Social Status Perception and Individual Social Capital: Evidence from the US
-
Alessandro Bucciol
Abstract
This paper provides evidence that individual social capital contributes to our understanding of where individuals locate themselves in the social ladder, also when their objective location within society (measured in terms of income, wealth, education and job) is considered. Using large-scale longitudinal data from the US Health and Retirement Study, we assess individual social capital by means of a multidimensional approach and consider (number, intensity and quality of) respondents’ friendships, prosocial behavior, social engagement and neighborhood cohesion. Our findings indicate that individual social capital plays a role in affecting subjective status, as self-perceived status correlates positively with neighborhood cohesion and negatively with negative support from friends, after controlling for objectively measured social status.
Acknowledgements
We thank the editor and two reviewers, whose insightful comments helped us significantly improve the paper, and participants at the 2017 International Meeting on Experimental and Behavioral Social Sciences (IMEBESS) in Barcelona. The usual disclaimers apply.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Appendix
A Key variables
A.1 Variables on Social capital
The variables aim to capture key categories of individual social capital and are constructed following the indication in Smith et al. (2013)[7], based on the psychological literature. Within squared parentheses we report the name of the variables in HRS, wave 2012. To ease the interpretation of the results, all the social capital variables are rescaled in the 0-1 range.
WITH FRIENDS [lb018][8]
“How many of your friends would you say you have a close relationship with?”
We create the dummy variable “with friends” equal to 1 if the answer is 3 or more (i. e. the median in the dataset).
SOCIAL CONTACT [lb017][9]
“On average, how often do you do each of the following? Please check the answer which shows how you feel about each statement.
Meet up (include both arranged and chance meetings)
Speak on the phone
Write or email.
Possible answers: 1 = Three or more times a week; 2 = Once or twice a week; 3 = Once or twice a month; 4 = Every few months; 5 = Once or twice a year; 6 = Less than once a year or never.
Questions refer to friends. We reverse score all items and create an index of “social contact” equal to their average.
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE SUPPORT [lb016][10]
“Please check the answer which best shows how you feel about each statement.
How much do they really understand the way you feel about things?
How much can you rely on them if you have a serious problem?
How much can you open up to them if you need to talk about your worries?
How often do they make too many demands on you?
How much do they criticize you?
How much do they let you down when you are counting on them?
How much do they get on your nerves?
Possible answers: 1 = A lot; 2 = Some; 3 = A little; 4 = Not at all.
Questions refer to friends. We reverse score all items and create an index of “positive support” by averaging the scores of items a-c and an index of “negative support” by averaging the scores of items d-g.
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT [lb001][11]
“These first questions are about the activities in your life now. Please tell us how often you do each activity.
Care for a sick or disabled adult?
Do activities with grandchildren, nieces/nephews, or neighborhood children?
Do volunteer work with children or young people?
Do any other volunteer or charity work?
Attend an educational or training course?
Go to a sport, social, or other club?
Attend meetings of non-religious organizations, such as political, community, or other interest groups?
Pray privately in places other than a church or synagogue?
The list of questions continues with a set of further twelve items on a wide range of activities.
Possible answers: 1 = Daily; 2 = Several times a week; 3 = Once a week; 4 = Several times a month; 5 = At least once a month; 6 = Not in the last month; 7 = Never/Not relevant. Option 7 was absent in wave 2008, which also excluded item b.
We reverse score all items and create an index of “prosocial behavior” equal to the average of items a-d and an index of “social engagement” equal to the average of items e-h.
NEIGHBORHOOD COHESION [lb021][12]
“These questions ask how you feel about your local area, that is everywhere within a 20 minute walk or about a mile of your home. Please mark one box on each line. The closer your mark is to a statement the more strongly you agree with it.
I really feel part of this area/I feel that I don’t belong in this area
Most people in this area can be trusted/Most people in this area can’t be trusted
Most people in this area are friendly/Most people in this area are unfriendly
If you were in trouble, there are lots of people in this area who would help you/If you were in trouble, there is nobody in this area who would help you
Possible answers: each of a 7-point scale, denoting the respondent’s preference for either pole.
We create an index of “neighborhood cohesion” equal to the average of the reverse-scored items a, c, e, g.
A.2 Variable on Social Status [lb043][13]
“Think of this ladder as representing where people stand in our society. At the top of the ladder are the people who are the best off - those who have the most money, most education, and best jobs. At the bottom are the people who are the worst off - who have the least money, least education, and the worst jobs or no jobs. The higher up you are on this ladder, the closer you are to the people at the very top and the lower you are, the closer you are to the people at the very bottom.”
Possible answer: any of the 10 rungs in a picture of a ladder.
B Further analyses
Objective social status.
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | OLS | FE | FE | FE |
| With friends | – | – | −0.019 | −0.019 |
| – | – | (0.022) | (0.022) | |
| Social contact | – | – | 0.027 | 0.021 |
| – | – | (0.085) | (0.083) | |
| Positive support | – | – | −0.057 | −0.053 |
| – | – | (0.069) | (0.068) | |
| Negative support | – | – | −0.037 | −0.043 |
| – | – | (0.075) | (0.073) | |
| Prosocial behavior | – | – | 0.048 | 0.046 |
| – | – | (0.098) | (0.097) | |
| Social engagement | – | – | 0.120 | 0.115 |
| – | – | (0.088) | (0.085) | |
| Neighborhood cohesion | – | – | 0.163*** | 0.158*** |
| – | – | (0.049) | (0.050) | |
| OSES of the peers | 0.728*** | 0.183** | 0.182** | – |
| (0.026) | (0.082) | (0.082) | – | |
| Employee of the peers | – | – | – | −0.452 |
| – | – | – | (0.341) | |
| Self-employed of the peers | – | – | – | 0.178 |
| – | – | – | (0.396) | |
| Retired of the peers | – | – | – | −0.541** |
| – | – | – | (0.250) | |
| Ln(income) of the peers | – | – | – | 0.092 |
| – | – | – | (0.087) | |
| Ln(financial wealth) of the peers | – | – | – | 0.067*** |
| – | – | – | (0.022) | |
| Ln(real wealth) of the peers | – | – | – | 0.116*** |
| – | – | – | (0.030) | |
| Age/10 | 0.087*** | −0.016 | −0.015 | −0.021 |
| (0.019) | (0.105) | (0.107) | (0.109) | |
| Female | −0.033 | – | – | – |
| (0.033) | – | – | – | |
| Non-white | −0.809*** | – | – | – |
| (0.060) | – | – | – | |
| Immigrate | −0.093 | – | – | – |
| (0.076) | – | – | – | |
| Married | 0.676*** | 0.085* | 0.080 | 0.072 |
| (0.035) | (0.049) | (0.049) | (0.050) | |
| Chronic diseases | −0.212*** | 0.016 | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| (0.033) | (0.050) | (0.049) | (0.049) | |
| Self-ass. good health | 0.361*** | 0.028 | 0.025 | 0.022 |
| (0.030) | (0.036) | (0.036) | (0.036) | |
| After | −0.392 | – | – | – |
| (0.797) | – | – | – | |
| Wave 2010 | −0.079** | −0.369*** | −0.369*** | −0.334*** |
| (0.034) | (0.031) | (0.039) | (0.055) | |
| Wave 2012 | 0.304 | −0.810 | −0.814 | −0.762 |
| (0.798) | (0.538) | (0.548) | (0.563) | |
| Wave 2014 | 0.323 | −0.933* | −0.933* | −0.845 |
| (0.799) | (0.540) | (0.552) | (0.569) | |
| Constant | 0.863*** | 0.528 | 0.531 | 0.509 |
| (0.217) | (0.536) | (0.545) | (0.559) | |
| Observations | 12,174 | 12,174 | 12,174 | 12,174 |
| Individuals | 6,087 | 6,087 | 6,087 | 6,087 |
| R-squared | 0.291 | – | – | – |
| F-test FE = 0 (p-value) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
Note: Column (1) reports OLS estimates with standard errors clustered at the individual level, while Columns (2)–(4) report Fixed Effect (FE) first-difference panel estimates with standard errors clustered at the reference-group level. *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.
References
Adler, N. E., E. S. Epel, G. Castellazzo, and 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 (6): 586–92.10.1037/0278-6133.19.6.586Search in Google Scholar
Alesina, A., and P. Giuliano. 2010. “The Power of the Family.” Journal of Economic Growth 15 (2): 93–125.10.1007/s10887-010-9052-zSearch in Google Scholar
Ball, S., C. Eckel, P. J. Grossman, and W. Zame. 2001. “Status in Markets.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 116 (1): 161–88.10.1162/003355301556374Search in Google Scholar
Ball, S. B., and C. C. Eckel. 1996. “Buying Status: Experimental Evidence on Status in Negotiation.” Psychology & Marketing 13 (4): 381–405.10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199607)13:4<379::AID-MAR4>3.0.CO;2-7Search in Google Scholar
Bartolini, S., E. Bilancini, and F. Sarracino. 2013. “Predicting the Trend of Well-being in Germany: How Much Do Comparisons, Adaptation and Sociability Matter?” Social Indicators Research 114 (2): 169–91.10.1007/s11205-012-0142-5Search in Google Scholar
Battaglini, M., C. Diaz, and E. Patacchini. 2017. “Self-control and Peer Groups: An Empirical Analysis.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 134: 240–54.10.1016/j.jebo.2016.12.018Search in Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., and M. R. Leary. 1995. “The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation.” Psychological Bulletin 117 (3): 497–529.10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497Search in Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1986. “Forms of Capital.” In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, edited by J. G. Richardson, 241–60. Westport: Greenwood Press.Search in Google Scholar
Boyce, C. J., and A. M. Wood. 2011. “Personality and the Marginal Utility of Income: Personality Interacts with Increases in Household Income to Determine Life Satisfaction.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 78 (1): 183–91.10.1016/j.jebo.2011.01.004Search in Google Scholar
Bucciol, A., B. Cavasso, and L. Zarri. 2015. “Social Status and Personality Traits.” Journal of Economic Psychology 51: 245–60.10.1016/j.joep.2015.10.002Search in Google Scholar
Bursztyn, L., B. Ferman, S. Fiorni, M. Kanz, and G. Rao. 2018. “Status Goods: Experimental Evidence from Platinum Credit Cards.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 133 (3): 1561–95.10.1093/qje/qjx048Search in Google Scholar
Celse, J., F. Galia, and S. Max. 2017. “Are (negative) Emotions to Blame for Being Positional? An Experimental Investigation of the Impact of Emotional States on Status Preferences.” Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 67: 122–30.10.1016/j.socec.2016.12.004Search in Google Scholar
Charles, K. K., E. Hurst, and N. Roussanov. 2009. “Conspicuous Consumption and Race.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 124 (2): 425–67.10.1162/qjec.2009.124.2.425Search in Google Scholar
Chen, Y., and X. Fan. 2015. “Discordance between Subjective and Objective Social Status in Contemporary China.” Journal of Chinese Sociology 2 (14): 1–20.10.1186/s40711-015-0017-7Search in Google Scholar
Clark, A. E., and A. J. Oswald. 1996. “Satisfaction and Comparison Income.” Journal of Public Economics 61 (3): 359–81.10.1016/0047-2727(95)01564-7Search in Google Scholar
Clark, A. E., and C. Senik. 2010. “Who Compares to Whom? The Anatomy of Income Comparisons in Europe.” Economic Journal 120 (544): 573–94.10.1111/j.1468-0297.2010.02359.xSearch in Google Scholar
Cohen, S., C. M. Alper, W. J. Doyle, N. Adler, J. J. Treanor, and R. B. Turner. 2008. “Objective and Subjective Socioeconomic Status and Susceptibility to the Common Cold.” Health Psychology 27 (2): 268–74.10.1037/0278-6133.27.2.268Search in Google Scholar
Colombo, E., and L. Stanca. 2014. “Measuring the Monetary Value of Social Relations: A Hedonic Approach.” Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 50: 77–87.10.1016/j.socec.2014.03.001Search in Google Scholar
Corazzini, L., L. Esposito, and F. Majorano. 2011. “Exploring the Absolutist Vs Relativist Perception of Poverty Using a Cross-Country Questionnaire Survey.” Journal of Economic Psychology 32 (2): 273–83.10.1016/j.joep.2009.10.007Search in Google Scholar
Corneo, G., and O. Jeanne. 2001. “Status, the Distribution of Wealth, and Growth.” Scandinavian Journal of Economics 103 (2): 283–93.10.1111/1467-9442.00245Search in Google Scholar
Cruces, G., R. Perez-Truglia, and M. Tetaz. 2013. “Biased Perceptions of Income Distribution and Preferences for Redistribution: Evidence from a Survey Experiment.” Journal of Public Economics 98: 100–12.10.1016/j.jpubeco.2012.10.009Search in Google Scholar
Daly, M. C., D. J. Wilson, and N. J. Johnson. 2013. “Relative Status and Well-being: Evidence from US Suicide Deaths.” Review of Economics and Statistics 95 (5): 1480–500.10.1162/REST_a_00355Search in Google Scholar
Demakakos, P., J. Nazroo, E. Breeze, and M. Marmot. 2008. “Socioeconomic Status and Health: The Role of Subjective Social Status.” Social Science & Medicine 67 (2): 330–40.10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.03.038Search in Google Scholar
Dolan, P., T. Peasgood, and M. White. 2008. “Do We Really Know What Makes Us Happy? A Review of the Economic Literature on the Factors Associated with Subjective Well-being.” Journal of Economic Psychology 29 (1): 94–122.10.1016/j.joep.2007.09.001Search in Google Scholar
Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. 2005. “Income and Well-being: An Empirical Analysis of the Comparison Income Effect.” Journal of Public Economics 89 (5): 997–1019.10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.06.003Search in Google Scholar
Franzini, L., and M. E. Fernandez-Esquer. 2006. “The Association of Subjective Social Status and Health in Low-Income Mexican-Origin Individuals in Texas.” Social Science & Medicine 63 (3): 788–804.10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.01.009Search in Google Scholar
Glaeser, E. L., D. Laibson, and B. Sacerdote. 2002. “An Economic Approach to Social Capital.” Economic Journal 112: F437–458.10.1111/1468-0297.00078Search in Google Scholar
Guiso, L., P. Sapienza, and L. Zingales. 2016. “Long-Term Persistence.” Journal of the European Economic Association 14 (6): 1401–36.10.1111/jeea.12177Search in Google Scholar
Huberman, B. A., C. H. Loch, and A. Onculer. 2004. “Status as a Valued Resource.” Social Psychology Quarterly 67 (1): 103–14.10.1177/019027250406700109Search in Google Scholar
James, W. 1890. The Principles of Psychology. New York: Holt & Company.10.1037/10538-000Search in Google Scholar
Knack, S., and P. Keefer. 1997. “Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A Cross-Country Investigation.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 112 (4): 1251–88.10.1162/003355300555475Search in Google Scholar
Kumru, C. S., and L. Vesterlund. 2010. “The Effect of Status on Charitable Giving.” Journal of Public Economic Theory 12 (4): 709–35.10.1111/j.1467-9779.2010.01471.xSearch in Google Scholar
Lora, E., and J. Fajardo. 2013. “Latin American Middle Classes: The Distance between Perception and Reality.” Economia 14 (1): 33–60.10.2139/ssrn.1972113Search in Google Scholar
Macleod, J., G. D. Smith, C. Metcalfe, and C. Hart. 2005. “Is Subjective Social Status a More Important Determinant of Health than Objective Social Status? Evidence from a Prospective Observational Study of Scottish Men.” Social Science & Medicine 61: 1916–29.10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.04.009Search in Google Scholar
Marmot, M. G., R. Fuhrer, S. L. Ettner, N. F. Marks, L. L. Bumpass, and C. D. Ryff. 1998. “Contribution of Psychosocial Factors to Socioeconomic Differences in Health.” Milbank Quarterly 76 (3): 403–48.10.1111/1468-0009.00097Search in Google Scholar
McBride, M. 2001. “Relative-Income Effects on Subjective Well-being in the Cross-Section.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 45 (3): 251–78.10.1016/S0167-2681(01)00145-7Search in Google Scholar
Nobles, J., M. R. Weintraub, and N. E. Adler. 2013. “Subjective Socioeconomic Status and Health: Relationships Reconsidered.” Social Science & Medicine 82: 58–66.10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.01.021Search in Google Scholar
Operario, D., N. Adler, and D. R. Williams. 2004. “Subjective Social Status: Reliability and Predictive Utility for Global Health.” Psychology and Health 19 (2): 237–46.10.1080/08870440310001638098Search in Google Scholar
Persky, J., and M. Y. Tam. 1990. “Local Status and National Social Welfare.” Journal of Regional Science 30 (2): 229–38.10.1111/j.1467-9787.1990.tb00094.xSearch in Google Scholar
Powdthavee, N. 2008. “Putting a Price Tag on Friends, Relatives, and Neighbours: Using Surveys of Life Satisfaction to Value Social Relationships.” Journal of Socio-Economics 37 (4): 1459–80.10.1016/j.socec.2007.04.004Search in Google Scholar
Putnam, R. 1993. Making Democracy Work. Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400820740Search in Google Scholar
Rege, M. 2008. “Why Do People Care about Social Status?” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 66 (2): 233–42.10.1016/j.jebo.2006.04.005Search in Google Scholar
Ritterman, M. L., L. C. Fernald, E. J. Ozer, N. E. Adler, J. P. Gutierrez, and S. L. Syme. 2009. “Objective and Subjective Social Class Gradients for Substance Use among Mexican Adolescents.” Social Science & Medicine 68: 1843–51.10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.02.048Search in Google Scholar
Sakurai, K., N. Kawakami, K. Yamaoka, H. Ishikawa, and H. Hashimoto. 2010. “The Impact of Subjective and Objective Social Status on Psychological Distress among Men and Women in Japan.” Social Science & Medicine 70 (11): 1832–39.10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.01.019Search in Google Scholar
Singh-Manoux, A., N. E. Adler, and M. G. Marmot. 2003. “Subjective Social Status: Its Determinants and Its Association with Measures of Ill Health in the Whitehall II Study.” Social Science & Medicine 56 (6): 1321–33.10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00131-4Search in Google Scholar
Singh-Manoux, A., M. G. Marmot, and N. E. Adler. 2005. “Does Subjective Social Status Predict Health and Change in Health Status Better than Objective Status?” Psychosomatic Medicine 67 (6): 855–61.10.1097/01.psy.0000188434.52941.a0Search in Google Scholar
Smith J., G. Fisher, L. Ryan, P. Clarke, J. House, and D. R. Weir. 2013. “Psychosocial and Lifestyle Questionnaire 2006–2010: Documentation Report”. The HRS Psychosocial Working Group. Accessed March 21, 2016. http://hrsonline.isr.umich.edu/sitedocs/userg/HRS2006-2010SAQdoc.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Sobel, J. 2002. “Can We Trust Social Capital?” Journal of Economic Literature 15: 139–54.10.1257/jel.40.1.139Search in Google Scholar
Sosnaud, B., D. Brady, and S. M. Frenk. 2013. “Class in Name Only: Subjective Class Identity, Objective Class Position, and Vote Choice in American Presidential Elections.” Social Problems 60 (1): 81–99.10.1525/sp.2013.60.1.81Search in Google Scholar
Stark, O., and J. E. Taylor. 1991. “Migration Incentives, Migration Types: The Role of Relative Deprivation.” Economic Journal 101 (408): 1163–78.10.2307/2234433Search in Google Scholar
Truyts, T. 2010. “Social Status in Economic Theory.” Journal of Economic Surveys 24 (1): 137–69.10.1111/j.1467-6419.2009.00579.xSearch in Google Scholar
Van de Stadt, H., A. Kapteyn, and S. Van de Geer. 1985. “The Relativity of Utility: Evidence from Panel Data.” Review of Economics and Statistics 67 (2): 179–87.10.2307/1924716Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Research-articles
- Minimum Wages and Nascent Entrepreneurship in the US
- Social Status Perception and Individual Social Capital: Evidence from the US
- Endogenous Equity Shares in Cournot Competition: Welfare Analysis and Policy
- Personal or Partisan Incumbency Advantage? Evidence from an Electoral Reform at the Local Level in Italy
- Knowledge Obsolescence and Women’s Occupational Sorting: New Evidence from Citation Data
- The Effect of the Second Child on the Anthropometric Outcomes and Nutrition Intake of the First Child: Evidence from the Relaxation of the One-Child Policy in Rural China
- The Challenge of Organizing Elderly Care Programmes: Optimal Policy Design under Complete and Asymmetric Information
- Too Much Stick for the Carrot? Job Search Requirements and Search Behaviour of Unemployment Benefit Claimants
- Assessing Higher Education Policy in Brazil: A Mixed Oligopoly Approach
- Inheritance Taxation in a Model with Intergenerational Time Transfers
- Habits Do Not Die Easily: The Economics of Table Soccer
- Effects of Alcohol Taxation on Prices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Pass-Through Rates
- Letter
- The Role of Optimism and Pessimism in the Substitution Between Primary and Secondary Health Prevention Efforts
- Executive Compensation and Labor Expenses
- A Note on Productive and Dynamic Inefficiencies of Intermediate Regulatory Sanctions
Articles in the same Issue
- Research-articles
- Minimum Wages and Nascent Entrepreneurship in the US
- Social Status Perception and Individual Social Capital: Evidence from the US
- Endogenous Equity Shares in Cournot Competition: Welfare Analysis and Policy
- Personal or Partisan Incumbency Advantage? Evidence from an Electoral Reform at the Local Level in Italy
- Knowledge Obsolescence and Women’s Occupational Sorting: New Evidence from Citation Data
- The Effect of the Second Child on the Anthropometric Outcomes and Nutrition Intake of the First Child: Evidence from the Relaxation of the One-Child Policy in Rural China
- The Challenge of Organizing Elderly Care Programmes: Optimal Policy Design under Complete and Asymmetric Information
- Too Much Stick for the Carrot? Job Search Requirements and Search Behaviour of Unemployment Benefit Claimants
- Assessing Higher Education Policy in Brazil: A Mixed Oligopoly Approach
- Inheritance Taxation in a Model with Intergenerational Time Transfers
- Habits Do Not Die Easily: The Economics of Table Soccer
- Effects of Alcohol Taxation on Prices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Pass-Through Rates
- Letter
- The Role of Optimism and Pessimism in the Substitution Between Primary and Secondary Health Prevention Efforts
- Executive Compensation and Labor Expenses
- A Note on Productive and Dynamic Inefficiencies of Intermediate Regulatory Sanctions
