Relative deprivation and prosocial behavior: Evidence from South Korea

Figures & data

Table 1. Average descriptive statistics, primary survey data.

	Control	Treatment	Full sample
	(N = 409)	(N = 412)	(N = 821)
Prosocial index	4.78	4.62	4.70
AQ1: Willingness to donate (1–7)	4.12	3.92	4.02
AQ2: Willingness to volunteer (1–7)	4.37	4.21	4.29
AQ3: Willingness to help people in trouble (1–7)	4.72	4.62	4.67
AQ4: Willingness to accept public facilities (1–7)	4.52	4.37	4.44
Age (25–59)	42.82	41.90	42.36
Female (0,1)	0.42	0.43	0.42
College graduate (0,1)	0.73	0.75	0.74
Married (0,1)	0.57	0.60	0.59
No. of household members	2.96	3.00	2.98
Employed (0,1)	0.92	0.90	0.91
Discretionary income (10k KRW)	165.59	168.46	167.03
Homeowner (0,1)	0.58	0.58	0.58
Long-term rented house (0,1)	0.42	0.42	0.42
Seoul or Gyeonggi province (0,1)	0.52	0.52	0.52
IQ1: support for intervention for the poor (1–7)	4.38	4.45	4.42
IQ2: Political ideology (1–5)	2.85	2.88	2.86

Notes: AQ, attitudinal question; IQ, ideological question. Discretionary income is the mean of monthly income in the preceding six months.

Table 2. Association between treatment exposure and prosocial attitudes.

	Prosocial index	AQ1	AQ2	AQ3	AQ4	Prosocial index
Outcome:	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
Baseline model^a:
Treated	−0.204***	−0.234**	−0.194**	−0.147*	−0.185**
	(0.076)	(0.096)	(0.089)	(0.086)	(0.090)
Demographic factors adjusted model^b:
Treated	−0.194**	−0.222**	−0.186**	−0.142	−0.165*
	(0.075)	(0.093)	(0.087)	(0.087)	(0.090)
Demographic and economic factors adjusted model^c:
Treated	−0.191**	−0.219**	−0.182**	−0.143*	−0.165*
	(0.075)	(0.094)	(0.088)	(0.087)	(0.090)
Demographic, economic, and ideological factorsadjusted model^d:
Treated	−0.195***	−0.220**	−0.178**	−0.151*	−0.178**	−0.204**
	(0.074)	(0.093)	(0.087)	(0.085)	(0.087)	(0.097)
Treated $\times$ Female						0.021
						(0.150)

Notes: AQ, attitudinal question (AQ1: willingness to donate; AQ2: willingness to volunteer; AQ3: willingness to help people in trouble; AQ4: willingness to accept unwanted public facilities). Standard errors in parentheses. Significance levels are indicated by *, **, and *** for 10, 5, and 1% significance level, respectively.

^aAdjusted for discretionary income and bias indicators.

^bAdjusted for age, gender, education background, marital status, number of household members, discretionary income, and bias indicators.

^cAdjusted for age, gender, education background, marital status, number of household members, employment status, home ownership, region fixed effects, discretionary income, and bias indicators.

^dAdjusted for age, gender, education background, marital status, number of household members, employment status, home ownership, region fixed effects, support for government intervention for the poor, political ideology, discretionary income, and bias indicators.

Table 3. Average descriptive statistics, 2006–2020 KoWePS.

	Rank $\ge$ median	Rank < median	Full sample
	(N = 33,925)	(N = 33,804)	(N = 67,729)
Participated in donation or volunteering (0,1)	0.22	0.13	0.18
Amount of donation (10k KRW)	57.18	33.19	49.64
Number of volunteering activities	4.10	5.37	4.50
Yitzhaki index (10k KRW)			643.70
Deaton index			0.27
Income rank			0.45
Age (25–59)	42.71	42.34	42.55
Female (0,1)	0.41	0.41	0.41
College graduate (0,1)	0.56	0.61	0.58
Married (0,1)	0.70	0.70	0.70
No. of household members	3.15	3.74	3.40
Health satisfaction (1–5)	3.72	3.64	3.69
Employed (0,1)	0.85	0.84	0.84
Equivalized household income (10k KRW)	330.3	152.8	253.7
Net worth (10k KRW)	21,035.6	8238.7	15,515.6
Seoul or Gyeonggi province (0,1)	0.52	0.53	0.52

Notes: Amount of donation is the total amount donated in the preceding calendar year. Number of volunteering activities is the number of times a respondent participated in volunteering activities in the preceding calendar year. All monetary values are adjusted to 2020 KRW using the Korean consumer price index for all items.

Table 4. Association between relative deprivation indices and prosocial behavior.

	Any prosocial	Log of donation	No. of volunteer	Any prosocial	Log of donation	No. of volunteer	Any prosocial	Log of donation	No. of volunteer
Outcome:	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)
Baseline model^a:
Yitzhaki index	−0.041***	−0.269***	−0.061
	(0.005)	(0.060)	(0.058)
Deaton index				−0.008***	−0.065***	0.005
				(0.001)	(0.015)	(0.015)
Income rank							−0.006***	−0.041***	0.006
							(0.001)	(0.010)	(0.010)
Demographic factors adjusted model^b:
Yitzhaki index	−0.040***	−0.241***	0.098
	(0.005)	(0.063)	(0.059)
Deaton index				−0.008***	−0.058***	0.027*
				(0.001)	(0.016)	(0.015)
Income rank							−0.007***	−0.036***	0.019*
							(0.001)	(0.010)	(0.010)
Demographic and economic factors adjusted model^c:
Yitzhaki index	−0.040***	−0.241***	0.089
	(0.005)	(0.063)	(0.060)
Deaton index				−0.008***	−0.058***	0.025*
				(0.001)	(0.016)	(0.015)
Income rank							−0.007***	−0.036***	0.018*
							(0.001)	(0.010)	(0.010)
N	67,729	10,240	6388	67,729	10,240	6388	67,729	10,240	6388

Notes: AQ, attitudinal question. Standard errors in parentheses. Significance levels are indicated by *, **, and *** for 10, 5, and 1% significance level, respectively.

^aAdjusted for equivalized household income, region fixed effects, and year fixed effects.

^bAdjusted for age, gender, education background, marital status, number of household members, health satisfaction, equivalized household income, region fixed effects, and year fixed effects.

^cAdjusted for age, gender, education background, marital status, number of household members, health satisfaction, employment status, net worth, equivalized household income, region fixed effects, and year fixed effects.

Table 5. Testing for the heterogeneity of relative deprivation effect by gender.

	Any prosocial	Log of donation	Any prosocial	Log of donation	Any prosocial	Log of donation
Outcome:	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
Yitzhaki index	−0.041***	−0.202***
	(0.006)	(0.078)
Yitzhaki index $\times$ Female	0.004	−0.097
	(0.009)	(0.112)
Deaton index			−0.009***	−0.035*
			(0.002)	(0.020)
Deaton index $\times$ Female			0.002	−0.053*
			(0.002)	(0.028)
Income rank					−0.007***	−0.022*
					(0.001)	(0.013)
Income rank $\times$ Female					0.001	−0.031*
					(0.001)	(0.018)
N	67,729	10,240	67,729	10,240	67,729	10,240

Notes: Standard errors in parentheses. Significance levels are indicated by *, **, and *** for 10, 5, and 1% significance level, respectively. All regressions adjusted for age, gender, education background, marital status, number of household members, health satisfaction, employment status, net worth, equivalized household income, region fixed effects, and year fixed effects.

Table A1. Association between relative deprivation indices and prosocial behavior, reference group by gender.

	Any prosocial	Log of donation	No. of volunteer	Any prosocial	Log of donation	No. of volunteer	Any prosocial	Log of donation	No. of volunteer
Outcome:	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)
Baseline model^a:
Yitzhaki index	−0.024***	−0.280***	0.211***
	(0.006)	(0.073)	(0.064)
Deaton index				−0.005***	−0.063***	0.047***
				(0.001)	(0.016)	(0.014)
Income rank							−0.005***	−0.047***	0.035***
							(0.001)	(0.011)	(0.010)
Demographic factors adjusted model^b:
Yitzhaki index	−0.033***	−0.263***	0.143**
	(0.006)	(0.076)	(0.067)
Deaton index				−0.007***	−0.059***	0.032**
				(0.001)	(0.017)	(0.015)
Income rank							−0.006***	−0.045***	0.026**
							(0.001)	(0.011)	(0.010)
Demographic and economic factors adjusted model^c:
Yitzhaki index	−0.033***	−0.264***	0.134**
	(0.006)	(0.076)	(0.068)
Deaton index				−0.007***	−0.059***	0.030**
				(0.001)	(0.017)	(0.015)
Income rank							−0.006***	−0.045***	0.025**
							(0.001)	(0.011)	(0.010)
N	67,729	10,240	6388	67,729	10,240	6388	67,729	10,240	6388

Notes: AQ, attitudinal question. Standard errors in parentheses. Significance levels are indicated by *, **, and *** for 10, 5, and 1%significance level, respectively.

^aAdjusted for equivalized household income, region fixed effects, and year fixed effects.

^bAdjusted for age, gender, education background, marital status, number of household members, health satisfaction, equivalizedhousehold income, region fixed effects, and year fixed effects.

^cAdjusted for age, gender, education background, marital status, number of household members, health satisfaction, employmentstatus, net worth, equivalized household income, region fixed effects, and year fixed effects.

Table A2. Association between relative deprivation indices and prosocial behavior, reference group by gender $\times$ education.

	Any prosocial	Log of donation	No. of volunteer	Any prosocial	Log of donation	No. of volunteer	Any prosocial	Log of donation	No. of volunteer
Outcome:	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)
Baseline model^a:
Yitzhaki index	−0.031***	−0.254***	−0.139**
	(0.005)	(0.065)	(0.066)
Deaton index				−0.006***	−0.062***	0.001
				(0.001)	(0.016)	(0.015)
Income rank							−0.005***	−0.043***	0.002
							(0.001)	(0.010)	(0.010)
Demographic factors adjusted model^b:
Yitzhaki index	−0.039***	−0.233***	0.112*
	(0.006)	(0.070)	(0.064)
Deaton index				−0.008***	−0.057***	0.029*
				(0.001)	(0.017)	(0.015)
Income rank							−0.006***	−0.040***	0.023**
							(0.001)	(0.011)	(0.010)
Demographic and economic factors adjusted model^c:
Yitzhaki index	−0.040***	−0.232***	0.104
	(0.006)	(0.070)	(0.064)
Deaton index				−0.008***	−0.057***	0.027*
				(0.001)	(0.017)	(0.015)
Income rank							−0.006***	−0.040***	0.022**
							(0.001)	(0.011)	(0.010)
N	67,729	10,240	6388	67,729	10,240	6388	67,729	10,240	6388

Notes: AQ, attitudinal question. Standard errors in parentheses. Significance levels are indicated by *, **, and *** for 10, 5, and 1% significance level, respectively.

^aAdjusted for equivalized household income, region fixed effects, and year fixed effects.

^bAdjusted for age, gender, education background, marital status, number of household members, health satisfaction, equivalized household income, region fixed effects, and year fixed effects.

^cAdjusted for age, gender, education background, marital status, number of household members, health satisfaction, employment status, net worth, equivalized household income, region fixed effects, and year fixed effects.

Table A3. Association between relative deprivation indices and prosocial behavior, reference group by gender $\times$ age.

	Any prosocial	Log of donation	No. of volunteer	Any prosocial	Log of donation	No. of volunteer	Any prosocial	Log of donation	No. of volunteer
Outcome:	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9
Baseline model^a:
Yitzhaki index	−0.032***	−0.316***	0.203***
	(0.005)	(0.070)	(0.063)
Deaton index				−0.007***	−0.068***	0.049***
				(0.001)	(0.016)	(0.014)
Income rank							−0.006***	−0.048***	0.035***
							(0.001)	(0.010)	(0.010)
Demographic factors adjusted model^b:
Yitzhaki index	−0.031***	−0.289***	0.119*
	(0.005)	(0.073)	(0.066)
Deaton index				−0.008***	−0.062***	0.030**
				(0.001)	(0.017)	(0.015)
Income rank							−0.007***	−0.044***	0.024**
							(0.001)	(0.011)	(0.010)
Demographic and economic factors adjusted model^c:
Yitzhaki index	−0.031***	−0.291***	0.109
	(0.006)	(0.073)	(0.067)
Deaton index				−0.008***	−0.062***	0.028*
				(0.001)	(0.017)	(0.015)
Income rank							−0.006***	−0.044***	0.022**
							(0.001)	(0.011)	(0.010)
N	67,729	10,240	6388	67,729	10,240	6388	67,729	10,240	6388

Notes: AQ, attitudinal question. Standard errors in parentheses. Significance levels are indicated by *, **, and *** for 10, 5, and 1% significance level, respectively.

^aAdjusted for equivalized household income, region fixed effects, and year fixed effects.

^bAdjusted for age, gender, education background, marital status, number of household members, health satisfaction, equivalized household income, region fixed effects, and year fixed effects.

^cAdjusted for age, gender, education background, marital status, number of household members, health satisfaction, employment status, net worth, equivalized household income, region fixed effects, and year fixed effects.

Table A4. Association between relative deprivation indices and prosocial behavior, reference group by gender $\times$ education $\times$ age.

	Any prosocial	Log of donation	No. of volunteer	Any prosocial	Log of donation	No. of volunteer	Any prosocial	Log of donation	No. of volunteer
Outcome:	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)
Baseline model^a:
Yitzhaki index	−0.040***	−0.273***	−0.028
	(0.005)	(0.062)	(0.059)
Deaton index				−0.007***	−0.065***	0.016
				(0.001)	(0.016)	(0.015)
Income rank							−0.006***	−0.040***	0.013
							(0.001)	(0.010)	(0.010)
Demographic factors adjusted model^b:
Yitzhaki index	−0.039***	−0.245***	0.123**
	(0.005)	(0.065)	(0.060)
Deaton index				−0.008***	−0.058***	0.032**
				(0.001)	(0.016)	(0.015)
Income rank							−0.006***	−0.036***	0.023**
							(0.001)	(0.011)	(0.010)
Demographic and economic factors adjusted model^c:
Yitzhaki index	−0.039***	−0.245***	0.115*
	(0.005)	(0.065)	(0.060)
Deaton index				−0.008***	−0.058***	0.030**
				(0.001)	(0.016)	(0.015)
Income rank							−0.006***	−0.035***	0.021**
							(0.001)	(0.011)	(0.010)
N	67,729	10,240	6388	67,729	10,240	6388	67,729	10,240	6388

Notes: AQ, attitudinal question. Standard errors in parentheses. Significance levels are indicated by *, **, and *** for 10, 5, and 1% significance level, respectively.

^aAdjusted for equivalized household income, region fixed effects, and year fixed effects.

^bAdjusted for age, gender, education background, marital status, number of household members, health satisfaction, equivalized household income, region fixed effects, and year fixed effects.

^cAdjusted for age, gender, education background, marital status, number of household members, health satisfaction, employment status, net worth, equivalized household income, region fixed effects, and year fixed effects.