Sozialer Status und prosoziales Handeln: Ein Quasi-Experiment im Krankenhaus

Abhandlungen

Zusammenfassung

Soziologische, sozialpsychologische und ökonomische Forschung zum Zusammenhang von sozioökonomischem Status und Prosozialität hat bisher widersprüchliche Befunde geliefert. Einige Studien belegen, dass Akteure mit hohem sozialen Status egoistischer als Akteure mit geringem sozialem Status handeln. Andere Studien finden gerade den gegenteiligen Effekt. Im Unterschied zur bisherigen Forschung, die mit eindimensionalen Maßen für sozioökonomischen Status gearbeitet hat, untersucht die vorliegende Studie prosoziales Handeln von Berufsgruppen, die in regelmäßigem lebensweltlichen Kontakt miteinander stehen. Über 150 Angestellte in Krankenhäusern (Ärzte, Pflegepersonal und Pflegeschüler) haben an Experimenten zum altruistischen Geben in Diktatorspielen teilgenommen. Es zeigen sich klare und überraschend starke Effekte: Sozial besser gestellte Akteure zeigen sich deutlich prosozialer als sozial schlechter gestellte Akteure. Zudem finden wir kaum Eigengruppeneffekte, die in der Forschung immer wieder postuliert werden. Unsere Ergebnisse stützen die Annahme eines positiven Zusammenhangs zwischen sozialem Status und Prosozialität und deuten darauf hin, dass die bisherigen, teilweise widersprüchlichen Forschungsbefunde zu einem beträchtlichen Teil durch problematische Maße für sozialen Status und das experimentelle Design bedingt sind.

Schlüsselwörter

Altruismus Experiment Diktatorspiel Prosozialität Sozioökonomischer Status In-group Bias 

Social status and prosocial behavior: a quasi-experiment in the hospital

Abstract

Sociological, social psychological and economic research on the nexus between socioeconomic status and prosociality has so far provided contradictory findings. Some studies suggest that actors with a high socioeconomic status act more egoistically than actors with a lower socioeconomic status. Other studies find the opposite to be true. In contrast to previous research, which has worked with one-dimensional measures for socioeconomic status, this study examines prosocial behavior among occupational groups that have regular real-life contact in their workspace. About 150 hospital employees (physicians, nursing staff and nursing students) participated in experiments on altruistic giving in dictator games. The findings are surprisingly strong and clear-cut: Actors with higher social status act more prosocial than low-status actors. Furthermore, we find hardly any in-group effects, which have been repeatedly postulated. Our findings support the claim that high status promotes prosocial behavior. Also, they indicate that the inconclusive and in part contradictory findings provided by previous research stem to a considerable degree from deficient measures of social status and problematic experimental designs.

Keywords

Altruism Experiment Dictator game Prosociality Socioeconomic status In-group bias 

Literatur

  1. Adler, Nancy E., Elissa S. Epel, Grace Castellazzo und Jeannette R. Ickovics. 2000. Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, white women. Health Psychology 19:586–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, Richard D. 1987. The biology of moral systems. Foundations of human behavior. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  3. American Psychological Association. 2002. Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist 57:1060–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andreoni, James. 1990. Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. Economic Journal 100:464–477.Google Scholar
  5. Axelrod, Robert. 1984. The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  6. Barlösius, Eva. 2011. Soziologie des Essens. Eine sozial- und kulturwissenschaftliche Einführung in die Ernährungsforschung. Weinheim: Juventa.Google Scholar
  7. Barrera, Davide, und Brent Simpson. 2012. Much ado about deception: Consequences of deceiving research participants in the social sciences. Sociological Methods & Research 41:383–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benenson, Joyce, Joanna Pascoe und Nicola Radmore. 2007. Children’s altruistic behavior in the dictator game. Evolution and Human Behavior 28:168–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bernstein, Basil. 2003. Class, codes and control: Applied studies towards a sociology of language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Bettencourt, B. Ann, Kelly Charlton, Nancy Dorr und Deborah L. Hume. 2001. Status differences and in-group bias: A meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability. Psychological Bulletin 127:520–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blau, Peter M. 1955. The dynamics of bureaucracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1987. Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. 1979. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Brady, David, und Ryan Finnigan. 2014. Does immigration undermine public support for social policy? American Sociological Review 79:17–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brañas-Garza, Pablo. 2006. Poverty in dictator games: Awakening solidarity. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 60:306–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coleman, James S. 1990. Foundations of social theory. New York: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  16. Collins, Randall. 2005. Interaction ritual chains. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Davis, Stephen F., Brian Schrader, Teri R. Richardson, Jason P. Kring und Jamie C. Kiefer. 1998. Restaurant servers influence tipping behavior. Psychological Reports 83:223–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Diekmann, Andreas. 2004. The power of reciprocity. Fairness, reciprocity, and stakes in variants of the dictator game. Journal of Conflict Resolution 54:674–693.Google Scholar
  19. Diekmann, Andreas. 2007. Empirische Sozialforschung. Grundlagen, Methoden, Anwendungen, 18. Aufl., Reinbek: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
  20. Diekmann, Andreas. 2008. Soziologie und Ökonomie: Der Beitrag experimenteller Wirtschaftsforschung zur Sozialtheorie. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 60:528–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Domhoff, George W. 1998. Who rules America?: Power and politics in the year 2000. Mountain View, CA: : Mayfield Publishing Company..Google Scholar
  22. Dreman, S.B., und Charles W. Greenbaum. 1973. Altruism or reciprocity: Sharing behavior in Israeli kindergarten children. Child Development 44:61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Durkheim, Émile. 1997. The division of labour in society. 1893. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  24. Eckel, Catherine, und Philip Grossman. 1998. Are women less selfish than men? Evidence from dictator experiments. The Economic Journal 108:726–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Elias, Norbert. 1982. The civilizing process. Sociogenetic and psychogenetic investigations. 1939. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. Engel, Christoph. 2011. Dictator games: A meta study. Experimental Economics 14:583–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fershtman, Chaim, und Uri Gneezy. 2001. Discrimination in a segmented society: An experimental approach. Quarterly Journal of Economics 116:351–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fiddick, Laurence, und Denise D. Cummins. 2001. Reciprocity in ranked relationships: Does social structure influence social reasoning? Journal of Bioeconomics 3:149–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fiddick, Laurence, und Denise D. Cummins. 2007. Are perceptions of fairness relationship-specific? The case of noblesse oblige. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 60:16–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Franzen, Axel, und Sonja Pointner. 2012. Anonymity in the dictator game revisited. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 81:74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ganzeboom, Harry, und Donald Treiman. 1996. Internationally comparable measures of occupational status for the 1988 international standard classification of occupations. Social Science Research 25:201–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ganzeboom, Harry, Paul De Graaf und Donald Treiman. 1992. A standard international socio-economic index of occupational status. Social Science Research 21:1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ginsburg, Harvey J., und Shirley M. Miller. 1981. Altruism in children: A naturalistic study of reciprocation and an examination of the relationship between social dominance and aid-giving behavior. Evolution & Human Behavior 2:75–83.Google Scholar
  34. Gittell, Ross, und Edinaldo Tebaldi. 2006. Charitable giving: Factors influencing giving in U.S. States. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 35:721–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Goodman, Elizabeth, Nancy E. Adler, Stephen R. Daniels, John A. Morrison, Gail B. Slap und Lawrence M. Dolan. 2003. Impact of objective and subjective social status on obesity in a biracial cohort of adolescents. Obesity Research 11:1018–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Griskevicius, Vladas, Joshua M. Tybur und Van Bergh Bram. 2010. Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98:392–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hardy, Charlie L., und Mark Van Vugt. 2006. Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 32:1402–1413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Henrich, Joseph. 2004. Cultural group selection, coevolutionary processes and large-scale cooperation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 53:3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hewstone, Miles, Mark Rubin und Hazel Willis. 2002. Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology 53:575–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hobbes, Thomas. 1996. Leviathan . 1651. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik, Jürgen, und Alfons Geis. 2003. Berufsklassifikation und Messung des beruflichen Status/ Prestige. ZUMA Nachrichten 27:125–138.Google Scholar
  42. Hogan, Dennis P., und Evelyn M. Kitagawa. 1985. The Impact of social status, family structure, and neighborhood on the fertility of black adolescents. American Journal of Sociology 90:825–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Homans, George C. 1951. The human group. New Brunswick: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Homans, George C. 1961. Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  45. Hox, Joop. 2010. Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Hughes, Patricia, und William Luksetich. 2007. Income volatility and wealth: The effect on charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 37:264–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kafashan, Sara, Adam Sparks, Vladas Griskevicius und Pat Barclay. 2014. Prosocial behaviour and social status. In The Psychology of Social Status, Hrsg. Joey T. Cheng, Jessica L. Tracy und Cameron Anderson, 139–158. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. Kahneman, Daniel, und Jack L. Knetsch. 1992. Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22:57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kasen, Stephanie, Patricia Cohen und Judith S. Brook. 1998. Adolescent school experiences and dropout, adolescent pregnancy, and young adult deviant behavior. Journal of Adolescent Research 13:49–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Keuschnigg, Marc, und Tobias Wolbring. Hrsg. 2015. Experimente in den Sozialwissenschaften . 22. Sonderband der Sozialen Welt. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  51. Kolm, Serge-Christophe, und Jean M. Ythier. Hrsg. 2006. Handbook of the economics of giving, altruism and reciprocity. Bd. I. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  52. Korndörfer, Martin, Boris Egloff und Stefan C. Schmukle. 2015. A large scale test of the effect of social class on prosocial behavior. PLoS ONE 10:e0133193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kraus, Michael W., Paul K. Piff und Dacher Keltner. 2009. Social class, sense of control, and social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97:992–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Levitt, Steven D., und John A. List. 2009. Field experiments in economics: The past, the present, and the future. European Economic Review 53:1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Liebe, Ulf, und Andreas Tutić. 2010. Status groups and altruistic behavior in dictator games. Rationality and Society 22:353–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Liebe, Ulf, und Andreas Tutić. 2015. Opposing effect of objective and subjective social status on prosociality: Theory and field experiments. Working paper.Google Scholar
  57. Maas, Cora, und Joop Hox. 2005. Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology 1:86–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Marx, Karl. 1967. Capital: A critical analysis of capitalist production. 1867. New York: International Publishers.Google Scholar
  59. Mead, George H. 1934. Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  60. Meara, Ellen R., Seth Richards und David M. Cutler. 2008. The gap gets bigger: Changes in mortality and life expectancy, by education, 1981–2000. Health Affairs 27:350–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mewes, Jan, und Steffen Mau. 2013. Globalization, socio-economic status and welfare chauvinism: European perspectives on attitudes toward the exclusion of immigrants. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 54:228–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Murray, Richard, und Arnold Vedlitz. 1977. Race, socioeconomic status, and voting participation in large southern cities. The Journal of Politics 39:1064–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Nowak, Martin A., und Karl Sigmund. 2005. Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature 437:1291–1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pappi, Franz U., und Ingeborg Pappi. 1978. Sozialer Status und Konsumstil. Ein Fallstudie zur Wohnungszimmereinrichtung. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 30:87–115.Google Scholar
  65. Parsons, Talcott. 1937. The structure of social action. Glencoe: Free Press.Google Scholar
  66. Piff, Paul K., Michael W. Kraus, Stéphane Coté, Bonnie H. Cheng und Dacher Keltner. 2010. Having less, giving more: The infuence of social class on prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99:771–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Piff, Paul K., Daniel M. Stancato, Stéphane Côté, Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton und Dacher Keltner. 2012. Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109:4086–4091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Präg, Patrick, Melinda Mills und Rafael Wittek. 2014. Income and income inequality as social determinants of health: Do social comparisons play a role? European Sociological Review 30:218–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rabe-Hesketh, Sophia, und Anders Skrondal. 2012. Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
  70. Richerson, Peter J., und Robert Boyd. 2005. Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  71. Ridgeway, Cecilia L. 2014. Why status matters for inequality. American Sociological Review 79:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Russell III, James N., und Deanna L. Sharpe. 2007. The nature and causes of the u‑shaped charitable giving profile. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 36:218–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Saad, Gad, und Tripat Gill. 2001. The effects of a recipient’s gender in a modified dictator game. Applied Economics Letters 8:463–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sampson, Robert J., und W. Byron Groves. 1989. Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization Theory. American Journal of Sociology 94:774–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Scott, Wilbur J., und Alan C. Acock. 1979. Socioeconomic status, unemployment experience, and political participation: A disentangling of main and interaction effects. Political Behavior 1:361–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Shadish, William R., Thomas D. Cook und Donald T. Campbell. 2002. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  77. Simpson, Brent. 2006. Social identity and cooperation in social dilemmas. Rationality and Society 18:443–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Simpson, Brent, und Robb Willer. 2015. Beyond altruism: Sociological foundations of cooperation and prosocial behavior. Annual Review of Sociology 41:43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Tajfel, Henri, M.G. Billig, R.P. Bundy und Claude Flament. 1971. Social categorization in intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology 1:149–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Taylor, Michael. 1976. Anarchy and cooperation. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  81. Van der Waal, Jeroen, Peter Achterberg, Dick Houtman, Willem De Koster und Katerina Manevska. 2010. ‘Some are more equal than others’: Economic egalitarianism and welfare chauvinism in the Netherlands. Journal of European Social Policy 20:350–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Van Kleef, Gerben A., Christpoher Oveis, Ilmo van der Löwe, Aleksandr LuoKogan, Jennifer Goetz und Dacher Keltner. 2008. Power, distress, and compassion. Turning a blind eye to the suffering of others. Psychological Science 19:1827–1834.Google Scholar
  83. Visser, Michael S., und Matthew R. Roelofs. 2011. Heterogeneous preferences for altruism: Gender and personality, social status, giving and taking. Experimental Economics 14:490–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Willer, Robb. 2009. Groups reward individual sacrifice: The status solution to the collective action problem. American Sociological Review 74:23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wilson, Edward O. 2012. The social conquest of earth. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  86. Yamagishi, Toshio, und Karen S. Cook. 1993. Generalized exchange and the social dilemmas. Social Psychology Quarterly 56:235–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Yamagishi, Toshio, und Nobuhiro Mifune. 2008. Does shared group membership promote altruism? Fear, greed, and reputation. Rationality and Society 20:5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für SoziologieUniversität BernBernSchweiz
  2. 2.SFB 884 „Political Economy of Reforms“Universität Mannheim, L 13 17MannheimDeutschland
  3. 3.Institut für SoziologieUniversität LeipzigLeipzigDeutschland

Personalised recommendations