There is accumulating evidence that decision makers are sensitive to the distribution of resources among themselves and others, beyond what is expected from the predictions of narrow selfinterest. These social preferences are typically conceptualized as being static and existing independently of information about the other people influenced by a DM's allocation choices. In this paper we consider the reactivity of a decision makers's social preferences in response to information about the intentions or past behavior of the person to be affected by the decision maker's allocation choices (i.e., how do social preferences change in relation to the other's type). This paper offers a conceptual framework for characterizing the link between distributive preferences and reciprocity, and reports on experiments in which these two constructs are disentangled and the relation between the two is characterized.
Studies on environmental behavior commonly assume single respondents to represent their entire household or employ proxy-reporting, where participants answer for other household members. It is contested whether these practices yield valid results. Therefore, we interviewed 84 couples, wherein both household members provided self-and proxy-reports for their partner. For use of electrical household appliances, consumption of hot water, space heating, everyday mobility, and environmental values, many variables fail to achieve criteria for validity. Consistency (agreement between selfreports of household members) is higher if behaviors are undertaken jointly or negotiated between partners. Accuracy (agreement of proxy-reports with corresponding self-reports) is higher for routine behaviors and for behaviors easily observable by the partner. Overall, indices perform better than items
Zusammenfassung:In der politischen Soziologie wird heute vielfach zwischen einem positiven und einem negativen nationalstolz (Patriotismus und nationalismus) unterschieden. der vorliegende beitrag untersucht, inwieweit sich diese beiden theoretischen Konstrukte anhand der umfragedaten des International Social Survey Programme 2003 empirisch nachweisen lassen. In einem ersten Schritt wird die Kriteriums- und Konstruktvalidität der Skalen "nationalismus" und "Patriotismus" mit den üblichen statistischen Methoden geprüft. Sodann werden die ergebnisse einer in Österreich durchgeführten Probing-Studie präsentiert, in der die befragten nach dem Ausfüllen des ISSP-Fragebogens gebeten wurden, ihre Antworten zu begründen. Abschließend wird versucht, mit einer literatursoziologischen Analyse zusätzliche Aspekte herauszuarbeiten, die beim konventionellen soziologischen Zugang zum Thema meist unbeachtet bleiben. Angesichts der Inkonsistenzen, die sich sowohl in den quantitativen als auch in den qualitativen Analysen, vor allem aber im Vergleich der beiden Analyseebenen zeigen, stellt sich die Frage, ob die polarisierende gegenüberstellung von nationalismus und Patriotismus theoretisch sinnvoll und die üblichen Messungen dieser Konstrukte valide sind.Schlüsselwörter: nationale Identität · nationalstolz · Patriotismus · nationalismus · Probing-Interviews · Methodologie berlin Abstract: In contemporary political sociology, a distinction is often made between "positive" and "negative" national pride (patriotism and nationalism). In this article, we examine whether this theoretical distinction can be verified empirically using data of the International Social Survey Programme 2003. In a first step, statistical tests of criterion validity and construct validity of the "nationalism" and "patriotism" scale are carried out. Thereafter, we present results of a qualitative pilot study in which respondents after having filled out the ISSP-questionnaire were asked to explain their answers and how they understood the questions. Finally, we tried to identify additional aspects of the topic which are, as a rule, not considered in conventional analyses, and to clarify parts of its conceptual logic by using prose fiction as a relevant source. Considering the inconsistencies both in the quantitative and in the qualitative analyses, the question arises whether a strict distinction between nationalism and patriotism is theoretically meaningful and whether the customary way of measuring these constructs is empirically valid.
Despite the omnipresence of inter-group conflicts, little is known about the heterogeneity and stability of individuals’ social preferences toward in-group and out-group members. To identify the prevalence and stability of social preferences in inter-group conflict, we gather quota-representative, incentivized data from a lab-in-the-field study during the heated 2016 Austrian presidential election. We assess social preferences toward in-group and out-group members one week before, one week after, and three months after the election. We find considerable heterogeneity in individuals’ group-(in)dependent social preferences. Utilizing various econometric strategies, we find largely stable social preferences over the course of conflict. Yet, there is some indication of variation, particularly when the conflict becomes less salient. Variation is larger in social preferences toward in-group members and among specific preference types. We discuss the theoretical implications of our findings and outline potential avenues for future research.
We experimentally investigate whether human subjects are willing to give up individual freedom in return for the benefits of improved coordination. We conduct a modified iterated public goods game in which subjects in each period first decide which of two groups to join. One group employs a voluntary contribution mechanism, the other group an allocator contribution mechanism. The setup of the allocator mechanism differs between two treatments. In the coordinator treatment, the randomly selected allocator can set a uniform contribution for all group members, including herself. In the dictator treatment, the allocator can choose different contributions for herself and all other group members. We find that subjects willingly submit to authority in both treatments, even when competing with a voluntary contribution mechanism. The allocator groups achieve high contribution levels in both treatments
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.