1 / 36

The local ladder effect: Social Status and Subjective Well-Being

The local ladder effect: Social Status and Subjective Well-Being. Cameron Anderson Michael E. Kraus Adam D. Galinsky Dacher Keltner. Income weakly influences subjective well-being. When national income increases over time, SWB does not ( Easterlin Paradox).

iphigenie
Télécharger la présentation

The local ladder effect: Social Status and Subjective Well-Being

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The local ladder effect: Social Status and Subjective Well-Being Cameron Anderson Michael E. Kraus Adam D. Galinsky DacherKeltner

  2. Income weakly influencessubjective well-being When national income increases over time, SWB does not (Easterlin Paradox) Within countries, income and subjective well-being (SWB) correlate weakly, r = .15 (e.g., Alston, Lowe, & Wrigley, 1974; Andrews & Withey, 1976; Bortner & Hultsch, 1970; Clark & Oswald, 1994;Clemente & Sauer, 1976; Diener,Haring, Stock, & Okun, 1984; Diener, Sandvik, Seidlitz& Diener, 1993; Freudiger, 1980; Horowitz, & Emmons, 1985; Inglehart, 1990; Kimmel, Price, & Walker, 1978; Mancini & Orthner, 1980;Myers & Diener1985; Nickerson et al., 2003; Riddick, 1980; Veenhoven, 1994)

  3. Status: an empty Pursuit? • Valuing money => depression and anxiety1 • Power-oriented individuals lower in well-being2 • Implication: Achieving status does little for SWB 1 Kasser & Ryan, 1993; Nickerson et al., 2003 2 Emmons, 1991; Sheldon et al., 2007

  4. sociometricstatus • Sociometric status: Respectand admirationin others’ eyes1 • It is “local,” or defined in one’s face-to-face groups • It is peer-determined, involving others’ respect and admiration • Sociometric status hierarchies emerge in all kinds of face-to-face groups2 • Sociometric status (SMS) is empirically distinct from socioeconomic status (SES; income, education) • People affiliate with others of similar SES3 • Differences in SMS emerge among individuals with same SES4 • 1 Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 1972; Blau, 1964 • 2 Bernstein, 1981; Davis & Moore, 1945; Eibl-Eibesfelt, 1989; Hogan, 1983; Leavitt, 2005; Mazur, • 1973; Schjelderup-Ebbe, 1935; Tannenbaumet al., 1974; Van Vugtet al., 2008 • 3 McPherson & Smith-Lovin, 1987 • 4Blau, 1964; Roethlesberger & Dickson, 1939; Whyte, 1943

  5. The LOCAL LADDER effect • Relative, immediate comparisons matter more than absolute, distant comparisons1 • “Beggars do not envy millionaires, though of course they will envy other beggars who are more successful” – Bertrand Russell, 1930 • Sociometric status leads to power2, and the sense of power increases happiness3 • Sociometricstatus leads to social acceptance4, which also increases happiness5 1 Festinger, 1954 2 Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 1972 3 Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003 4 Thibault& Kelley, 1959 5 Baumeister& Leary, 1995

  6. hypotheses • Local Ladder Effect: Sociometric status will shape SWB • The effect of sociometric status on SWB will be stronger than that of SES

  7. Overview of studies • Study 1: College student groups, clubs, associations • Study 2: National sample; mediation • Study 3: Experimental manipulation • Study 4: Longitudinal assessment of changes in status over time

  8. Study 1: methods • 80 members of 12 student groups (fraternities, sororities, committees, clubs, ROTC, etc.) • 53% men, 47% women • Sociometricstatus • Peer-ratings of respect, admiration, looked up to (α = .71) • Self-ratings of status along same dimensions (r = .54, α = .93) • Number of leadership positions (M = 1.71, SD = 1.56)

  9. Round-Robin Design (Kenny & la Voie, 1984)

  10. Study 1: methods • 80 members of 12 student groups (fraternities, sororities, school committees, student clubs, ROTC) • 53% men, 47% women • Sociometric status • Peer-ratings of respect, admiration, looked up to (α = .71) • Self-ratings of status along same dimensions (r = .54, α = .93) • Number of leadership positions (M = 1.71, SD = 1.56) • Total household income (Adler et al., 2000) • (a) under $15K, (b) $15–$25K, (c) $25–$35K, (d) $35–$50K, (e) $50–$75K, (f) $75–$100K, (g) $100-$150K, and (h) over $150K • M = 6.17, SD = 1.44 • Average household income between $75,000 and $100,000

  11. Study 1: methods • Subjective well-being: 3 components (Diener et al., 1999) • Satisfaction with life scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985) • M = 5.38, SD = .94, α = .77 • Positive and Negative Affect (PANAS; Watson et al., 1988) • Positive affect: M = 3.84, SD = .72, α = .89 • Negative affect: M = 1.80, SD = .53, α = .83 • Control for gender, ethnicity (White/non-White)

  12. results • Sociometricstatus: β=.35**, B=.33, SE=.10 • Socioeconomic status: β=.02, B=.01, SE=.06 Sociometric status predicted SWB more strongly than SES (Cohen et al., 2003), F(1,78)=14.15, p<.001

  13. Gender differences? • Several theorists have argued that men and women differ in the way they think about and are motivated by status (Buss, 1999; Hoyenga, 1993; Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, 1994) • Men care about status more than women (Buss, 1999, p. 43) • Does sociometric status matter more for men’s SWB than for women’s? • No: For men, r = .40**, and for women, r = .38**

  14. Study 1 findings • Sociometric status predicted SWB (A Local Ladder Effect) • The relationship between sociometric status and SWB was stronger than that between SES and SWB • The effect of sociometric status held up for men and women

  15. STUDY 2 • Mediation: Why does sociometric status matter? • Sense of power, social acceptance • Focused on groups that participants chose as most important to them • Better gauge of the importance of sociometric status • More representative sample • Is personality a third variable? Control for extraversion • Measure other major component of SES: education

  16. Study 2: METHODS • 315 participants (36% men, 64% women) from national sample • Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk: Reliable and more diverse than college samples (Buhrmeister, Kwang, & Gosling, 2010) • Average age = 32.8, SD = 11.0 • Sociometric status • “List your three most important groups (e.g., friends, family, athletic team, work group),” rate status in each (same items as in Study 1) • M = 5.16, SD = .93, α = .94 • Socioeconomic status • Household income: M = 4.12 ($35,001 - $50,000), SD = 1.94 • Education: M = 2.66 (between high school and some college), SD = .75

  17. Study 2: methods • Subjective well-being • Satisfaction with life scale: M = 4.29, SD = 1.47, α = .92 • Positive affect: M = 3.38, SD = .78, α = .90 • Negative affect: M = 2.08, SD = .81, α = .91 • Control for gender, ethnicity (White/non-White) • Extraversion (BFI; John & Srivastava, 1999) • M = 3.01, SD = .82, α = .96 • Sense of power in each group (Anderson et al., in press) • e.g., “If I want to, I get to make the decisions” • M = 4.82, SD = .75, α = .90 • Social acceptance in each group (Leary et al., 1995) • accepted, included, liked, welcomed • M = 5.80, SD = .79, α = .96

  18. results • Sociometricstatus: β=.50**, B=.43, SE=.04 • Socioeconomic status: β=.08, B=.07, SE=.05 Sociometric status predicted SWB more strongly than SES (Cohen et al., 2003), F(1,313)=14.13, p<.001.

  19. Sms: Mediation Sense of Power Sobel z = 4.90, p < .01 .55** (.33**) .57** Sociometric Status Subjective Well-Being .50** (.10) .65** .59** (.39**) Social Acceptance Sobel z = 5.89, p < .01

  20. ses: no effects on sense of power, social acceptance Sense of Power .55** (.56**) -.09 Socioeconomic Status Subjective Well-Being .10+ (.14) -.06 .59** (.60**) Social Acceptance

  21. Study 2 findings • Sociometricstatus predicted SWB (more strongly than SES) • Sense of power, social acceptance mediated the link between sociometric status and SWB • More representative sample with wider range in SES • The results held up even after controlling for extraversion • The results held up for men (r=.54) and women (r=.48)

  22. Study 3: Causation • 228 participants (38% men, 62% women) via MTurk • 2X2 between-subjects design: • Status type (socioeconomic vs. sociometric) • Status level (low vs. high) • Manipulated subjective sense of SES and SMS • Imagine-an-interaction procedure (Kraus et al., 2010) • e.g., Low SES: “Imagine interacting with someone high in SES” • Builds from dominance complementarity principle (Horowitz et al., 2006; Tiedens, Unzueta, & Young, 2007)

  23. SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS Manipulation “Think of the ladder above as representing where people stand in the United States. Now please compare yourself to the people at the very bottom (top) rung of the ladder. At the bottom (top) of the ladder are the people with the least (most) money, education, and worst (best) jobs. In particular, we'd like you to COMPARE YOURSELF TO THESE PEOPLE. Now imagine yourself in a getting acquainted interaction with one of these people. Think about how the SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN YOU might impact what you would talk about, how the interaction is likely to go, and what you and the other person might say to each other. Please write a brief description about how you think this interaction would go.” Blue = high socioeconomic condition Red = low socioeconomic condition

  24. SOCIOMETRIC STATUS Manipulation “Think of the ladder above as representing where people stand in the important groups to which they belong. For example, these can include their groups of friends, family, work group, etc. Now please compare yourself to the people at the very bottom (top) rung of the ladder. These are people who have NO (A GREAT DEAL OF) RESPECTand ADMIRATIONin their important social groups. In particular, we'd like you to COMPARE YOURSELF TO THESE PEOPLE in terms of your own respectand admiration in your important groups. Now imagine yourself in a getting acquainted interaction with one of these people. Think about how the SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN YOU might impact what you would talk about, how the interaction is likely to go, and what you and the other person might say to each other. Please write a brief description about how you think this interaction would go.” Blue = high sociometric condition Red = low sociometric condition

  25. Study 3: methods • Subjective well-being • Satisfaction with life scale: M = 4.28, SD = 1.45, α = .91 • Positive affect: M = 2.92, SD = .83, α = .91 • Negative affect: M = 1.56, SD = .73, α = .91

  26. Manipulation check:“Where would you place yourself on this ladder?” Sociometric status Socioeconomic status t (115) = 3.65, p < .01 t (109) = 2.06, p < .05 No interaction: F(1,224) = 1.38, p = .24

  27. Subjective well-being Sociometric status Socioeconomic status t (115) = 3.05, p < .01 t (109) = .06, n.s. Interaction: F(1,224) = 4.73, p < .05

  28. Study 3 findings • Sociometric status more strongly affected SWB than SES • Experimental methods helped establish causality • The effect again held up across both men and women (Interaction F[1,111] = 2.98 n.s.)

  29. Study 4 • When status rises or falls after a significant life transition, does SWB rise or fall accordingly? • In a longitudinal design MBA students were assessed: • One month before they graduated • Nine months after graduation when they had entered the workforce • Graduating involves moving from one sociometricstatus hierarchy to another. Such a move could involve an increase or decrease in sociometric status.

  30. Study 4: Longitudinal Changes in sms Time 1: April 2010 Time 2: February 2011 116 (74% return rate), 71% men, 29% women Sociometric status in workplace (α = .94) Income (M = 6.89, SD = 1.46), $75,001-$100,000 SWB: SWLS, PANAS (all α’s> .86) • 156 2nd-year MBA students • Sociometric status in MBA cohort (α = .94) • Income (M = 4.89, SD = 2.82), $35,001-$50,000 • SWB: SWLS, PANAS (all α’s> .85)

  31. results Time 1: April 2010 Time 2: February 2011 Sociometric Status in MBA cohort Sociometric Status in workplace .46** .00 .63** (.40**) Subjective Well-Being Subjective Well-Being .44** Difference in sociometric status predicted difference in SWB (β=.22, p<.05).

  32. results Time 1: April 2010 Time 2: February 2011 SES SES -.12 -.19* .01 (.11) Subjective Well-Being Subjective Well-Being .68** Changes in sociometric status more strongly affected SWB, F(1,114)=20.17, p<.01.

  33. Study 4 findings • Changes in sociometric status predicted changes in SWB • As sociometric status rose or fell, so did SWB • Changes in sociometric status more strongly predicted changes in SWB than did changes in SES

  34. summary • Local Ladder Effect: Sociometric status predicted SWB (average β across correlational studies = .49) • Effect emerged in correlational, longitudinal, experimental designs • Consistent across men and women • Held up after controlling for demographic variables, personality (extraversion) • Effect of sociometric status consistently stronger than SES • Two underlying mechanisms: • Sense of power • Social acceptance

  35. implications • Status does matter to subjective well-being • But not all forms of status matter equally • Possessing higher social standing might have different psychological consequences that striving for higher standing (Nickerson et al., 2003) • Organizations that can raise average levels of sociometric status might promote job performance, satisfaction (Cohn, 1979; Near, Rice, & Hunt, 1978; Weaver, 1978)

  36. Future directions • Why does SMS affect happiness more than SES? • Do people not adapt to high/low SMS, as they adapt to money? • SES may not lead to happiness because striving for it involves behaviors that detract from happiness. Striving for SMS involves behaviors that contribute to happiness (e.g., generosity). • Does the impact of SMS on happiness depend on its source? • What determines one’s “local ladder”?

More Related