Does improved upward social mobility foster frustration and conflict? A large-scale online experiment testing Boudon’s model

IF 1.3 4区 社会学 Q3 SOCIOLOGY
Joel Berger, Andreas Diekmann, Stefan Wehrli
{"title":"Does improved upward social mobility foster frustration and conflict? A large-scale online experiment testing Boudon’s model","authors":"Joel Berger, Andreas Diekmann, Stefan Wehrli","doi":"10.1177/10434631231225544","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The rise of populism has reignited scholarly interest in the paradox of societal advancement leading to frustration and social tension. Globalization and digitalization have increased social opportunities for parts of the population, but a substantial portion of society feels disadvantaged, resulting in discontent. This study, rooted in Boudon’s model of relative deprivation, examines the mechanisms that fuel this frustration. We conducted an online experiment involving 2114 US-based MTurk participants, in which we manipulated the availability of status positions to create varying degrees of upward social mobility. We also varied group sizes to ensure robustness. We assessed relative deprivation with structural, subjective, and behavioral measures. For example, frustration was measured using the “joy-of-destruction game,” in which subjects had to make the costly decision to destroy part of another player’s winnings. Contrary to the model’s prediction, we found that the proportion of individuals who were worse off, the losers, decreased consistently as mobility increased. This outcome can be attributed to overentry in conditions of low mobility and underentry in conditions of intermediate or high mobility. The losers displayed increased frustration and hostility towards noncompetitors and winners. Intriguingly, winners also exhibited heightened hostility. However, at the aggregate level, hostile behavior did not surge as conditions improved. In our exploratory analyses at the individual level, we identified several distinct patterns. Risk-tolerant individuals and women were more likely to enter competition. Conversely, those with advanced education levels showed a decreased inclination to competitiveness. Risk-tolerant individuals reported greater feelings of frustration and displayed increased hostility. This effect was also observed particularly among politically right-leaning individuals.","PeriodicalId":47079,"journal":{"name":"Rationality and Society","volume":"28 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rationality and Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10434631231225544","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The rise of populism has reignited scholarly interest in the paradox of societal advancement leading to frustration and social tension. Globalization and digitalization have increased social opportunities for parts of the population, but a substantial portion of society feels disadvantaged, resulting in discontent. This study, rooted in Boudon’s model of relative deprivation, examines the mechanisms that fuel this frustration. We conducted an online experiment involving 2114 US-based MTurk participants, in which we manipulated the availability of status positions to create varying degrees of upward social mobility. We also varied group sizes to ensure robustness. We assessed relative deprivation with structural, subjective, and behavioral measures. For example, frustration was measured using the “joy-of-destruction game,” in which subjects had to make the costly decision to destroy part of another player’s winnings. Contrary to the model’s prediction, we found that the proportion of individuals who were worse off, the losers, decreased consistently as mobility increased. This outcome can be attributed to overentry in conditions of low mobility and underentry in conditions of intermediate or high mobility. The losers displayed increased frustration and hostility towards noncompetitors and winners. Intriguingly, winners also exhibited heightened hostility. However, at the aggregate level, hostile behavior did not surge as conditions improved. In our exploratory analyses at the individual level, we identified several distinct patterns. Risk-tolerant individuals and women were more likely to enter competition. Conversely, those with advanced education levels showed a decreased inclination to competitiveness. Risk-tolerant individuals reported greater feelings of frustration and displayed increased hostility. This effect was also observed particularly among politically right-leaning individuals.
提高社会向上流动性是否会助长挫折感和冲突?测试布东模型的大规模在线实验
民粹主义的兴起再次激发了学者们对社会进步导致挫折和社会紧张这一悖论的兴趣。全球化和数字化增加了部分人口的社会机会,但社会中的很大一部分人却感到自己处于不利地位,从而产生不满情绪。本研究基于布东(Boudon)的 "相对剥夺 "模型,探讨了助长这种不满情绪的机制。我们进行了一项在线实验,共有 2114 名美国 MTurk 参与者参加,在实验中,我们操纵了地位职位的可用性,以创造不同程度的向上社会流动性。为了确保实验的稳健性,我们还改变了实验组的规模。我们通过结构、主观和行为测量来评估相对剥夺感。例如,我们使用 "破坏乐趣游戏 "来测量受试者的挫败感,在该游戏中,受试者必须做出代价高昂的决定,破坏另一名玩家的部分奖金。与模型的预测相反,我们发现,随着流动性的增加,情况较差的个体(即输家)的比例持续下降。这一结果可归因于在低流动性条件下的过度投资,以及在中等或高流动性条件下的投资不足。输家对非竞争者和赢家表现出更多的挫败感和敌意。耐人寻味的是,赢家也表现出更强的敌意。然而,从总体上看,敌意行为并没有随着条件的改善而激增。在个体层面的探索性分析中,我们发现了几种不同的模式。风险承受能力强的个人和女性更有可能参与竞争。相反,那些受过高等教育的人则对竞争的倾向性有所下降。风险承受能力强的人更容易产生挫败感,并表现出更强的敌意。尤其是在政治右倾的人中也观察到了这种效应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Rationality & Society focuses on the growing contributions of rational-action based theory, and the questions and controversies surrounding this growth. Why Choose Rationality and Society? The trend toward ever-greater specialization in many areas of intellectual life has lead to fragmentation that deprives scholars of the ability to communicate even in closely adjoining fields. The emergence of the rational action paradigm as the inter-lingua of the social sciences is a remarkable exception to this trend. It is the one paradigm that offers the promise of bringing greater theoretical unity across disciplines such as economics, sociology, political science, cognitive psychology, moral philosophy and law.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信