It seems that at least three groups tried to replicate the study and failed (i.e., found no or little actual effect)¹.

> In contrast, other research in economics and sociology has hypothesized and found a positive relationship between SES and prosocial and ethical behavior. We review the empirical evidence for these contradictory findings and conduct two direct, well-powered, and preregistered replications of the field studies by Piff and colleagues (2012) to test the relationship between SES and unethical/selfish behavior. Unlike the original findings, we find no evidence of a positive relationship between SES and unethical/selfish behavior in the two field replication studies.

¹) https://pubpeer.com/publications/7363E2E1B57AC42EF166E0D0266... ²) https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2023-34988-001?doi=1

There was also this follow-up [1], pointing out that most of these 7 studies only had something like a 50–65% estimated chance of producing a significant result, yet all 7 did.

In other words, if a whole series of fairly noisy experiments all comes out squeaky clean, you have to wonder whether you're actually seeing the whole series.

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3382534

The sad thing is how many people will believe this and repeat it. Kind of like the Stanford Prison or Milgram experiment, Or pretty much most anything that's come out of sociology