[ExI] experiment regarding ethical behaviors vs status

[spike]

DOH!  Rookie error on my part.   Read on.

On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 12:34:42PM -0700, spike wrote:

>> ...I might be imagining it, but I feel like I have observed that there a  lot of Porsche and Beemer drivers who are over-represented among the defectors...

>...I'm surprised you find it surprising.

>...http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-0228-greed-20120228,0,5965885.story

>...Wealthy, motivated by greed, are more likely to cheat, study finds

>...People of higher status are more prone to cheating, taking candy from children and failing to wait their turn at four-way stops, a UC Berkeley experiment finds...

What I realized is that the Berkeley study did not show that higher status people are more dishonest.  It showed that those who self-identify as higher status are more dishonest.  What we are still missing is the correlation between status and self-identification of status.  

I thought it remarkable that Berkeley (with that reputation of liberal) would produce the two studies, the first demonstrating a general positive correlation between liberalism and higher economic status, the second claiming a general positive correlation between higher status and dishonesty.  If liberal equals richer and richer equals dishonest, then liberal equals dishonest.

But both they and I made the same rookie error.  It established the dishonesty of the test  subjects with the test, then took their word for it about their economic status.  If they have already established they are lying on the test, why would we then assume they tell the truth about their money?  This studies do not prove that liberal equals dishonest.  The title of the article was "Shame on the Rich."  It should have been "Shame on Berkeley."

I made the same mistake when I assumed the racy Beemer drivers are of higher economic status.  We have no way of knowing how rich they are or how much they earn by what they drive.  In these low interest times, anyone with an ordinary job can drive any high-end sports car.  The super-rich would be unlikely to call attention to themselves by driving flashy cars.  Those who do not own a home would be more likely to compensate and attempt to appear richer by driving a status symbol.

Back during the peak of the craziness in the valley in 1999, companies were awash in cash from people wanting IPOs and not wanting dividends.  The prevailing theory was that any company making an actual profit was growing slower than it could have, had it reinvested its dividends and profits, and was therefore less desirable, so do not buy any successful company.  Companies had more cash than they could use, and in general paid their people in stock options.  So they bought flashy German sports cars and attracted talent by offering them corporate rides.  The top CEOs would get BMW 750s, with the 12 thirsty cylinders and every luxury in their James Bond-mobile.  The lower level software management types would get a mere 8 cylinder German muscle car.  It motivated everyone in a weird sort of way, and gave a visible sign of rank, vaguely analogous to how the military puts stripes on the sleeve or brass on the shoulder.

Of course most of these ended up broke, for the stock options ended up worthless, yet the recipients often had to pay taxes based on the value of the options when they were issued.   So in this particular case, not only is there little correlation between economic status and the cost of the car, there might be a negative correlation.

The Berkeley study missed all this, and so did I.

spike 





...

"The patterns were just so consistent," Piff said. "It was very, very compelling."

Piff, who is writing a paper about attitudes toward the Occupy movement, said that his team had been accused of waging class warfare from time to time.

"Berkeley has a certain reputation, so yeah, we get that," he said.

But rather than vilify the wealthy, Piff said, he hopes his work leads to policies that help bridge the gap between the haves and have-nots.

Acts as simple as watching a movie about childhood poverty seem to encourage people of all classes to help others in need, he said.

eryn.brown at latimes.com
_______________________________________________