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

¿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 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... Ver más

Guardado en:

Acta Colombiana de Psicología

0123-9155

1909-9711

Reyna, Cecilia

Godoy, Juan Carlos

Mola, Débora Jeanette

UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE COLOMBIA

10.14718/ACP.2019.22.2.5

22

2019-07-07

70

98

Colombia

Estatus social subjetivo

Orientação de valores sociais

Efeito de enquadramento

Jogos econômicos

Status social

Hierarquia social

Orientación de valores sociales

Efecto de marco

Juegos económicos

Estatus social

Jerarquía social

Status social subjetivo

http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2

info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess

Débora Jeanette Mola - 2019

id 6f16bee49f31b0324acbaeedf569158b
record_format ojs
spelling ¿La jerarquía social es importante para la distribución de los recursos?
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
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
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
Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., & Keltner, D. (2009). Social class, sense of control, and social explanation. Journal of Personality and Soci
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Mola, D. J., Godoy, J. C., & Reyna, C. (2017). Revisión de técnicas para operacionalizar el estatus social en estudios experimentales. Manuscript submitted to publication.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
List, J. A. (2007). On the interpretation of giving in dictator games. Journal of Political Economy, 115(3), 482-493. DOI:10.1086/519249
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
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
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
Text
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ART
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
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
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
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
Wechsler, D. (2002). WAIS III. Escala de Inteligencia Wechsler para Adultos. Madrid: TEA.
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/
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
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
Suvoy, R. (2003). The effects of give and take framing in a dictator game (Honors Theses). University of Oregon, USA.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
American Psychological Association (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists. Washington, DC: Author.
Estatus social subjetivo
2
22
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
Orientação de valores sociais
Efeito de enquadramento
Jogos econômicos
Status social
Hierarquia social
Orientación de valores sociales
Artículo de revista
Efecto de marco
Juegos económicos
Estatus social
Jerarquía social
Reyna, Cecilia
Godoy, Juan Carlos
Mola, Débora Jeanette
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 &amp;lt; .001, n2 p = .72; Exp. 2: p &amp;lt; .001, n2 p = .65) y valencia negativa para las ofertas injustas que para las justas (Exp. 2: p &amp;lt; .001). Además, se encontró que a mayor prosocialidad, mayor cantidad ofertada en el JD (Exp. 2: p &amp;lt; .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.
Núm. 2 , Año 2019 :ACTA COLOMBIANA DE PSICOLOGÏA
Status social subjetivo
Publication
application/pdf
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
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
Español
https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/view/1977
Acta Colombiana de Psicología
Universidad Católica de Colombia
Débora Jeanette Mola - 2019
application/xml
text/html
text/html
application/pdf
application/pdf
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 &amp;lt; .001, n2 p =.72; Exp. 2: p &amp;lt; .001, n2 p = .65) for unfair offers than for fair ones (Exp. 2: p &amp;lt; .001). Also, pro-social individuals made fairer offers in the DG (Exp. 2: p &amp;lt; .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.
Does social status matter for resource distribution?
Framing effect
Journal article
Subjective social status
Social value orientation
Social hierarchy
Social status
Economic games
2019-07-07T23:04:34Z
98
70
https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/1977/2653
https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/1977/2861
https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/1977/2691
https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/1977/2652
https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/1977/2571
https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/1977/2570
2019-07-07T23:04:34Z
https://doi.org/10.14718/ACP.2019.22.2.5
10.14718/ACP.2019.22.2.5
1909-9711
0123-9155
2019-07-07
institution UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE COLOMBIA
thumbnail https://nuevo.metarevistas.org/UNIVERSIDADCATOLICADECOLOMBIA/logo.png
country_str Colombia
collection Acta Colombiana de Psicología
title ¿La jerarquía social es importante para la distribución de los recursos?
spellingShingle ¿La jerarquía social es importante para la distribución de los recursos?
Reyna, Cecilia
Godoy, Juan Carlos
Mola, Débora Jeanette
Estatus social subjetivo
Orientação de valores sociais
Efeito de enquadramento
Jogos econômicos
Status social
Hierarquia social
Orientación de valores sociales
Efecto de marco
Juegos económicos
Estatus social
Jerarquía social
Status social subjetivo
Framing effect
Subjective social status
Social value orientation
Social hierarchy
Social status
Economic games
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?
title_eng Does social status matter for resource distribution?
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 &amp;lt; .001, n2 p = .72; Exp. 2: p &amp;lt; .001, n2 p = .65) y valencia negativa para las ofertas injustas que para las justas (Exp. 2: p &amp;lt; .001). Además, se encontró que a mayor prosocialidad, mayor cantidad ofertada en el JD (Exp. 2: p &amp;lt; .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.
description_eng 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 &amp;lt; .001, n2 p =.72; Exp. 2: p &amp;lt; .001, n2 p = .65) for unfair offers than for fair ones (Exp. 2: p &amp;lt; .001). Also, pro-social individuals made fairer offers in the DG (Exp. 2: p &amp;lt; .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.
author Reyna, Cecilia
Godoy, Juan Carlos
Mola, Débora Jeanette
author_facet Reyna, Cecilia
Godoy, Juan Carlos
Mola, Débora Jeanette
topicspa_str_mv Estatus social subjetivo
Orientação de valores sociais
Efeito de enquadramento
Jogos econômicos
Status social
Hierarquia social
Orientación de valores sociales
Efecto de marco
Juegos económicos
Estatus social
Jerarquía social
Status social subjetivo
topic Estatus social subjetivo
Orientação de valores sociais
Efeito de enquadramento
Jogos econômicos
Status social
Hierarquia social
Orientación de valores sociales
Efecto de marco
Juegos económicos
Estatus social
Jerarquía social
Status social subjetivo
Framing effect
Subjective social status
Social value orientation
Social hierarchy
Social status
Economic games
topic_facet Estatus social subjetivo
Orientação de valores sociais
Efeito de enquadramento
Jogos econômicos
Status social
Hierarquia social
Orientación de valores sociales
Efecto de marco
Juegos económicos
Estatus social
Jerarquía social
Status social subjetivo
Framing effect
Subjective social status
Social value orientation
Social hierarchy
Social status
Economic games
citationvolume 22
citationissue 2
citationedition Núm. 2 , Año 2019 :ACTA COLOMBIANA DE PSICOLOGÏA
publisher Universidad Católica de Colombia
ispartofjournal Acta Colombiana de Psicología
source https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/view/1977
language Español
format Article
rights http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
Débora Jeanette Mola - 2019
references 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
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
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
Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., & Keltner, D. (2009). Social class, sense of control, and social explanation. Journal of Personality and Soci
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Mola, D. J., Godoy, J. C., & Reyna, C. (2017). Revisión de técnicas para operacionalizar el estatus social en estudios experimentales. Manuscript submitted to publication.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
List, J. A. (2007). On the interpretation of giving in dictator games. Journal of Political Economy, 115(3), 482-493. DOI:10.1086/519249
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
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
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
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
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
Wechsler, D. (2002). WAIS III. Escala de Inteligencia Wechsler para Adultos. Madrid: TEA.
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/
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
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
Suvoy, R. (2003). The effects of give and take framing in a dictator game (Honors Theses). University of Oregon, USA.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
American Psychological Association (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists. Washington, DC: Author.
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
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
type_driver info:eu-repo/semantics/article
type_coar http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
type_version info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
type_coarversion http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
type_content Text
publishDate 2019-07-07
date_accessioned 2019-07-07T23:04:34Z
date_available 2019-07-07T23:04:34Z
url https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/view/1977
url_doi https://doi.org/10.14718/ACP.2019.22.2.5
issn 0123-9155
eissn 1909-9711
doi 10.14718/ACP.2019.22.2.5
citationstartpage 70
citationendpage 98
url3_str_mv https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/1977/2653
https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/1977/2652
url2_str_mv https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/1977/2861
https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/1977/2571
https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/1977/2570
url4_str_mv https://actacolombianapsicologia.ucatolica.edu.co/article/download/1977/2691
_version_ 1797159032375476224

Código QR

Estadísticas y Métricas Alternativas

Títulos similares