Do the ultra-wealthly have a hard time relating to regular people?Is there actual psychological research on whether or not this is true?
Executive summary
Multiple peer-reviewed and popular summaries report a consistent pattern: higher socioeconomic status is associated with lower measured empathy on several lab tasks (e.g., facial-expression reading, compassion ratings) and more self-focused behaviors in experiments [1] [2] [3]. At the same time, some reporting and commentary stress limits: effects are often modest, task‑specific, and researchers note context and causality questions remain [4] [5].
1. What the core empirical claim is — an emerging "money‑empathy gap"
A body of social‑psychology work summarized by Dacher Keltner, Paul Piff and Michael Kraus finds that people with greater wealth or higher subjective social class tend, on average, to score lower on measures tied to empathy: they read facial expressions less accurately, report less compassion in some lab tasks, and behave more self‑oriented in field experiments (e.g., luxury‑car drivers yielding less to pedestrians) [1] [3] [6].
2. How researchers measure "relating to regular people" — strengths and limits of the tests
Most cited studies do not measure everyday moral character directly but use proxies: emotion‑recognition tests, self‑reports of compassion while watching videos, and behavioral experiments (Monopoly or staged street interactions). These are interpretable but narrow: they capture perceptual and situational tendencies rather than a holistic, lifelong incapacity to relate [1] [7] [2].
3. Evidence that wealth causes change versus selects for preexisting traits
Authors and commentators debate directionality. Some researchers argue that gaining wealth produces psychological changes—greater independence, reduced reliance on others, and consequent declines in attention to others—while others caution that people predisposed to certain traits may be more likely to accumulate wealth. Reporting notes experimental priming (e.g., manipulating class feelings) to test causal pathways, but long‑term causal claims remain qualified [3] [7] [4].
4. Contextual moderators — when the gap narrows or disappears
Multiple sources report that context matters: wealthy participants can be prompted to act more prosocially (for example, priming about poverty increased helping), and not all wealthy people show strong deficits. Researchers stress "baseline orientation" differences rather than absolute incapacity—lower‑class individuals may be more attuned by necessity, while the wealthy can still be empathetic under specific cues [8] [3].
5. Broader patterns — inequality, social segregation, and societal effects
Beyond individual psychology, commentators link the empathy gap to structural factors: rising inequality and social segregation (the "skybox effect") reduce cross‑class contact and mutual understanding, which can amplify political and institutional distance between elites and others [9] [4]. These arguments shift focus from individual pathology to systemic drivers that make relating harder.
6. Contrasting voices and caveats in the literature
Some analysts and outlets emphasize strong, even dramatic summaries ("the richer you are the less compassionate"), while others warn the research is not monolithic: some experiments were informal or not published; effect sizes vary; and a few studies contradict or complicate the simple headline [10] [4] [5]. Rolling Stone and The Atlantic cite both consistent findings and methodological qualifiers [6] [4].
7. What is not settled — big open questions
Available sources do not mention definitive longitudinal evidence showing that becoming wealthy irreversibly reduces empathy across decades, nor do they provide a consensus on effect magnitude across cultures and elite strata (not found in current reporting). Researchers call for longer‑term, multi‑method studies to sort selection from socialization [4] [5].
8. Practical takeaways for readers and policymakers
Research indicates a measurable tendency for higher status to relate less on some empathy measures, but the phenomenon is conditional and malleable: priming, intergroup contact, and institutional incentives can change behavior [8] [3]. Policy responses that reduce segregation and encourage cross‑class interaction are framed by commentators as ways to narrow the gap and its social consequences [9].
Limitations: all factual assertions above are drawn from the supplied sources; claims about long‑term causation, cross‑cultural generality, or unanimous consensus are not supported in the provided reporting [4] [5].