¿La jerarquía social es importante para la distribución de los recursos?

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...

Full description

Autores:: Mola, Débora Jeanette
Godoy, Juan Carlos
Reyna, Cecilia

Tipo de recurso:: Article of investigation

Fecha de publicación:: 2019

Institución:: Universidad Católica de Colombia

Repositorio:: RIUCaC - Repositorio U. Católica

Idioma:: spa

id	UCATOLICA2_789d5b952d00b876e5820c76cfd53a84
oai_identifier_str	oai:repository.ucatolica.edu.co:10983/28443
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?
title	¿La jerarquía social es importante para la distribución de los recursos?
spellingShingle	¿La jerarquía social es importante para la distribución de los recursos? Social hierarchy Social status Economic games Framing effect Social value orientation Subjective social status Jerarquía social Estatus social Juegos económicos Efecto de marco Orientación de valores sociales Estatus social subjetivo Hierarquia 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.eng.fl_str_mv	Social hierarchy Social status Economic games Framing effect Social value orientation Subjective social status
topic	Social hierarchy Social status Economic games Framing effect Social value orientation Subjective social status Jerarquía social Estatus social Juegos económicos Efecto de marco Orientación de valores sociales Estatus social subjetivo Hierarquia social Status social Jogos econômicos Efeito de enquadramento Orientação de valores sociais Status social subjetivo
dc.subject.spa.fl_str_mv	Jerarquía social Estatus social Juegos económicos Efecto de marco Orientación de valores sociales Estatus social subjetivo Hierarquia social Status social Jogos econômicos Efeito de enquadramento Orientação de valores sociais Status social subjetivo
description	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, n2 p = .72; Exp. 2: p < .001, n2 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.
publishDate	2019
dc.date.accessioned.none.fl_str_mv	2019-07-07 23:04:34 2023-01-23T15:43:00Z
dc.date.available.none.fl_str_mv	2019-07-07 23:04:34 2023-01-23T15:43:00Z
dc.date.issued.none.fl_str_mv	2019-07-07
dc.type.spa.fl_str_mv	Artículo de revista
dc.type.coar.spa.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
dc.type.coarversion.spa.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
dc.type.content.spa.fl_str_mv	Text
dc.type.driver.spa.fl_str_mv	info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.local.eng.fl_str_mv	Journal 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_2df8fbb1
status_str	publishedVersion
dc.identifier.doi.none.fl_str_mv	10.14718/ACP.2019.22.2.5
dc.identifier.eissn.none.fl_str_mv	1909-9711
dc.identifier.issn.none.fl_str_mv	0123-9155
dc.identifier.uri.none.fl_str_mv	https://hdl.handle.net/10983/28443
dc.identifier.url.none.fl_str_mv	https://doi.org/10.14718/ACP.2019.22.2.5
identifier_str_mv	10.14718/ACP.2019.22.2.5 1909-9711 0123-9155
url	https://hdl.handle.net/10983/28443 https://doi.org/10.14718/ACP.2019.22.2.5
dc.language.iso.spa.fl_str_mv	spa
language	spa
dc.relation.bitstream.none.fl_str_mv	https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/1977/2570 https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/1977/2653 https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/1977/2571 https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/1977/2652 https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/1977/2691 https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/1977/2861
dc.relation.citationedition.spa.fl_str_mv	Núm. 2 , Año 2019 : ACTA COLOMBIANA DE PSICOLOGÏA
dc.relation.citationendpage.none.fl_str_mv	98
dc.relation.citationissue.spa.fl_str_mv	2
dc.relation.citationstartpage.none.fl_str_mv	70
dc.relation.citationvolume.spa.fl_str_mv	22
dc.relation.ispartofjournal.spa.fl_str_mv	Acta Colombiana de Psicología
dc.relation.references.spa.fl_str_mv	Adler, N.E., Epel, E., Castellazzo, G. and 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. Washington, DC: Author. 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., and 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. 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 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)00 071-4 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 Soci 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. (2017). Revisión de técnicas para operacionalizar el estatus social en estudios experimentales. Manuscript submitted to publication. Morgan, J., & Kelly, N. J. (2017). Social patterns of inequality, partisan competition, and Latin American support for redistribution. The Journal of Politics, 79(1), 193-209. DOI:10.1086/687412 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. (2017). Social Values Orientation Measure Scale: Evidences of validity and reliability among Argentine undergraduate students. Manuscript accepted to publication. 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). WAIS III. 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.2008.01.025
dc.rights.spa.fl_str_mv	Débora Jeanette Mola - 2019
dc.rights.accessrights.spa.fl_str_mv	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.coar.spa.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dc.rights.uri.spa.fl_str_mv	https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
rights_invalid_str_mv	Débora Jeanette Mola - 2019 http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
eu_rights_str_mv	openAccess
dc.format.mimetype.spa.fl_str_mv	application/pdf text/html application/pdf text/html application/xml application/pdf
dc.publisher.spa.fl_str_mv	Universidad Católica de Colombia
dc.source.spa.fl_str_mv	https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/view/1977
institution	Universidad Católica de Colombia
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv	https://repository.ucatolica.edu.co/bitstreams/f6088c9b-cbe0-417e-94cc-8d415320b0ff/download
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv	0a17ed0d0f527f6d1bb5e40f96830fda
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv	MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv	Repositorio Institucional Universidad Católica de Colombia - RIUCaC
repository.mail.fl_str_mv	bdigital@metabiblioteca.com
_version_	1812183416124211200
spelling	Mola, Débora Jeanette449bdd32-99b2-4c49-806b-cc00cbc492fd300Godoy, Juan Carlos978a055c-0e03-482b-9f14-815fc9369966300Reyna, Cecilia9e9cac4c-0ff2-494d-999f-df02614819843002019-07-07 23:04:342023-01-23T15:43:00Z2019-07-07 23:04:342023-01-23T15:43:00Z2019-07-07Los 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, n2 p = .72; Exp. 2: p < .001, n2 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.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, n2 p =.72; Exp. 2: p < .001, n2 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.application/pdftext/htmlapplication/pdftext/htmlapplication/xmlapplication/pdf10.14718/ACP.2019.22.2.51909-97110123-9155https://hdl.handle.net/10983/28443https://doi.org/10.14718/ACP.2019.22.2.5spaUniversidad Católica de Colombiahttps://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/1977/2570https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/1977/2653https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/1977/2571https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/1977/2652https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/1977/2691https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/1977/2861Núm. 2 , Año 2019 : ACTA COLOMBIANA DE PSICOLOGÏA9827022Acta Colombiana de PsicologíaAdler, N.E., Epel, E., Castellazzo, G. and 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//0278-6133.19.6.586Albrecht, 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.2013.00804American Psychological Association (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists. Washington, DC: Author.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;2-7Ball, S. B., Eckel, C., Grossman, P. J., & Zame, W. (2001). Status in markets. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 161-188. DOI: 10.1162/003355301556374Blue, 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.2016.01667Boksem, 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/nsr010Bolton, 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/s001820050072Bradley, 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)90063-9Bshary, R., Gingins, S., and Vail, A.L. (2014). Social cognition in fishes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 465-471. DOI:10.1016/j.tics.2014.04.005Camerer, C. F. (2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. New York: Princeton University Press. 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_13Chiao, 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.2008.09.023Civai, 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_13Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817- 868. doi: 10.1162/003355399556151Grygolec, 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)90011-7Haesevoets, 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.1992Haveman, R., & Smeeding, T. M. (2006). The role of higher education in social mobility. Future of Children, 16(2), 125-50. DOI:10.1353/foc.2006.0015Henrich, 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)00 071-4Hu, 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/nsv086Hu, 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.2014.00402Karafin, M. S., Tranel, D., & Adolphs, R. (2004). Dominance attributions following damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1796-1804. DOI:10.1162/0898929042947856Koski, 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:10.1080/17470919.2015.1013223Kraus, 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:10.1177/1745691616673192Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., & Keltner, D. (2009). Social class, sense of control, and social explanation. Journal of Personality and SociLevin, 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.1998.2804Levitt, 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.21.2.153List, J. A. (2007). On the interpretation of giving in dictator games. Journal of Political Economy, 115(3), 482-493. DOI:10.1086/519249Mola, D. J., Godoy, J. C., & Reyna, C. (2017). Revisión de técnicas para operacionalizar el estatus social en estudios experimentales. Manuscript submitted to publication.Morgan, J., & Kelly, N. J. (2017). Social patterns of inequality, partisan competition, and Latin American support for redistribution. The Journal of Politics, 79(1), 193-209. DOI:10.1086/687412Murphy, 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.1804189Peirce, J. W. (2007). PsychoPy - Psychophysics software in Python. Journal Neuroscience Methods, 162(1-2), 8-13. DOI:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017Piff, 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/a0020092Polezzi, 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.2008.03.003Reyna, C., Belaus, A., Mola, D., Ortiz, M. V., & Acosta, C. (2017). Social Values Orientation Measure Scale: Evidences of validity and reliability among Argentine undergraduate students. Manuscript accepted to publication.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.33.070203.144000Starmans, 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/nature08785Van 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.2012.11.003Watkins, 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). WAIS III. 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.1642-12.2013Yamagishi, 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.2012.06.002Zink, 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.2008.01.025Débora Jeanette Mola - 2019info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/view/1977Social hierarchySocial statusEconomic gamesFraming effectSocial value orientationSubjective social statusJerarquía socialEstatus socialJuegos económicosEfecto de marcoOrientación de valores socialesEstatus social subjetivoHierarquia 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?Artículo de revistahttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85Textinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleJournal articlehttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionPublicationOREORE.xmltext/xml3812https://repository.ucatolica.edu.co/bitstreams/f6088c9b-cbe0-417e-94cc-8d415320b0ff/download0a17ed0d0f527f6d1bb5e40f96830fdaMD5110983/28443oai:repository.ucatolica.edu.co:10983/284432023-03-24 17:26:19.742https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/Débora Jeanette Mola - 2019https://repository.ucatolica.edu.coRepositorio Institucional Universidad Católica de Colombia - RIUCaCbdigital@metabiblioteca.com

¿La jerarquía social es importante para la distribución de los recursos?

Publicaciones similares