Upload
thomasina-gilmore
View
219
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Cameron AndersonMichael E. KrausAdam D. GalinskyDacher Keltner
THE LOCAL LADDER EFFECT: SOCIAL STATUS AND SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING
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 & Diener 1985; Nickerson et al., 2003; Riddick, 1980; Veenhoven, 1994)
When national income increases over time, SWB does not (Easterlin Paradox)
INCOME WEAKLY INFLUENCESSUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING
Valuing money => depression and anxiety1 Power-oriented individuals lower in well-being2
Implication: Achieving status does little for SWB
STATUS: AN EMPTY PURSUIT?
1 Kasser & Ryan, 1993; Nickerson et al., 20032 Emmons, 1991; Sheldon et al., 2007
Sociometric status: Respect and admiration in 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
SOCIOMETRIC STATUS
1 Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 1972; Blau, 19642 Bernstein, 1981; Davis & Moore, 1945; Eibl-Eibesfelt, 1989; Hogan, 1983; Leavitt, 2005; Mazur,
1973; Schjelderup-Ebbe, 1935; Tannenbaum et al., 1974; Van Vugt et al., 20083 McPherson & Smith-Lovin, 19874 Blau, 1964; Roethlesberger & Dickson, 1939; Whyte, 1943
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
Sociometric status leads to social acceptance4, which also increases happiness5
THE LOCAL LADDER EFFECT
1 Festinger, 19542 Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 19723 Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 20034 Thibault & Kelley, 19595 Baumeister & Leary, 1995
Local Ladder Effect: Sociometric status will shape
SWB
The effect of sociometric status on SWB will be stronger than that of SES
HYPOTHESES
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
80 members of 12 student groups (fraternities, sororities, committees, clubs, ROTC, etc.) 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)
STUDY 1: METHODS
ROUND-ROBIN DESIGN (KENNY & LA VOIE, 1984)
Targets
Raters Amy Bob Candace Dave
Amy 7 2 5 7
Bob 4 3 4 6
Candace 5 3 5 7
Dave 6 2 4 6
Status: .42 -2.25 -.25 2.08
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
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)
STUDY 1: METHODS
Sociometric status: β=.35**, B=.33,
SE=.10
Socioeconomic status: β=.02, B=.01, SE=.06
RESULTS
Sociometric status predicted SWB more strongly than SES
(Cohen et al., 2003), F(1,78)=14.15, p<.001
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**
GENDER DIFFERENCES?
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
STUDY 1 FINDINGS
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
STUDY 2
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
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
STUDY 2: METHODS
Sociometric status: β=.50**, B=.43,
SE=.04
Socioeconomic status: β=.08, B=.07, SE=.05
RESULTS
Sociometric status predicted SWB more strongly than SES
(Cohen et al., 2003), F(1,313)=14.13, p<.001.
SMS: MEDIATION
.50** (.10)
.55** (.33**).57**
.59** (.39**).65**
Sense of Power
Sociometric Status
Social Acceptance
Subjective Well-Being
Sobel z = 4.90, p < .01
Sobel z = 5.89, p < .01
SES: NO EFFECTS ON SENSE OF POWER, SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE
.10+ (.14)
.55** (.56**)-.09
.59** (.60**)-.06
Sense of Power
Socioeconomic Status
Social Acceptance
Subjective Well-Being
Sociometric status 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)
STUDY 2 FINDINGS
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)
STUDY 3: CAUSATION
“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
SOCIOECONOMIC 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) RESPECT and ADMIRATION in their important social groups.
In particular, we'd like you to COMPARE YOURSELF TO THESE PEOPLE in terms of your own respect and 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
SOCIOMETRIC STATUS MANIPULATION
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
STUDY 3: METHODS
Sociometric status Socioeconomic status
MANIPULATION CHECK:“WHERE WOULD YOU PLACE YOURSELF
ON THIS LADDER?”
t (115) = 3.65, p < .01
t (109) = 2.06, p < .05
No interaction: F(1,224) = 1.38, p = .24
Sociometric status Socioeconomic status
SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING
t (109) = .06, n.s. t (115) = 3.05, p < .01
Interaction: F(1,224) = 4.73, p < .05
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.)
STUDY 3 FINDINGS
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 sociometric status hierarchy to another. Such a move could involve an increase or decrease in sociometric status.
STUDY 4
Time 1: April 2010156 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)
Time 2: February 2011116 (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)
STUDY 4: LONGITUDINAL CHANGES IN SMS
RESULTS
Time 1: April 2010 Time 2: February 2011
Sociometric Status in MBA cohort
Sociometric Statusin workplace
Subjective Well-Being
Subjective Well-Being
Subjective Well-Being
Subjective Well-Being
.46** .63** .00
.44**
(.40**)
Difference in sociometric status predicted difference in SWB (β=.22, p<.05).
RESULTS
Time 1: April 2010 Time 2: February 2011
SES SES
Subjective Well-Being
Subjective Well-Being
Subjective Well-Being
Subjective Well-Being
-.12 .01 -.19*
.68**
(.11)
Changes in sociometric status more strongly affected SWB, F(1,114)=20.17, p<.01.
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
STUDY 4 FINDINGS
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
SUMMARY
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)
IMPLICATIONS
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”?
FUTURE DIRECTIONS