All Title Author
Keywords Abstract

PLOS ONE  2008 

Interdependent Utilities: How Social Ranking Affects Choice Behavior

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003477

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib


Organization in hierarchical dominance structures is prevalent in animal societies, so a strong preference for higher positions in social ranking is likely to be an important motivation of human social and economic behavior. This preference is also likely to influence the way in which we evaluate our outcome and the outcome of others, and finally the way we choose. In our experiment participants choose among lotteries with different levels of risk, and can observe the choice that others have made. Results show that the relative weight of gains and losses is the opposite in the private and social domain. For private outcomes, experience and anticipation of losses loom larger than gains, whereas in the social domain, gains loom larger than losses, as indexed by subjective emotional evaluations and physiological responses. We propose a theoretical model (interdependent utilities), predicting the implication of this effect for choice behavior. The relatively larger weight assigned to social gains strongly affects choices, inducing complementary behavior: faced with a weaker competitor, participants adopt a more risky and dominant behavior.


[1]  Zeelenberg M, Pieters R (2004) Consequences of regret aversion in real life: The case of the Dutch postcode lottery. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes 93: 155–168.
[2]  Camille N, Coricelli G, Sallet J, Pradat-Diehl P, Duhamel JR, et al. (2004) The involvement of the orbitofrontal cortex in the experience of regret. Science 304: 1167–1170.
[3]  Coricelli G, Critchley HD, Joffily M, O'Doherty JP, Sirigu A, et al. (2005) Regret and its avoidance: a neuroimaging study of choice behavior. Nat Neurosci 8: 1255–1262.
[4]  Roese NJ, Olson JM (1995) What might have been: The social psychology of counterfactual thinking. Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
[5]  Orthony A, Clore GL, Collins A (1988) The cognitive structure of emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[6]  Shamay-Tsoory SG, Tibi-Elhanany Y, Aharon-Peretz J (2007) The green-eyed monster and malicious joy: the neuroanatomical bases of envy and gloating (schadenfreude). Brain 130: 1663–1678.
[7]  Veblen T (1934) The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: The Modern Library.
[8]  Maslow AH (1937) Dominance-feeling, behavior, and status. Psychological Review 44: 404–429.
[9]  Festinger L (1954) A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations 7: 117–140.
[10]  Loewenstein GF, Thompson L, Bazerman MH (1989) Social utility and decision making in interpersonal contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57: 426–441.
[11]  Sidanius J, Pratto F (1999) Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.
[12]  Suls J, Wheeler L (2000) Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[13]  Duesenberry JS (1949) Income, saving, and the Theory of Consumer Behavior. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
[14]  Abel AB (1990) Asset prices under habit formation and catching up with the Joneses. American Economic Review 80: 38.
[15]  Gali J (1994) Keeping Up with the Joneses: Consumption Externalities, Portfolio Choice, and Asset Prices. Journal of Money, Credit & Banking 26: 1–8.
[16]  Gneezy U, Rustichini A (2000) Pay enough or don't pay at all. Quarterly Journal of Economics 115: 791–810.
[17]  Strack F, Schwarz N, Chassein B, Kern D (1990) Salience of comparison standards and the activation of social norms: Consequences for judgements of happiness and their communication. British Journal of Social Psychology 29: 303.
[18]  Clark AE, Oswald AJ (1996) Satisfaction and comparison income. Journal of Public Economics 61: 359.
[19]  Luttmer EFP (2005) Neighbors as negatives: Relative earnings and well-being. Quarterly Journal of Economics 120: 963–1002.
[20]  Ferrer-i-Carbonell A (2005) Income and well-being: an empirical analysis of the comparison income effect. Journal of Public Economics 89: 997–1019.
[21]  Wood JV (1989) Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal attributes. Psychological Bulletin 106: 231–248.
[22]  Buunk P, Gibbons FX (2007) Social comparison: The end of a theory and the emergence of a field. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 102: 3–21.
[23]  Wills TA (1981) Downward comparison principles in social psychology. Psychological Bulletin 90: 245–271.
[24]  Megiddo N (1980) On Repeated Games with Incomplete Information Played by Non-Bayesian Players. International Journal of Game Theory 9: 157–167.
[25]  Foster DP, Vohra R (1999) Regret in the On-Line Decision Problem. Games and Economic Behavior 29: 7–35.
[26]  Hart S, Mas-Colell A (2000) A simple procedure leading to correlated equilibrium. Econometrica 68: 1127–1150.
[27]  Hart S (2005) Adaptive Heuristics. Econometrica 73: 1401–1430.
[28]  Dawson ME, Schell AM, Filion DL (2000) The electrodermal system. In: Cacioppo JT, Tassinary LG, Berntson G, editors. Handbook of Psychophysiology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 200–223.
[29]  Frijda NH (1986) The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[30]  Mellers BA (2000) Choice and the relative pleasure of consequences. Psychological Bulletin 126: 910–924.
[31]  Tiedens LZ, Fragale AR (2003) Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84: 558–568.
[32]  Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47: 263–291.
[33]  Barton RA, Whiten A (1993) Feeding competition among female olive baboons, Papio anubis. Animal Behaviour 46: 777–789.
[34]  Mennill D, Ratcliffe L, Boag P (2002) Female Eavesdropping on Male Song Contests in Songbirds. Science 296: 873–875.
[35]  Boucsein W (1992) Electrodermal activity. Wuppertal, Germany: University of Wuppertal.


comments powered by Disqus