a scale of 1 to 9, which primed them for their input on how powerful they felt after the writing task. They were also asked to rate how happy or sad the task made them feel, so that emotion could be ruled out. Low-power participants were more likely to lie for another person than baseline, high-power participants. High-power participants were less likely to lie for another person than at the baseline level, but were more likely to lie for themselves than participants at the baseline and low-power level. Low-power participants were less likely to lie to themselves. In other words, these findings replicate previous findings in which high power is positively correlated with selfishness, while low power is positively correlated with unethical behavior when it benefits others. Experiment 6 sought to see changes in behaviors if participants were given the opportunity to actually lie, rather than hypothetical scenarios or situations. 122 participants were randomly assigned to a 2 (power: high vs. low) 10 minutes. Participants' power was manipulated by asking them to imagine what it would be like to be a boss or an employee, which?”