¿La jerarquía social es importante para la distribución de los recursos?
Resources are distributed unequally depending on the social status (SS) of people. Researchers have often used experiments to explain the role of SS in economic decisions. However, the diverse ways of inducing SS has produced contradictory results. The aim of this study was to analyze the effect of...
- Autores:
-
Mola, Débora Jeanette
Godoy, Juan Carlos
Reyna, Cecilia
- Tipo de recurso:
- Article of journal
- Fecha de publicación:
- 2019
- Institución:
- Universidad Católica de Colombia
- Repositorio:
- RIUCaC - Repositorio U. Católica
- Idioma:
- spa
- OAI Identifier:
- oai:repository.ucatolica.edu.co:10983/23632
- Acceso en línea:
- https://hdl.handle.net/10983/23632
- Palabra clave:
- JERARQUÍA SOCIAL
ESTATUS SOCIAL
JUEGOS ECONÓMICOS
EFECTO DE MARCO
ORIENTACIÓN DE VALORES SOCIALES
ESTATUS SOCIAL SUBJETIVO
SOCIAL HIERARCHY
SOCIAL STATUS
ECONOMIC GAMES
FRAMING EFFECT
SOCIAL VALUE ORIENTATION
SUBJECTIVE SOCIAL STATUS
IERARQUIA SOCIAL
STATUS SOCIAL
JOGOS ECONÔMICOS
EFEITO DE ENQUADRAMENTO
ORIENTAÇÃO DE VALORES SOCIAIS
STATUS SOCIAL SUBJETIVO
- Rights
- openAccess
- License
- Derechos Reservados - Universidad Católica de Colombia, 2019
| id |
UCATOLICA2_3d078bbbbbda4d6abb38b9841e4700fe |
|---|---|
| oai_identifier_str |
oai:repository.ucatolica.edu.co:10983/23632 |
| network_acronym_str |
UCATOLICA2 |
| network_name_str |
RIUCaC - Repositorio U. Católica |
| repository_id_str |
|
| dc.title.spa.fl_str_mv |
¿La jerarquía social es importante para la distribución de los recursos? |
| dc.title.translated.eng.fl_str_mv |
Does social status matter for resource distribution? A hierarquia social é importante para a distribuição dos recursos? |
| title |
¿La jerarquía social es importante para la distribución de los recursos? |
| spellingShingle |
¿La jerarquía social es importante para la distribución de los recursos? JERARQUÍA SOCIAL ESTATUS SOCIAL JUEGOS ECONÓMICOS EFECTO DE MARCO ORIENTACIÓN DE VALORES SOCIALES ESTATUS SOCIAL SUBJETIVO SOCIAL HIERARCHY SOCIAL STATUS ECONOMIC GAMES FRAMING EFFECT SOCIAL VALUE ORIENTATION SUBJECTIVE SOCIAL STATUS IERARQUIA SOCIAL STATUS SOCIAL JOGOS ECONÔMICOS EFEITO DE ENQUADRAMENTO ORIENTAÇÃO DE VALORES SOCIAIS STATUS SOCIAL SUBJETIVO |
| title_short |
¿La jerarquía social es importante para la distribución de los recursos? |
| title_full |
¿La jerarquía social es importante para la distribución de los recursos? |
| title_fullStr |
¿La jerarquía social es importante para la distribución de los recursos? |
| title_full_unstemmed |
¿La jerarquía social es importante para la distribución de los recursos? |
| title_sort |
¿La jerarquía social es importante para la distribución de los recursos? |
| dc.creator.fl_str_mv |
Mola, Débora Jeanette Godoy, Juan Carlos Reyna, Cecilia |
| dc.contributor.author.spa.fl_str_mv |
Mola, Débora Jeanette Godoy, Juan Carlos Reyna, Cecilia |
| dc.subject.proposal.spa.fl_str_mv |
JERARQUÍA SOCIAL ESTATUS SOCIAL JUEGOS ECONÓMICOS EFECTO DE MARCO ORIENTACIÓN DE VALORES SOCIALES ESTATUS SOCIAL SUBJETIVO SOCIAL HIERARCHY SOCIAL STATUS ECONOMIC GAMES FRAMING EFFECT SOCIAL VALUE ORIENTATION SUBJECTIVE SOCIAL STATUS IERARQUIA SOCIAL STATUS SOCIAL JOGOS ECONÔMICOS EFEITO DE ENQUADRAMENTO ORIENTAÇÃO DE VALORES SOCIAIS STATUS SOCIAL SUBJETIVO |
| topic |
JERARQUÍA SOCIAL ESTATUS SOCIAL JUEGOS ECONÓMICOS EFECTO DE MARCO ORIENTACIÓN DE VALORES SOCIALES ESTATUS SOCIAL SUBJETIVO SOCIAL HIERARCHY SOCIAL STATUS ECONOMIC GAMES FRAMING EFFECT SOCIAL VALUE ORIENTATION SUBJECTIVE SOCIAL STATUS IERARQUIA SOCIAL STATUS SOCIAL JOGOS ECONÔMICOS EFEITO DE ENQUADRAMENTO ORIENTAÇÃO DE VALORES SOCIAIS STATUS SOCIAL SUBJETIVO |
| description |
Resources are distributed unequally depending on the social status (SS) of people. Researchers have often used experiments to explain the role of SS in economic decisions. However, the diverse ways of inducing SS has produced contradictory results. The aim of this study was to analyze the effect of SS on the distribution of monetary resources in students aged 18 to 25 years from Córdoba (Argentina). Three experiments using mixed factorial designs were conducted. Different ways of inducing SS and the effect on decisions in different games were examined. In Experiment 1, the effect of two SS induction techniques on the decisions of the Ultimatum Game (UG) and Dictator Game (DG) was compared. In Experiment 2, the effect of SS on the same games, including Social Value Orientation (SVO) and Subjective Social Status (SSS) as covariates was analyzed. In Experiment 3, the role of SS, SVO and SSS in the DG and the Dictator Game Taking (DGT) was examined. In the three experiments, it was not found that SS had any effect on the decisions of the games. However, more rejection and negative valence was observed (Exp. 1: p < .001, n 2 p =.72; Exp. 2: p < .001, n 2 p = .65) for unfair offers than for fair ones (Exp. 2: p < .001). Also, pro-social individuals made fairer offers in the DG (Exp. 2: p < .05) and participants offered more money in the DGT than in the DG (Exp. 3: p = .01). Those findings showed that the effect of SS on behavioral responses is not robust, which highlights the need to obtain new experimental evidence to investigate its role in those decisions. |
| publishDate |
2019 |
| dc.date.accessioned.spa.fl_str_mv |
2019-08-29T16:23:39Z |
| dc.date.available.spa.fl_str_mv |
2019-08-29T16:23:39Z |
| dc.date.issued.spa.fl_str_mv |
2019-12 |
| dc.type.spa.fl_str_mv |
Artículo de revista |
| dc.type.coar.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1 |
| dc.type.coarversion.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85 |
| dc.type.coar.spa.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 |
| dc.type.content.spa.fl_str_mv |
Text |
| dc.type.driver.spa.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
| dc.type.redcol.spa.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ART |
| dc.type.version.spa.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
| format |
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 |
| status_str |
publishedVersion |
| dc.identifier.citation.spa.fl_str_mv |
Mola, D., Godoy, J., & Reyna, C. (2019). Does Social Hierarchy Matter for Resource Distribution?. Acta Colombiana de Psicología, 22(2), 70-83. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.14718/ACP.2019.22.2.5 |
| dc.identifier.issn.spa.fl_str_mv |
0123-9155 |
| dc.identifier.uri.spa.fl_str_mv |
https://hdl.handle.net/10983/23632 |
| identifier_str_mv |
Mola, D., Godoy, J., & Reyna, C. (2019). Does Social Hierarchy Matter for Resource Distribution?. Acta Colombiana de Psicología, 22(2), 70-83. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.14718/ACP.2019.22.2.5 0123-9155 |
| url |
https://hdl.handle.net/10983/23632 |
| dc.language.iso.spa.fl_str_mv |
spa |
| language |
spa |
| dc.relation.ispartof.spa.fl_str_mv |
Acta Colombiana de Psicología, Vol. 22 no. 2 (jul.-dic. 2019); p. 70-98 |
| dc.relation.references.spa.fl_str_mv |
Adler, N.E., Epel, E., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physical health: Preliminary data in healthy white women. Health Psychology, 19, 586-592. doi:10.1037//0278-6133.19.6.586. Albrecht, K., von Essen, E., Fliessbach, K., & Falk, A. (2013). The influence of status on satisfaction with relative rewards. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(804), 1-9. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00804. American Psychological Association (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists. Ball, S. B. & Eckel, C. (1996). Buying status: Experimental evidence on status in negotiation. Psychology and Marketing, 13(4), 381-405. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199607)13:4<379:AID-MAR4>3.0.CO;2-7. Ball, S. B., Eckel, C., Grossman, P. J., & Zame, W. (2001). Status in markets. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 161-188. doi:10.1162/003355301556374. Blue, P. R., Hu, J., Wang, X., van Dijk, E., & Zhou, X. (2016). When do low status individuals accept less? The interaction between self and other-status during resource distribution. Frontiers in Psychology , 7(1667), 1-7. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01667. Boksem, M. A. S., Kostermans, E., Milivojevice, B., & De Cremer, D. (2012). Social status determines how we monitor and evaluate our performance. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7, 304-313. doi:10.1093/scan/nsr010. Bolton, G. E., Katok, E., & Zwick, R. (1998). Dictator game giving: rules of fairness versus acts of kindness. International Journal of Game Theory, 27, 269-299. doi: 10.1007/s001820050072. Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavioral Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25, 49-59. doi:10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9. Bshary, R., Gingins, S., & Vail, A.L. (2014). Social cognition in fishes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 465-471. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2014.04.005. Camerer, C. F. (2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. New York: Princeton University Press. Chiao, J. Y., Harada, T., Oby, R., Li, Z., Parrish, T., & Bridge, D. J. (2009). Neural representations of social status hierarchy in human inferior parietal cortex. Neuropsychologia, 47, 354-363. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.09.023. Civai, C., Corradi-Dell'Acqua, C., Gamer, M., & Rumiati, R. I. (2010). Are irrational reactions to unfairness truly emotionally-driven? Dissociated behavioural and emotional responses in the Ultimatum Game task. Cognition, 114, 89-95. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.09.001 De la Torre, A., Messina, J., & Silva, J. (2017). The inequality story in Latin America and the Caribbean: Searching for an explanation. In: Bértola L., Williamson J. (eds.) Has Latin American inequality changed direction? (pp. 317-338). Springer, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44621-9_13. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics , 114(3), 817-868. doi: 10.1162/003355399556151. Grygolec, J., Coricelli, G., & Rustichini, A. (2009). Neuroeconomics of 3-person ultimatum game with voting: The case of responders (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Faculty of Graduate School of University of Minnesota, USA Güth, W, Schmittberger, R., & Schwarz, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3, 367-388. doi: 10.1016/0167-2681(82)90011-7. Haesevoets, T., Folmer, C. R., & Van Hiel, A. (2015). Cooperation in mixed-motive games: The role of individual differences in selfish and social orientation. European Journal of Personality, 29(4), 445-458. doi:10.1002/per.1992. Haveman, R., & Smeeding, T. M. (2006). The role of higher education in social mobility. Future of Children, 16(2), 125-50. doi:10.1353/foc.2006.0015. Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 165-196. doi:10.1016/S10905138(00)00071-4. Hu, J., Blue, P. R., Yu, H., Gong, X., Xiang, Y., Jiang, C., & Zhou, X. (2016). Social status modulates the neural response to unfairness. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience , 1(1), 1-10. doi:10.1093/scan/nsv086. Hu, J., Cao, Y., Blue, P. R., & Zhou, X. (2014). Low social status decreases the neural salience of unfairness. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 8(402), 1-12. doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00402. Karafin, M. S., Tranel, D., & Adolphs, R. (2004). Dominance attributions following damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1796-1804. doi:10.1162/0898929042947856. Koski, J. E., Xie, H., & Olson, I. R. (2015) Understanding social hierarchies: The neural and psychological foundations of status perception, Social Neuroscience, 10(5), 527-550. doi:10.1080/17470919.2015.1013223. Kraus, M. W., Park, J. W., & Tan, J. J. X. (2017). Signs of social class: The experience of economic inequality in everyday life. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(3), 422-435. doi:10.1177/1745691616673192. Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., & Keltner, D. (2009). Social class, sense of control, and social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 992-1004. doi:10.1037/a0016357. Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149-188. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2804. Levitt, S. D., & List, J. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 153-174. doi:10.1257/jep.21.2.153. List, J. A. (2007). On the interpretation of giving in dictator games. Journal of Political Economy, 115(3), 482-493. doi:10.1086/519249. Mola, D. J., Godoy, J. C., & Reyna, C. (2018). Revisión de técnicas para operacionalizar el estatus social en estudios experimentales en ciencias del comportamiento y en neurociencias. Quaderns de Psicología, 20(2), 189-206. doi: 10.5565/rev/qpsicologia.1414. Murphy, R. O., Ackermann, K. A., & Handgraaf, M. J. J. (2011). Measuring social value orientation. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(8), 771-781. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1804189. Peirce, J. W. (2007). PsychoPy - Psychophysics software in Python. Journal Neuroscience Methods, 162(1-2), 8-13. doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017. Piff, P. K., Kraus, M. W., Côté, S., Cheng, B. H., & Keltner, D. (2010). Having less, giving more: The influence of social class on prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 99, 771-784 doi:10.1037/a0020092. Polezzi, A., Daumb, I., Rubaltelli, E., Lottoa, L., Civai, C. Sartori, G., & Rumiati, R. (2008). Mentalizing in economic decision-making. Behavioural Brain Research, 190, 218-223. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2008.03.003. Reyna, C., Belaus, A., Mola, D., Ortiz, M. V., & Acosta, C. (2018). Social Values Orientation Measure Scale: Evidences of validity and reliability among Argentine undergraduate students. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 25(3), 395-408. doi:10.4473/TPM25.3.5. Sapolsky, R. M. (2004). Social status and health in humans and other animals. Annual Review of Anthropology, 33, 393-418. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.144000. Starmans, C., Sheskin, M., & Bloom, P. (2017). Why people prefer unequal societies. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(0082), 1-7. doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0082. Suvoy, R. (2003). The effects of give and take framing in a dictator game (Honors Theses). University of Oregon, USA. Tricomi, E., Rangel, A., Camerer, C. F., & O'Doherty, J. P. (2010). Neural evidence for inequality-averse social preferences. Nature, 463(25), 1089-1092. doi:10.1038/nature08785- Van Lange, P. A. M., Joireman, J., Parks, C. D., & Van Dijk, E. (2013). The psychology of social dilemmas: A review. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 120, 125-141. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.11.003. Watkins, K. (2013, March). Inequality as a barrier to human development. Paper presented at Kapuscinski Development Lectures, Stockholm School of Economics, Sweden. Available at: http://kapuscinskilectures.eu/lectures/inequality-as-barrier-to-human-development/. Wechsler, D. (2002). WAISIII. Escala de Inteligencia Wechsler para Adultos. Madrid: TEA. Xiang, T., Lohrenz, T., & Montague, P. R. (2013). Computational substrates of norms and their violations during social exchange. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33(3), 1099-1108. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1642-12.2013. Yamagishi, T., Mifune, N., Li, Y., Shinada, M., Hashimoto, H., Horita, Y., Miura, A., Inukai, K., Tanida, S., Kiyonari, T., Takagishi, H., & Simunovic, D. (2013). Is behavioral pro-sociality game-specific? Pro-social preference and expectations of pro-sociality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 120(2), 260-271. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.06.002. Zink, C. F., Tong, Y., Chen, Q., Bassett, D. S., Stein, J.L., & Meyer-Lindenberg, A. (2008). Know your place: Neural processing of social hierarchy in humans. Neuron, 58(2), 273-283. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2008.01.0 |
| dc.rights.spa.fl_str_mv |
Derechos Reservados - Universidad Católica de Colombia, 2019 |
| dc.rights.coar.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 |
| dc.rights.accessrights.spa.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| dc.rights.creativecommons.spa.fl_str_mv |
Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) |
| dc.rights.uri.spa.fl_str_mv |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ |
| rights_invalid_str_mv |
Derechos Reservados - Universidad Católica de Colombia, 2019 Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 |
| eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
| dc.format.mimetype.spa.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
| dc.publisher.spa.fl_str_mv |
Universidad Católica de Colombia. Facultad de Psicología |
| institution |
Universidad Católica de Colombia |
| bitstream.url.fl_str_mv |
https://repository.ucatolica.edu.co/bitstreams/d4f9d243-a6c2-42d2-97ba-8940a09de44b/download https://repository.ucatolica.edu.co/bitstreams/2191e8f1-33db-4260-9764-ff138fe503ef/download https://repository.ucatolica.edu.co/bitstreams/4fff6d0e-b027-4346-828e-abbdedbf8677/download https://repository.ucatolica.edu.co/bitstreams/8805b331-dccb-4878-a2c1-6175fbaaccd1/download https://repository.ucatolica.edu.co/bitstreams/f48e3a76-65f6-43f4-b52a-f2119e840178/download https://repository.ucatolica.edu.co/bitstreams/f18b6996-287c-48a9-bbbd-37dc704e1074/download |
| bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv |
f429be4f2bf9dc2c84d5c53bcafda82f cbac7624fa2682e6b1e14b55720712d4 cd91c927667a2423168153bcf28e3543 eae136c0778f55ffbff91c8fbbc62893 1ec37846aeb32cea653325e6aab274e2 b1553f100c4c5a417d4105d138bf9479 |
| bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv |
MD5 MD5 MD5 MD5 MD5 MD5 |
| repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositorio Institucional Universidad Católica de Colombia - RIUCaC |
| repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
bdigital@metabiblioteca.com |
| _version_ |
1814256391220625408 |
| spelling |
Mola, Débora Jeanette449bdd32-99b2-4c49-806b-cc00cbc492fd-1Godoy, Juan Carlos978a055c-0e03-482b-9f14-815fc9369966-1Reyna, Cecilia9e9cac4c-0ff2-494d-999f-df0261481984-12019-08-29T16:23:39Z2019-08-29T16:23:39Z2019-12Resources are distributed unequally depending on the social status (SS) of people. Researchers have often used experiments to explain the role of SS in economic decisions. However, the diverse ways of inducing SS has produced contradictory results. The aim of this study was to analyze the effect of SS on the distribution of monetary resources in students aged 18 to 25 years from Córdoba (Argentina). Three experiments using mixed factorial designs were conducted. Different ways of inducing SS and the effect on decisions in different games were examined. In Experiment 1, the effect of two SS induction techniques on the decisions of the Ultimatum Game (UG) and Dictator Game (DG) was compared. In Experiment 2, the effect of SS on the same games, including Social Value Orientation (SVO) and Subjective Social Status (SSS) as covariates was analyzed. In Experiment 3, the role of SS, SVO and SSS in the DG and the Dictator Game Taking (DGT) was examined. In the three experiments, it was not found that SS had any effect on the decisions of the games. However, more rejection and negative valence was observed (Exp. 1: p < .001, n 2 p =.72; Exp. 2: p < .001, n 2 p = .65) for unfair offers than for fair ones (Exp. 2: p < .001). Also, pro-social individuals made fairer offers in the DG (Exp. 2: p < .05) and participants offered more money in the DGT than in the DG (Exp. 3: p = .01). Those findings showed that the effect of SS on behavioral responses is not robust, which highlights the need to obtain new experimental evidence to investigate its role in those decisions.Los recursos son usualmente distribuidos de manera inequitativa en función del estatus social (ES) de las personas, razón por la cual diversos investigadores utilizan experimentos para explicar el rol del ES en las decisiones económicas; sin embargo, las diversas formas de inducir el ES han generado resultados contradictorios. En el presente trabajo se investigó el efecto del ES en la distribución de los recursos monetarios en estudiantes de 18 a 25 años de la ciudad de Córdoba, Argentina, por medio de tres experimentos con diseños experimentales mixtos. Específicamente, se evaluaron distintas técnicas para manipular el ES y su efecto en las decisiones económicas: en el Experimento 1 se comparó el efecto de dos técnicas de manipulación del ES en las decisiones del Juego del Ultimátum (JU) y del Dictador (JD); en el Experimento 2 se analizó el efecto del ES en los mismos juegos, incluyendo la orientación de valores sociales (SVO) y el estatus social subjetivo (SES) como covariables; y en el Experimento 3 se indagó el rol del ES, de la SVO y del ESS en el JD y en el Dictador de Tomar (JDT). En los tres experimentos se observó que el ES no tuvo efecto en las decisiones de los juegos. No obstante, se evidenció mayor rechazo (Exp. 1: p < .001, n 2 p = .72; Exp. 2: p < .001, n 2 p = .65) y valencia negativa para las ofertas injustas que para las justas (Exp. 2: p < .001). Además, se encontró que a mayor prosocialidad, mayor cantidad ofertada en el JD (Exp. 2: p < .05), y que en el JDT se ofrece más dinero que en el JD (Exp. 3: p = .01). Los resultados observados evidencian que el efecto del ES en las respuestas comportamentales no es robusto, por lo que se destaca la importancia de continuar investigando su rol en dichas decisiones.Os recursos são normalmente distribuídos de maneira desigual em função do status social (SS) das pessoas, razão pela qual diversos pesquisadores utilizam experimentos para explicar o papel do SS nas decisões econômicas. No entanto, as diversas formas de induzir o SS geraram resultados contraditórios. No presente trabalho, investigou-se o efeito do SS na distribuição dos recursos monetários em estudantes de 18 a 25 anos da cidade de Córdoba, na Argentina, por meio de três experimentos com desenhos experimentais mistos. Especificamente, foram avaliadas diferentes técnicas para manipular o SS e seu efeito nas decisões econômicas: no Experimento 1 comparou-se o efeito de duas técnicas de manipulação do SS nas decisões do Jogo do Ultimato (JU) e do Ditador (JD); no Experimento 2 analisou-se o efeito do SS nos mesmos jogos, incluindo a orientação de valores sociais (SVO) e o status social subjetivo (SES) como covariáveis e, no Experimento 3, indagou-se o papel do SS, da SVO e do SES no JD e no Ditador de Tomar (do inglês, Dictator Taking Game). Nos três experimentos observou-se que o SS não teve efeito nas decisões dos jogos. Não obstante, evidenciou-se maior rejeição (Exp. 1: p < .001, n 2 p = .72; Exp. 2: p < .001, n 2 p = .65) e valência negativa para as ofertas injustas do que para as justas (Exp. 2: p < .001). Além disso, descobriu-se que quanto maior a pró-socialidade, maior a quantidade ofertada no JD (Exp. 2: p < .05) e que no JDT se oferece mais dinheiro do que no JD (Exp. 3: p = .01). Os resultados observados evidenciam que o efeito do SS nas respostas comportamentais não é robusto, por isso se destaca a importância de continuar investigando seu papel em tais decisões.application/pdfMola, D., Godoy, J., & Reyna, C. (2019). Does Social Hierarchy Matter for Resource Distribution?. Acta Colombiana de Psicología, 22(2), 70-83. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.14718/ACP.2019.22.2.50123-9155https://hdl.handle.net/10983/23632spaUniversidad Católica de Colombia. Facultad de PsicologíaActa Colombiana de Psicología, Vol. 22 no. 2 (jul.-dic. 2019); p. 70-98Adler, N.E., Epel, E., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physical health: Preliminary data in healthy white women. Health Psychology, 19, 586-592. doi:10.1037//0278-6133.19.6.586.Albrecht, K., von Essen, E., Fliessbach, K., & Falk, A. (2013). The influence of status on satisfaction with relative rewards. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(804), 1-9. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00804.American Psychological Association (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists.Ball, S. B. & Eckel, C. (1996). Buying status: Experimental evidence on status in negotiation. Psychology and Marketing, 13(4), 381-405. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199607)13:4<379:AID-MAR4>3.0.CO;2-7.Ball, S. B., Eckel, C., Grossman, P. J., & Zame, W. (2001). Status in markets. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 161-188. doi:10.1162/003355301556374.Blue, P. R., Hu, J., Wang, X., van Dijk, E., & Zhou, X. (2016). When do low status individuals accept less? The interaction between self and other-status during resource distribution. Frontiers in Psychology , 7(1667), 1-7. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01667.Boksem, M. A. S., Kostermans, E., Milivojevice, B., & De Cremer, D. (2012). Social status determines how we monitor and evaluate our performance. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7, 304-313. doi:10.1093/scan/nsr010.Bolton, G. E., Katok, E., & Zwick, R. (1998). Dictator game giving: rules of fairness versus acts of kindness. International Journal of Game Theory, 27, 269-299. doi: 10.1007/s001820050072.Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavioral Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25, 49-59. doi:10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9.Bshary, R., Gingins, S., & Vail, A.L. (2014). Social cognition in fishes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 465-471. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2014.04.005.Camerer, C. F. (2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. New York: Princeton University Press.Chiao, J. Y., Harada, T., Oby, R., Li, Z., Parrish, T., & Bridge, D. J. (2009). Neural representations of social status hierarchy in human inferior parietal cortex. Neuropsychologia, 47, 354-363. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.09.023.Civai, C., Corradi-Dell'Acqua, C., Gamer, M., & Rumiati, R. I. (2010). Are irrational reactions to unfairness truly emotionally-driven? Dissociated behavioural and emotional responses in the Ultimatum Game task. Cognition, 114, 89-95. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.09.001De la Torre, A., Messina, J., & Silva, J. (2017). The inequality story in Latin America and the Caribbean: Searching for an explanation. In: Bértola L., Williamson J. (eds.) Has Latin American inequality changed direction? (pp. 317-338). Springer, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44621-9_13.Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics , 114(3), 817-868. doi: 10.1162/003355399556151.Grygolec, J., Coricelli, G., & Rustichini, A. (2009). Neuroeconomics of 3-person ultimatum game with voting: The case of responders (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Faculty of Graduate School of University of Minnesota, USAGüth, W, Schmittberger, R., & Schwarz, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3, 367-388. doi: 10.1016/0167-2681(82)90011-7.Haesevoets, T., Folmer, C. R., & Van Hiel, A. (2015). Cooperation in mixed-motive games: The role of individual differences in selfish and social orientation. European Journal of Personality, 29(4), 445-458. doi:10.1002/per.1992.Haveman, R., & Smeeding, T. M. (2006). The role of higher education in social mobility. Future of Children, 16(2), 125-50. doi:10.1353/foc.2006.0015.Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 165-196. doi:10.1016/S10905138(00)00071-4.Hu, J., Blue, P. R., Yu, H., Gong, X., Xiang, Y., Jiang, C., & Zhou, X. (2016). Social status modulates the neural response to unfairness. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience , 1(1), 1-10. doi:10.1093/scan/nsv086.Hu, J., Cao, Y., Blue, P. R., & Zhou, X. (2014). Low social status decreases the neural salience of unfairness. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 8(402), 1-12. doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00402.Karafin, M. S., Tranel, D., & Adolphs, R. (2004). Dominance attributions following damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1796-1804. doi:10.1162/0898929042947856.Koski, J. E., Xie, H., & Olson, I. R. (2015) Understanding social hierarchies: The neural and psychological foundations of status perception, Social Neuroscience, 10(5), 527-550. doi:10.1080/17470919.2015.1013223.Kraus, M. W., Park, J. W., & Tan, J. J. X. (2017). Signs of social class: The experience of economic inequality in everyday life. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(3), 422-435. doi:10.1177/1745691616673192.Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., & Keltner, D. (2009). Social class, sense of control, and social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 992-1004. doi:10.1037/a0016357.Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149-188. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2804.Levitt, S. D., & List, J. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 153-174. doi:10.1257/jep.21.2.153.List, J. A. (2007). On the interpretation of giving in dictator games. Journal of Political Economy, 115(3), 482-493. doi:10.1086/519249.Mola, D. J., Godoy, J. C., & Reyna, C. (2018). Revisión de técnicas para operacionalizar el estatus social en estudios experimentales en ciencias del comportamiento y en neurociencias. Quaderns de Psicología, 20(2), 189-206. doi: 10.5565/rev/qpsicologia.1414.Murphy, R. O., Ackermann, K. A., & Handgraaf, M. J. J. (2011). Measuring social value orientation. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(8), 771-781. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1804189.Peirce, J. W. (2007). PsychoPy - Psychophysics software in Python. Journal Neuroscience Methods, 162(1-2), 8-13. doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017.Piff, P. K., Kraus, M. W., Côté, S., Cheng, B. H., & Keltner, D. (2010). Having less, giving more: The influence of social class on prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 99, 771-784 doi:10.1037/a0020092.Polezzi, A., Daumb, I., Rubaltelli, E., Lottoa, L., Civai, C. Sartori, G., & Rumiati, R. (2008). Mentalizing in economic decision-making. Behavioural Brain Research, 190, 218-223. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2008.03.003.Reyna, C., Belaus, A., Mola, D., Ortiz, M. V., & Acosta, C. (2018). Social Values Orientation Measure Scale: Evidences of validity and reliability among Argentine undergraduate students. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 25(3), 395-408. doi:10.4473/TPM25.3.5.Sapolsky, R. M. (2004). Social status and health in humans and other animals. Annual Review of Anthropology, 33, 393-418. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.144000.Starmans, C., Sheskin, M., & Bloom, P. (2017). Why people prefer unequal societies. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(0082), 1-7. doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0082.Suvoy, R. (2003). The effects of give and take framing in a dictator game (Honors Theses). University of Oregon, USA.Tricomi, E., Rangel, A., Camerer, C. F., & O'Doherty, J. P. (2010). Neural evidence for inequality-averse social preferences. Nature, 463(25), 1089-1092. doi:10.1038/nature08785-Van Lange, P. A. M., Joireman, J., Parks, C. D., & Van Dijk, E. (2013). The psychology of social dilemmas: A review. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 120, 125-141. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.11.003.Watkins, K. (2013, March). Inequality as a barrier to human development. Paper presented at Kapuscinski Development Lectures, Stockholm School of Economics, Sweden. Available at: http://kapuscinskilectures.eu/lectures/inequality-as-barrier-to-human-development/.Wechsler, D. (2002). WAISIII. Escala de Inteligencia Wechsler para Adultos. Madrid: TEA.Xiang, T., Lohrenz, T., & Montague, P. R. (2013). Computational substrates of norms and their violations during social exchange. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33(3), 1099-1108. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1642-12.2013.Yamagishi, T., Mifune, N., Li, Y., Shinada, M., Hashimoto, H., Horita, Y., Miura, A., Inukai, K., Tanida, S., Kiyonari, T., Takagishi, H., & Simunovic, D. (2013). Is behavioral pro-sociality game-specific? Pro-social preference and expectations of pro-sociality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 120(2), 260-271. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.06.002.Zink, C. F., Tong, Y., Chen, Q., Bassett, D. S., Stein, J.L., & Meyer-Lindenberg, A. (2008). Know your place: Neural processing of social hierarchy in humans. Neuron, 58(2), 273-283. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2008.01.0Derechos Reservados - Universidad Católica de Colombia, 2019info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessAtribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2JERARQUÍA SOCIALESTATUS SOCIALJUEGOS ECONÓMICOSEFECTO DE MARCOORIENTACIÓN DE VALORES SOCIALESESTATUS SOCIAL SUBJETIVOSOCIAL HIERARCHYSOCIAL STATUSECONOMIC GAMESFRAMING EFFECTSOCIAL VALUE ORIENTATIONSUBJECTIVE SOCIAL STATUSIERARQUIA SOCIALSTATUS SOCIALJOGOS ECONÔMICOSEFEITO DE ENQUADRAMENTOORIENTAÇÃO DE VALORES SOCIAISSTATUS SOCIAL SUBJETIVO¿La jerarquía social es importante para la distribución de los recursos?Does social status matter for resource distribution?A hierarquia social é importante para a distribuição dos recursos?Artículo de revistahttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1Textinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85PublicationORIGINAL1977-17140-1-PB.pdf1977-17140-1-PB.pdfArticulo principalapplication/pdf858069https://repository.ucatolica.edu.co/bitstreams/d4f9d243-a6c2-42d2-97ba-8940a09de44b/downloadf429be4f2bf9dc2c84d5c53bcafda82fMD511977-17139-1-PB.pdf1977-17139-1-PB.pdfArticulo principalapplication/pdf865945https://repository.ucatolica.edu.co/bitstreams/2191e8f1-33db-4260-9764-ff138fe503ef/downloadcbac7624fa2682e6b1e14b55720712d4MD52TEXT1977-17140-1-PB.pdf.txt1977-17140-1-PB.pdf.txtExtracted texttext/plain69050https://repository.ucatolica.edu.co/bitstreams/4fff6d0e-b027-4346-828e-abbdedbf8677/downloadcd91c927667a2423168153bcf28e3543MD531977-17139-1-PB.pdf.txt1977-17139-1-PB.pdf.txtExtracted texttext/plain62186https://repository.ucatolica.edu.co/bitstreams/8805b331-dccb-4878-a2c1-6175fbaaccd1/downloadeae136c0778f55ffbff91c8fbbc62893MD55THUMBNAIL1977-17140-1-PB.pdf.jpg1977-17140-1-PB.pdf.jpgRIUCACimage/jpeg26268https://repository.ucatolica.edu.co/bitstreams/f48e3a76-65f6-43f4-b52a-f2119e840178/download1ec37846aeb32cea653325e6aab274e2MD541977-17139-1-PB.pdf.jpg1977-17139-1-PB.pdf.jpgRIUCACimage/jpeg26268https://repository.ucatolica.edu.co/bitstreams/f18b6996-287c-48a9-bbbd-37dc704e1074/downloadb1553f100c4c5a417d4105d138bf9479MD5610983/23632oai:repository.ucatolica.edu.co:10983/236322023-03-24 17:42:20.519https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Derechos Reservados - Universidad Católica de Colombia, 2019https://repository.ucatolica.edu.coRepositorio Institucional Universidad Católica de Colombia - RIUCaCbdigital@metabiblioteca.com |