Zusammenfassung
Der Zusammenhang zwischen sozialem Status und prosozialen Handeln ist in der empirischen Sozialforschung umstritten. In der Sozialpsychologie dominiert, gestützt auf einer Vielzahl an Untersuchungen mit Probanden aus den USA und kleinen Fallzahlen, die Ansicht, dass statushohe Akteure weniger prosozial und unethischer handeln als statusniedrige Akteure. Soziologische Studien mit europäischen Probanden kommen im Allgemeinen zum konträren Befund. In unserer Studie haben 1003 Probanden aus den USA drei Arten von Diktatorspielen absolviert, die drei unterschiedliche Formen prosozialen Handelns – altruistisches Geben, direkte und indirekte Reziprozität – abbilden. Es zeigt sich durchweg, dass Akteure mit hohem Status mehr abgeben als Akteure mit geringem Status. Zugleich finden sich Anzeichen dafür, dass statushohe Akteure eher zu direkter Reziprozität und statusniedrige Akteure eher zu indirekter Reziprozität tendieren.
Abstract
In empirical social research, there is mixed evidence regarding the interplay of social status and prosocial behavior. Based on a large number of studies with subjects from the USA and small sample sizes, the dominant view in social psychology holds that high-status actors behave less prosocial and more unethical than low-status actors. Sociological studies with subjects from Europe support the opposite conclusion. In our study, 1003 subjects from the USA played three types of dictator games, which tap three different forms of prosocial behavior, i. e. altruistic giving and direct as well as indirect reciprocity. We consistently find that high-status actors make higher donations in dictator games than low-status actors. At the same our findings indicate that high-status actors tend towards direct reciprocity whereas low-status actors tend towards indirect reciprocity.
Anmerkung
Wir danken zwei anonymen Gutachtern und den Herausgebern für wertvolle Hinweise zu einer früheren Fassung dieses Beitrags. Finanzielle Unterstützung durch die DFG (TU 409/2-1) und den SNF (FKZ 100017L_169286) wird dankend anerkannt. Ferner dankt Andreas Tutić auch der Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung für ein Feodor-Lynen-Forschungsstipendium, in dessen Rahmen dieser Beitrag entstanden ist.
About the authors
Andreas Tutić, geb. 1982 in Deggendorf. Studium der Soziologie und Volkswirtschaftslehre (Wahlpflichtfach), Promotion sowie Habilitation in Leipzig. Seit 2008 wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter bzw. akademischer Assistent am Institut für Soziologie der Universität Leipzig. 2016 bis 2018 Forschungsaufenthalte an der Universität Bern und der University of Warwick im Rahmen eines Feodor-Lynen-Forschungsstipendiums der Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung. Forschungsschwerpunkte: Interdisziplinäre Handlungstheorie, kognitive Soziologie, experimentelle Sozialforschung und soziale Ungleichheit.
Wichtigste Publikationen: Status Characteristics and the Provision of Public Goods – Experimental Evidence (mit Sascha Grehl), in: Sociological Science 5, 2018; Reconstructing Granovetter’s Network Theory (mit Harald Wiese), in: Social Networks 43, 2015; Warum denn eigentlich nicht? Zur Axiomatisierung soziologischer Handlungstheorie, in: Zeitschrift für Soziologie 44, 2015.
Ulf Liebe, geb. 1978 in Halle/Saale. Studium der Soziologie und Volkswirtschaftslehre (Wahlpflichtfach) an der Universität Leipzig. Promotion in Mainz. Seit 2018 Professor für Soziologie und Quantitative Methoden an der University of Warwick. Ausgewählte Forschungsschwerpunkte: Umfrageexperimente, Diskriminierung, Umwelthandeln.
Ausgewählte Publikationen: Uncovering the Nexus Between Attitudes, Preferences and Behavior in Sociological Applications of Stated Choice Experiments (mit Peter Mariel, Heiko Beyer, Jürgen Meyerhoff), in: Sociological Methods & Research, online first; Decomposing public support for energy policy: What drives acceptance of and intentions to protest against renewable energy expansion in Germany? (mit Geesche Dobers), in: Energy Research & Social Science 47, 2019; zuletzt in dieser Zeitschrift: Zur Messung aktueller Erscheinungsformen von Judenfeindlichkeit mithilfe des faktoriellen Surveys (mit Heiko Beyer), in: Zeitschrift für Soziologie 42, 2013.
Literatur
AAPOR 2016. Standard Definitions. Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. (https://www.aapor.org/AAPOR_Main/media/publications/Standard-Definitions20169theditionfinal.pdf).Search in Google Scholar
Adler, N.E., E.S. Epel, G. Castellazzo & J.R. Ickovics, 2000: Relationship of Subjective and Objective Social Status with Psychological and Physiological Functioning: Preliminary Data in Healthy, White Women. Health Psychology 19: 586–592.10.1037/0278-6133.19.6.586Search in Google Scholar
Alexander, R., 1987: The Biology of Moral Systems. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.10.4324/9780203700976Search in Google Scholar
Andreoni, J., N. Nikiforakis & J. Stoop, 2017: Are the Rich More Selfish than the Poor, or Do They Just Have More Money? A Natural Field Experiment. NBER Working Paper Series: 23229.10.3386/w23229Search in Google Scholar
Axelrod, R., 1984: The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.10.1126/science.7466396Search in Google Scholar
Barrera, D. & B. Simpson, 2012: Much Ado About Deception: Consequences of Deceiving Research Participants in the Social Sciences. Sociological Methods & Research 41: 383–413.10.1177/0049124112452526Search in Google Scholar
Batson, C.D. & T. Moran, 1999: Empathy-Induced Altruism in a Prisoner’s Dilemma. European Journal of Social Psychology 29: 909–924.10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199911)29:7<909::AID-EJSP965>3.0.CO;2-LSearch in Google Scholar
Bekkers, R., 2010: Who Gives What and When? A Scenario Study of Intentions to Give Time and Money. Social Science Research 39: 369–381.10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.08.008Search in Google Scholar
Bekkers, R. & P. Wiepking, 2011: A Literature Review of Empirical Studies of Philanthropy: Eight Mechanisms that Drive Charitable Giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 40: 924–973.10.1177/0899764010380927Search in Google Scholar
Ben-Ner, A., L. Putterman, F. Kong & D. Magan, 2004: Reciprocity in a Two-Part Dictator Game. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 53: 333–352.10.1016/j.jebo.2002.12.001Search in Google Scholar
Berger, R., H. Rauhut Prade & D. Helbing, 2012: Bargaining Over Waiting Time in Ultimatum Game Experiments. Social Science Research 41: 372–379.10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.09.009Search in Google Scholar
Boyd, R. & P.J. Richerson, 1998: The Evolution of Indirect Reciprocity. Social Networks 11: 213–236.10.1016/0378-8733(89)90003-8Search in Google Scholar
Callan, M.J., H. Kim, A.I. Gheorghiu & W.J. Matthews, 2017: The Interrelations Between Social Class, Personal Relative Deprivation, and Prosociality. Social-Psychological and Personality Science 8: 660–669.10.1177/1948550616673877Search in Google Scholar
Clark, M.S. & J. Mills, 1993: The Difference between Communal and Exchange Relationships: What It Is and Is Not. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 19: 684–691.10.1177/0146167293196003Search in Google Scholar
Clark, M.S. & J. Mills, 2011: A Theory of Communal (and Exchange) Relationships. S. 232–250 in: P.A.M. Van Lange, A.W. Kruglanski & E.T. Higgins (Hrsg.), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.10.4135/9781446249222.n38Search in Google Scholar
Côté, S., J. House & R. Willer, 2015: High Economic Inequality Leads Higher-Income Individuals to Be Less Generous. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112: 15838–15843.10.1073/pnas.1511536112Search in Google Scholar
Diekmann, A., 2004: The Power of Reciprocity. Fairness, Reciprocity, and Stakes in Variants of the Dictator Game. Journal of Conflict Resolution 48: 487–505.10.1177/0022002704265948Search in Google Scholar
Dovidio, J.F. & S. L. Gaertner, 1981: The Effects of Race, Status, and Ability on Helping Behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly 44: 192–203.10.2307/3033833Search in Google Scholar
Eisenberg, N., 2002: Empathy-Related Emotional Responses, Altruism, and their Socialization. S. 131–164 in: J. Davidson & A. Harrington (Hrsg.), Visions of Compassion: Western Scientists and Tibetan Buddhists Examine Human Nature. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195130430.003.0007Search in Google Scholar
Fehr, E. & K. Schmidt, 1999: A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics 114: 817–868.10.2307/j.ctvcm4j8j.14Search in Google Scholar
Ganzeboom, H.B.G. & D.J. Treiman, 2012: International Stratification and Mobility File: Conversion Tools. Department of Social Research Methodology, Amsterdam.Search in Google Scholar
Gouldner, A.W., 1960: The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement. American Sociological Review 25: 161–178.10.2307/2092623Search in Google Scholar
Guinote, A., I. Cotzia Sandhu & P. Siwa, 2015: Social Status Modulates Prosocial Behavior and Egalitarianism in Preschool Children and Adults. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112: 731–736.10.1073/pnas.1414550112Search in Google Scholar
Güth, W., R. Schmittberger & B. Schwarze, 1982: An Experimental Analysis of Ultimatum Bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 4: 367–388.10.1016/0167-2681(82)90011-7Search in Google Scholar
Henrich, J., 2004: Cultural Group Selection, Coevolutionary Processes and Large-Scale Cooperation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 53: 3–35.10.1016/S0167-2681(03)00094-5Search in Google Scholar
Jann, B. & E. Coutts, 2017: Social Status and Peer-Punishment: Findings From Two Road Traffic Field Experiments. S. 259–277 in: B. Jann & W. Przepiorka (Hrsg.). Social Dilemmas, Institutions, and the Evolution of Cooperation. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110472974-013Search in Google Scholar
Korndörfer, M., B. Egloff & S.C. Schmukle, 2015: A Large-Scale Test of the Effect of Social Class on Prosocial Behavior. PloS ONE, 10(7), e0133193.10.1371/journal.pone.0133193Search in Google Scholar
Liebe, U. & A. Tutić, 2010: Status Groups and Altruistic Behavior in Dictator Games. Rationality and Society 22: 353–380.10.1177/1043463110366232Search in Google Scholar
Liebe, U., E. Naumann & A. Tutić, 2017: Sozialer Status und prosoziales Handeln: Ein Quasi-Experiment im Krankenhaus. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 69: 109–129.10.1007/s11577-016-0399-9Search in Google Scholar
Mitzkewitz, M. & R. Nagel, 1993: Experimental Results on Ultimatum Games with Incomplete Information. International Journal of Game Theory 22: 171–198.10.1007/BF01243649Search in Google Scholar
Mutz, D.C., 2011: Population-Based Survey Experiments. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.23943/princeton/9780691144511.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Nowak, M.A. & K. Sigmund, 1998: Evolution of Indirect Reciprocity by Image Scoring. Nature 393: 573–577.10.1038/31225Search in Google Scholar
Nowak, M. A. & K. Sigmund, 2005: Evolution of Indirect Reciprocity. Nature 437: 1291–1298.10.1038/nature04131Search in Google Scholar
Piff, P.K., M.W. Kraus Côté, B.H. Cheng & D. Keltner, 2010: Having Less, Giving More: The Influence of Social Class on Prosocial Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99: 771–784.10.1037/a0020092Search in Google Scholar
Piff, P.K., D.M. Stancato Côté, R. Mendoza-Denton & D. Keltner, 2012: Higher Social Class Predicts Increased Unethical Behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109: 4086–4091.10.1073/pnas.1118373109Search in Google Scholar
Putnam, R.D., 2001: Bowling Alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.10.1145/358916.361990Search in Google Scholar
Richerson, P.J. & R. Boyd, 2005: Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226712130.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Selten, R., 1967. Die Strategiemethode zur Erforschung des eingeschränkt rationalen Verhaltens im Rahmen eines Oligopolexperiments. S. 136–168 in: H. Sauermann (Hrsg.), Beiträge zur experimentellen Wirtschaftsforschung. Tübingen: Mohr.Search in Google Scholar
Treiman, D.J., 1977: Occupational Prestige in Comparative Perspective. Quantitative Studies in Social Relations. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Trivers, R.L., 1971: The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology 46: 35–57.10.1086/406755Search in Google Scholar
Tutić, A. & S. Grehl, 2018: Status Characteristics and the Provision of Public Goods – Experimental Evidence. Sociological Science 5: 1–20.10.15195/v5.a1Search in Google Scholar
Tutić, A. & U. Liebe, 2009: A Theory of Status-Mediated Inequity Aversion. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 33: 157–195.10.1080/00222500902799601Search in Google Scholar
Uehara, E., 1990: Dual Exchange Theory, Social Networks, and Informal Social Support. American Journal of Sociology 96: 521–557.10.1086/229571Search in Google Scholar
Wilson, E.O., 2012: The Social Conquest of Earth. New York: Norton.Search in Google Scholar
Yamagishi, T. & K.S. Cook, 1993: Generalized Exchange and Social Dilemmas. Social Psychology Quarterly 56: 235–248.10.2307/2786661Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
