When Do Low Status Individuals Accept Less? The Interaction between Self- and Other-Status during Resource Distribution

How fairness and dominance guide young children's bargaining decisions

Reaching agreements in conflicts is an important developmental challenge. Here, German 5-year-olds (N = 284, 49% female, mostly White, mixed socioeconomic backgrounds; data collection: June 2016-November 2017) faced repeated face-to-face bargaining problems in which they chose between fair and unfair reward divisions. Across three studies, children mostly settled on fair divisions. However, dominant children tended to benefit more from bargaining outcomes (in Study 1 and 2 but not Study 3) and children mostly failed to use leverage to enforce fairness. Communication analyses revealed that children giving orders to their partner had a bargaining advantage and that children provided and responded to fairness reasons. These findings indicate that fairness concerns and dominance are both key factors that shape young children's bargaining decisions.

Low Competitive Status Elicits Aggression in Healthy Young Men: Behavioral and Neural Evidence

Winners are commonly assumed to compete more aggressively than losers. Here, we find overwhelming evidence for the opposite. We first demonstrate that low-ranking teams commit more fouls than they receive in top-tier soccer, ice hockey, and basketball men's leagues. We replicate this effect in the laboratory, showing that male participants deliver louder sound blasts to a rival when placed in a low-status position. Using neuroimaging, we characterize brain activity patterns that encode competitive status as well as those that facilitate status-dependent aggression in healthy young men. These analyses reveal three key findings. First, anterior hippocampus and striatum contain multivariate representations of competitive status. Second, interindividual differences in status-dependent aggression are linked with a sharper status differentiation in the striatum and with greater reactivity to status-enhancing victories in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex. Third, activity in ventromedial, ventrolateral, and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is associated with trial-wise increases in status-dependent aggressive behavior. Taken together, our results run counter to narratives glorifying aggression in competitive situations. Rather, we show that those in the lower ranks of skill-based hierarchies are more likely to behave aggressively and identify the potential neural basis of this phenomenon.

Revisiting the status-legitimacy hypothesis: Concepts, boundary conditions, and psychological mechanisms

The status-legitimacy hypothesis proposes that low-status groups are more inclined to justify the status quo as fair and legitimate than high-status groups. Although there are some research evidences for this hypothesis, many studies have found the opposite result, that disadvantaged groups are more dissatisfied with the social system. To resolve this disagreement, this article integrates relevant ideas and empirical research in three aspects. First, the conceptual approach emphasises that the controversy is a result of different operational definitions of social status and system justification in previous studies. The second approach, focusing on moderator variables, proposes that the disputes over past studies are probably due to moderator variables, which can influence the relationship between status and system justification. The third approach, based on psychological mechanisms, proposes that system justification theory cannot completely explain the psychological underpinnings of status differences in system justification, and in order to clarify this, it is necessary to explore other psychological processes. Future studies should continue to examine the mediation mechanisms and boundary conditions of the status-legitimacy hypothesis and may try to establish a nonlinear hypothesis. Moreover, researchers should also pay attention to the application of experimental methods and big-data methods.

Perceived relative social status and cognitive load influence acceptance of unfair offers in the Ultimatum Game

Participants in the Ultimatum Game will often reject unfair resource allocations at personal cost, reflecting a trade-off between financial gain and maintenance of social standing. Although this rejection behavior is linked to executive control, the exact role of cognitive regulation in relation to status cues is unclear. We propose that the salience of status cues affects how cognitive regulation resolves the conflict between financial gain and social status considerations. Situations that tax executive control by limiting available cognitive resources should increase acceptance rates for unfair offers, particularly when the conflict between economic self-interest and social reputation is high. Here, participants rated their own subjective social status, and then either mentally counted (Load) or ignored (No Load) simultaneously-presented tones while playing two rounds of the Ultimatum Game with an online (sham) “Proposer” of either high or low social status. A logistic regression revealed an interaction of Proposer status with cognitive load. Compared to the No Load group, the Load group showed higher acceptance rates for unfair offers from the high-status Proposer. In contrast, cognitive load did not influence acceptance rates for unfair offers from the low-status Proposer. Additionally, Proposer status interacted with the relative social distance between participant and Proposer. Participants close in social distance to the high-status Proposer were more likely to accept the unfair offer than those farther in social distance, whereas the opposite pattern was observed for offers from the low-status Proposer. Although rejection of unfair offers in the Ultimatum Game has previously been conceptualized as an intuitive response, these results instead suggest it reflects a deliberative strategy, dependent on cognitive resources, to prioritize social standing over short-term financial gain. This study reveals the dynamic interplay of cognitive resources and status concerns within this paradigm, providing new insights into when and why people reject inequitable divisions of resources.

Social hierarchies in third-party punishment: A behavioral and ERP study

Third-party punishment refers to the punishment imposed by a party whose benefit is not directly affected by any norm violations. The present study using a modified Dictator Game explored how social statuses of the involved parties modulate punishment decisions of a third-party. Systematic manipulation of the dictators' and recipients' status revealed that: higher recipient status correlated with more severe punishment, but no effect of the dictator's. We further focused on the neural underlying of this effect using ERPs. An interaction of recipient's status × fairness was observed on MFN such that only for a high-status recipient, larger amplitude was triggered by unfair offers comparing to fair offers. On LPC, the largest amplitude was observed when the offer was fair and the recipient had medium-status. These findings suggested: participants consider unfair offers proposed to high-status recipients as more norm-violating and they may evaluate the offers from the perspective of the recipient.

People of Lower Social Status Are More Sensitive to Hedonic Product Information-Electrophysiological Evidence From an ERP Study

Consumer psychology research has shown that individuals of different social statuses have distinctive purchase intentions for different products. Individuals of a high social status will simultaneously measure the symbolic status meaning and utilitarian value of a product, but they will not show strong preferences for any attributes. However, individuals of a low social status show strong purchasing tendency for hedonic products that are associated with symbolic status meaning and could satisfy their spiritual needs. This phenomenon may be due to self-threat, which caused by hedonic products. Based on the above, this study compares the cognitive processing differences of hedonic and utilitarian label products between high- and low-social-status groups by recording event related potentials (ERPs). The results showed that under the P2, P3, and LPP components, the low-social-status group elicited smaller deflections in hedonic label stimuli than in utilitarian label stimuli. The high-social-status group did not show a significant difference in these components. These results suggested that individuals with a low social status are more sensitive to hedonic product information, because high-status information contained in the hedonic label induces a sense of threat in them and generates certain negative emotions.

Fairness and Smiling Mediate the Effects of Openness on Perceived Fairness: Beside Perceived Intention

Previous studies have shown that smiling, fairness, intention, and the results being openness to the proposer can influence the responses in ultimatum games, respectively. But it is not clear that how the four factors might interact with each other in twos or in threes or in fours. This study examined the way that how the four factors work in resource distribution games by testing the differences between average rejection rates in different treatments. Two hundred and twenty healthy volunteers participated in an intentional version of the ultimatum game (UG). The experiment used a 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 mixed design with "openness" as a between subjects factor and the other three as within subjects factors, and the participants were assigned as recipients. The results revealed that fairness or perceived good intention reduced the subject's average rejection rates. There was a significant interaction between facial expressions and openness. With fair offers, the average rejection rate for informed was lower than that of uninformed; but when unfair, no difference between the corresponding average rejection rates was found. The interaction effect of smiling and openness was also significant, the average rejection rate for informed offers was lower when the proposer was smiling and no rejection rate difference between uninformed offers and informed offers when no smiling. No other interaction effect was found.

Higher Status Honesty Is Worth More: The Effect of Social Status on Honesty Evaluation

Promises are crucial for maintaining trust in social hierarchies. It is well known that not all promises are kept; yet the effect of social status on responses to promises being kept or broken is far from understood, as are the neural processes underlying this effect. Here we manipulated participants' social status before measuring their investment behavior as Investor in iterated Trust Game (TG). Participants decided how much to invest in their partners, who acted as Trustees in TG, after being informed that their partners of higher or lower social status either promised to return half of the multiplied sum (4 × invested amount), did not promise, or had no opportunity to promise. Event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded when the participants saw the Trustees' decisions in which the partners always returned half of the time, regardless of the experimental conditions. Trustee decisions to return or not after promising to do so were defined as honesty and dishonesty, respectively. Behaviorally, participants invested more when Trustees promised than when Trustees had no opportunity to promise, and this effect was greater for higher status than lower status Trustees. Neurally, when viewing Trustees' return decisions, participants' medial frontal negativity (MFN) responses (250-310 ms post onset) were more negative when Trustees did not return than when they did return, suggesting that not returning was an expectancy violation. P300 responses were only sensitive to higher status return feedback, and were more positive-going for higher status partner returns than for lower status partner returns, suggesting that higher status returns may have been more rewarding/motivationally significant. Importantly, only participants in low subjective socioeconomic status (SES) evidenced an increased P300 effect for higher status than lower status honesty (honesty - dishonesty), suggesting that higher status honesty was especially rewarding/motivationally significant for participants with low SES. Taken together, our results suggest that in an earlier time window, MFN encodes return valence, regardless of honesty or social status, which are addressed in a later cognitive appraisal process (P300). Our findings suggest that social status influences honesty perception at both a behavioral and neural level, and that subjective SES may modulate this effect.