Are people good or bad? Depends on class

Perusing the General Social Survey data, I discovered the following powerful correlation between how much one trusts other people and one’s verbal IQ (as measured by the Wordsum vocabulary test):

TRUST 163. A. Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you can't be too careful in life.

Frequency Distribution
Cells contain: -Row percent -N of cases		TRUST
		1 CAN TRUST	2 CANNOT TRUST	3 DEPENDS	ROW TOTAL
WORDSUM	0	19.6 15	75.3 59	5.1 4	100.0 78
	1	13.3 23	80.6 140	6.1 11	100.0 174
	2	19.2 57	77.6 229	3.2 9	100.0 295
	3	20.1 118	76.9 450	3.0 18	100.0 585
	4	25.0 260	71.5 744	3.4 35	100.0 1,040
	5	32.7 541	64.2 1,064	3.1 52	100.0 1,657
	6	37.6 849	59.0 1,333	3.5 79	100.0 2,261
	7	44.1 714	52.1 843	3.9 63	100.0 1,620
	8	50.6 541	43.5 465	5.9 63	100.0 1,069
	9	60.0 496	33.9 280	6.1 51	100.0 827
	10	64.9 412	26.3 167	8.8 56	100.0 634
	COL TOTAL	39.3 4,026	56.4 5,775	4.3 440	100.0 10,241

I have to say I was completely shocked to discover such a powerful link between two seemingly unrelated variables.

There are two other questions similar to the TRUST question and they both have the same very powerful correlation with verbal IQ:

HELPFUL 161. Would you say that most of the time people try to be helpful, or that they are mostly just looking out for themselves?

FAIR 162. Do you think most people would try to take advantage of you if they got a chance, or would they try to be fair?

All three of these questions seem to be measuring the same thing, whether one has a positive or negative view of other people’s motives. In fact, it’s probably a waste that the GSS has all three of these questions, just the TRUST question would have sufficed.

In order to more accurately measure respondents’ view other people’s motives, I created a composite variable using TRUST, HELPFUL and FAIR, and then did a multiple regression analysis.

Below are the correlates of one’s view of other people’s motives, in descending order of statistical significance:

(1) Black (t=-16.4): black people have a negative view of others compared to white people.
(2) Age (t=13.3): as people get older they have a more positive view of others.
(3) Verbal IQ (t=12.9): smarter people have a more positive view of others (as you can observe from the chart above).
(4) Educational attainment (t=8.5): as educational attainment increases, so does one’s positive view of others.
(5) Family income (t=7.1): higher income predicts a more positive view of others.
(6) Italian (t=-3.5) Italian Americans have a more negative view of others.
(7) Female (t=2.9): women have a more positive view of others.
(8) Jewish (t=-1.4): Jews have a more negative view of others.

I am open to suggestions regarding these unusually strong correlations, but here is my best guess for this phenomenon. A person’s view of other people’s motives is based nearly entirely on environment. If the people you know are bad people, you will have a negative view of others. If the people you know are civil and well mannered, then you will have a positive view of others.

As a person’s class increases (based on verbal IQ, income, and educational attainment), he tends to hang with a better class of people, so he develops a more positive view of others. Despite my blog posts in which I feel sympathy for poor people, I have to acknowledge the fact that as people drop in class, their level of civility severely decreases. If you live in a housing project where people are being shot at, mugged, and the building is constantly vandalized and spray painted with graffiti, you’re going to develop a pretty negative view of people.

One of the primary reasons that people work so hard in the rat race to raise their income a bit is so they don’t have to live with the poor people who are pretty despicable neighbors.

The effect of the other variables is similarly based on the fact that you tend to associate with people like yourself, and your view of others is based on the people you know.

As people age they tend to get nicer. Most of the people in prison are young. Because older people have older acquaintances they develop a more positive view of others.

A disproportionate share of black people tend to be not very nice. This is why the prisons are full of black people. Because blacks tend to know other black people, they develop an extremely negative view of others compared to whites of the same level of IQ, income, and education.

Women tend to have more friends who are women, so they develop a more positive view of others. The prisons are full of mostly men.

Jews are more likely to have a negative view of others. It’s important to note that this relation only comes up in a multiple regression analysis. If you crosstabulate the TRUST question with respondent’s religion, Jews actually come out as the most trusting religion. But they ought to come out even higher based on their increased propensity to earn more money, be smarter, and have higher educational attainment.

I explain the negative relationship based on my previous observation that stereotypes of Jews being sneaky are actually true. Because Jews tend to know other Jews, they develop a more negative view of others’ motives.

A more politically correct explanation would be that Jews are more paranoid because they are a minority.

Italians also have a high level of dishonesty compared to other nationalities, so this explains why they also have a more negative view of others’ motives. But once again, people could explain this on account of Italians being a discriminated against minority.

Comments

[spungen]

I'd apply the same "politically correct explanation" to blacks as Jews. And, I suspect that the better off financially black people become, the fewer other blacks they are around. So, if any blacks but the poor ones are more suspicious than non-blacks of their same income, perhaps it's based more on how they're treated by the whites around them.

[spungen]

If your theory is correct, then poor people who hang around rich people would also be more trusting. But, I suspect, rich people aren't really any better -- rather, the richer a person is, the better he's treated by everyone, not just other rich people. Vice-versa for the poor.

Any better-off minority would be *less* likely to always be around others of his type, so thus might more likely to be treated badly by others of his wealth. Thus more suspicious than others of his same wealth.

[Tex]

"As people age they tend to get nicer"

This has also been a consistent finding from studies of personality using the Five Factor Model. People become more conscientious with age.

One of the hallmarks of maturity is civility.

[dearieme]

I wonder if your conclusions about Jews is specific to American Jews. My father had a very high opinion of British Jews based on (1) his experience in business (2) the Jews he met in the army in WWII.

[michael vassar]

You know, you don't actually have to form a hypothesis to explain something with a t-1.4 level of statistical significance.

Sneaky just doesn't fit my observations of Jews. Neurotic is another relevant stereotype which better passes the smell test to me and which would be expected to have a more direct effect on one's view of the outside world.

I really think you should look at some other ethnicities, especially Eastern Europeans and Koreans.

[michael vassar]

Casual observation suggests Russians and Koreans as the extremes of hostility and niceness, although I don't have enough experience to be confident and much of that experience comes from living in Kazakhstan.

[Half Sigma]

Ethnicities which distrust others: blacks, Mexicans, Italians, Filipinos, Puerto Ricans, Spanish, American Indians, Indians.

Ethnicities which trust others: Danish, English, Finns, Norwegians, Swedish, Swiss.

Avereage scoring ethnicities: Canadians, Czechs, French, Germans, Chinese, Japanese, Irish, Dutch, Poles, Russians, Scots

[AG]

>Ethnicities which distrust others: blacks, Mexicans, Italians, Filipinos, Puerto Ricans, Spanish, American Indians, Indians.

Ethnicities which trust others: Danish, English, Finns, Norwegians, Swedish, Swiss.

Avereage scoring ethnicities: Canadians, Czechs, French, Germans, Chinese, Japanese, Irish, Dutch, Poles, Russians, Scots

Posted by: Half Sigma | July 19, 2006 at 09:37 AM
-------------------------------------

Interesting, the people who are trusting or average have much higher suicide rate than those with distrust if you check table at following link. In other words, trusting people like to kill themself.

http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html

[Jason Malloy]

This has also been a consistent finding from studies of personality using the Five Factor Model. People become more conscientious with age.

Is this longitudinal, or do the scrubs just fall of the map?

[Jason Malloy]

er. . . 'off' rather.

[The Superfluous Man]

AG, as IQ rises, homicides decline and suicides rise. Of course, the latter does not nearly compensate for the former (eg, your chances of dying by the former in DC are better than by the latter in Cambridge).

"rich people aren't really any better "
Try living in any poor, dilapidated city. Note the civility and respect for the law there.

"rich people aren't really any better "
Try living in any poor, dilapidated city. Note the civility and respect for the law there.

Exactly. We have a problem here, what do we do with poor, lazy people, in a few years when they are replaced by robots. It's going to get very ugly...

[mickslam]

oops, should be

'poor, lazy, and mean'

My point is, not only that will we have to pay to keep these people alive, but they are going to be as they have been, mean and inconsiderate. Its a tough sell, even to me.

[spungen]

Superfluous, I wasn't saying I want to live around poor people, or that rich people are as likely to vandalize or mug. They don't have the incentive. I just don't buy that rich people don't necessarily treat other people better, at least not people who aren't also rich. But, they get treated better themselves by rich and poor, because they're rich.

[spungen]

oops, meant "don't buy that rich people necessarily treat other people better ..."

[The Superfluous Man]

" rich people are as likely to vandalize or mug."
What about murder - it's not quite a moneymaker and it is more frequent among the poor. And you're repeating the poverty causes crime argument, which is not true. (I lack the time to find a good link to disprove it right now.)

[spungen]

Superfluous, the questions asked were whether people believed others were trustworthy, helpful, and fair, not whether they were criminals. Many types of untrustworthy, unhelpful, and unfair behavior are perfectly fine under the Penal Code. The point wasn't that many poor people aren't jerks, but that many rich people are, at least to those lower in status.

[Half Sigma]

spungen: "The point wasn't that many poor people aren't jerks, but that many rich people are, at least to those lower in status."

Rich people are also treated poorly by people of lower status. I'm sure that it wasn't a rich person who once tried to break into my car.

The theory behind my explanation is that, when asked what other people are like, people will answer based on the people that they know. People tend to primarily know other people of similar backgrounds. So poor people are answering the question based on what they know of other poor people.

[spungen]

HS, if the crimes against your vehicle consist of one attempted break-in, that's pretty impressive for a city-dweller. I've had cars broken into three or four times. That's made almost no contribution to my cynical view of people, which is based upon everyday interaction.

I understand your explanation. I respectfully stand by my alternate theory that 1) notwithstanding crime, rich people still tend to get treated better on a regular basis by *all* those around them, including many underlings (due to greater power/status), thus encouraging a more positive overall view of others. They also have greater power to limit their environment to their supporters, thus reducing the potential for conflict. If you're generally well-treated, you probably won't turn against humanity due to, say, a burglary or two.

2) the better-off a minority is, the less likely he is to associate with others of his type, so his views of others will be shaped by people without his minority status.

[mickslam]

spungen,

I really do disagree. Half-sigmas research has only really re-affirmed my observations. Poor people are meaner to everyone around them, and far less likely to even be aware of their offensive behavior.

Also, between equals, rich people treat each other better. I've been in places where it was assumed I was rich by other rich people, and people there are pretty nice, but the main thing is that they are not directly offensive in some very important ways.

"A person’s view of other people’s motives is based nearly entirely on environment. "

I think this is entirely true, as the two main roads to a higher income in this country are: sales and increasing knowledge. Generally, (only generally and not universaly) to do these you have to be aware of yourself and how you behave, and then modify that behavior make a success of some sort. This doesn't insure success, but will generall lead to higher income, and presumeably, a greater awareness of your actions in other, related areas, like how to be nice to others.

[Tex]

Tex:
"This has also been a consistent finding from studies of personality using the Five Factor Model. People become more conscientious with age."

Jason:
"Is this longitudinal, or do the scrubs just fall off the map?"

I'll need to re-find the source I'm working from but I think it was McCrae and Costa's _Personality in Adulthood_, which includes conclusions from both cross-sectional and longitudinal data.

As I recall, as people age they become less extroverted and more contentious. The other three factors are fairly stable.

These findings track with personal observation and collateral reading. I recently read a number of autobiographies of gangsters and mobsters and was struck by how the nature of organized crime shifts with age. Older mobsters, like Sammy "the Bull", are more contentious. Younger gangsters, like "Monster" Kody, are more impulsive. (There is also likely a large gap in IQ between "the Bull" over "the Monster"). When Sammy was younger, he was more impulsive and less thoughtful. As Kody grew older, he became more thoughtful and less explosive.

[spungen]

Mickslam, I think you're misunderstanding my argument. I don't disagree that rich people are, in general, much more charming, attractive, clever, sophisticated, and better-mannered than poor people. If I liked being around poor people I wouldn't have the requisite class-consciousness to read this blog.

But, those qualities are about social skills, not character. Having beautiful social skills doesn't mean one can't also be untrustworthy, unfair, and unhelpful toward others. Often, richer people are more skilled and subtle in their manipulations. It's like being carved up with a sword versus being bludgeoned with a mace. Both would likely reduce trust in others.

I agree with HS that people's views of others' motives are based upon how they are treated by others. I disagree that the bad treatment necessarily comes about because they hang around others like themselves, and posit that people of lower status are treated worse by everyone -- peers as well as superiors. Therefore, the more negative views.

[Anon]

Speaking of the GSS and Jews... http://jewishstats.43i.net/main

[jult52]

I've made some derogatory posts about Half-Sigma in his comments in the past but this may be the blog post of the year. I'm eager to learn more.

[Half Sigma]

spungen: "Often, richer people are more skilled and subtle in their manipulations."

I actually tend to share her negative view of people, but I'm going with the theory that the majority of respondents are not reading that much into the question.

If spungen's theory were true, then the results wouldn't skew so amazingly in favor of smarter people having a more favorable view of others.

Smart people don't fully appreciate how nasty poor people are becuase they don't hang with them, and poor people are probably intimidated when they meet an upper class person so treat them better than they treat someone from their own class.

[jult52]

1) spungen: "But, those qualities are about social skills, not character. Having beautiful social skills doesn't mean one can't also be untrustworthy, unfair, and unhelpful toward others. Often, richer people are more skilled and subtle in their manipulations."

I think morally good behavior involves both inner intentions (what you call "character")and outward appearance (what you call "social skills"). Having both of those is the best and having 1 of those 2 is better than having none. Rejecting outward appearance as irrelevant, as you seem to be doing, doesn't seem entirely fair. Do you agree?

I do agree with spungen's last point about lower-status people receiving more bad treatment from all status levels, not just the poor. Is there a way to test whether poor people's negative views originate from their peers or originates from their peers and higher status individuals with whom they come into contact?

[Steve]

"But, those qualities are about social skills, not character. Having beautiful social skills doesn't mean one can't also be untrustworthy, unfair, and unhelpful toward others. Often, richer people are more skilled and subtle in their manipulations."

Substitute "rich people" with "women" and see if this still holds.

[SFG]

"Smart people don't fully appreciate how nasty poor people are becuase they don't hang with them"

The man has a point. Growing up in NYC taught me that the poor are dangerous and the rich obnoxious.