IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/qkcm6.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Social Utility, Inequality Aversion, and Rank-Status

Author

Listed:
  • Cavve, Blake Stockton
  • Hurlstone, Mark J.
  • Farrell, Simon

Abstract

Several distinct strategies or motivations have been proposed in order to characterise the ways in which people compare themselves to others, and how such information influences the decisions they make. Among the most studied type of social preference is inequality aversion, which describes a preference for equal outcomes for all group members, usually with a particular dislike for doing worse than others. A second, rank-status, describes the tendency to focus on the ordinal position (rather than the magnitude) of outcomes and the desire to rank higher than others in outcome standings. Though these competing forms of social preference describe very different psychological processes, these theories do—under certain circumstances—generate identical predictions. To accurately assess how people use information about others in decision-making, these theories must be deliberately, directly, and carefully disentangled. This paper presents two studies in which we competitively test these models of social preference as well as self-interest. We construct social utility curves from a series of satisfaction ratings of allocations for the self and one peer (Study 1) and two peer (Study 2) reference points. In both studies we find some heterogeneity expressed in preferences regarding distribution of several different attributes. Overall, a consistent plurality of participants are best fit by the Fehr and Schmidt inequality aversion model compared to mean reference fairness models and rank-based preference models; though a lesser proportion than found elsewhere in the literature (i.e., without comparison against competing models). Surprisingly, this preference is also prominent in considerations of vacation time, a leisure attribute assumed to be unaffected by social judgement. The results highlight both discrete and continuous individual differences in the form of social preference.

Suggested Citation

  • Cavve, Blake Stockton & Hurlstone, Mark J. & Farrell, Simon, 2024. "Social Utility, Inequality Aversion, and Rank-Status," OSF Preprints qkcm6, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:qkcm6
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/qkcm6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/65d8778d4e602e011b40fa87/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/qkcm6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nattavudh Powdthavee, 2009. "How important is rank to individual perception of economic standing? A within-community analysis," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 7(3), pages 225-248, September.
    2. Robert Haney Scott, 1972. "Avarice, Altruism, and Second Party Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 86(1), pages 1-18.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Budría, Santiago & Ferrer-i-Carbonell, Ada, 2012. "Income Comparisons and Non-Cognitive Skills," IZA Discussion Papers 6419, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Maite Blázquez Cuesta & Santiago Budría, 2014. "Deprivation and Subjective Well-Being: Evidence from Panel Data," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 60(4), pages 655-682, December.
    3. Perez-Truglia, Ricardo, 2013. "A test of the conspicuous–consumption model using subjective well-being data," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 146-154.
    4. Nobles, Jenna & Weintraub, Miranda Ritterman & Adler, Nancy E., 2013. "Subjective socioeconomic status and health: Relationships reconsidered," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 58-66.
    5. Herbst, Luisa & Konrad, Kai A. & Morath, Florian, 2017. "Balance of power and the propensity of conflict," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 168-184.
    6. Jaikumar, Saravana & Singh, Ramendra & Sarin, Ankur, 2018. "‘I show off, so I am well off’: Subjective economic well-being and conspicuous consumption in an emerging economy," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 386-393.
    7. Dufhues, Thomas & Möllers, Judith & Jantsch, Antje & Buchenrieder, Gertrud & Camfield, Laura, 2023. "Don’t look up! Individual income comparisons and subjective well-being of students in Thailand," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 24(2), pages 477-503.
    8. Oded Stark, 2017. "Migration when Social Preferences are Ordinal: Steady-state Population Distribution and Social Welfare," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 84(336), pages 647-666, October.
    9. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    10. Stark, Oded, 2019. "Behavior in reverse: reasons for return migration," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(1), pages 104-126, May.
    11. Ateca Amestoy, Victoria María & Cortés Aguilar, Alexandra & Moro-Egido, Ana I., 2011. "Social Interactions and Subjective Well-Being: Evidence from Latin America," DFAEII Working Papers 1988-088X, University of the Basque Country - Department of Foundations of Economic Analysis II.
    12. Bussolo,Maurizio & Lebrand,Mathilde Sylvie Maria & Torre,Ivan, 2020. "Feeling Poor, Feeling Rich, or Feeling Middle-Class : An Empirical Investigation," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9456, The World Bank.
    13. Begoña Cabeza; & Koen Decancq;, 2023. "Social preferences and information about effort and luck: an online survey experiment," Working Papers 2305, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
    14. Santiago Budria, 2013. "Are Relative-Income Effects Constant Across the Well-Being Distribution?," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 1379-1408, August.
    15. Stavros A. Drakopoulos, 2020. "Pay Level Comparisons in Job Satisfaction Research and Mainstream Economic Methodology," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 825-842, March.
    16. Kiyoshi Yonemoto, 2021. "Reference-dependent preference and interregional migration: extending the Harris–Todaro model," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 1-10, April.
    17. Filiz Gülal & Adam Ayaita, 2020. "The Impact of Minimum Wages on Well-Being: Evidence from a Quasi-experiment in Germany," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 21(7), pages 2669-2692, October.
    18. Brodeur, Abel & Flèche, Sarah, 2013. "Where the Streets Have a Name: Income Comparisons in the US," IZA Discussion Papers 7256, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Namrata Chindarkar, 2014. "Is Subjective Well-Being of Concern to Potential Migrants from Latin America?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 115(1), pages 159-182, January.
    20. Farré, Lídia & Fasani, Francesco, 2013. "Media exposure and internal migration — Evidence from Indonesia," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 48-61.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:qkcm6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.