cbt final public oral 2015

All work and no pay?Effects of reward structures on perceptions of

social mobility in the United States

Courtney Bearns Tablante

Final Public Oral Examination

May 8, 2015

Beliefs About Rewards

“If you work hard, you can get ahead.”

MeritocracyKluegel & Smith, 1986

Protestant Work EthicWeber, 1905; Furnham, 1990

Belief in a Just WorldLerner & Miller, 1978

System JustificationJost & Banaji, 1994

5

“If you’re jealous of those with more money, don’t just sit there and complain, do something to make more money yourself – spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising, and more

time working.”

Socioeconomics in the U.S.

High inequality

Low social mobility

Inequality in education / access

Economic gains going to the top

(e.g., Andrews & Leigh, 2009; Haveman & Smeeding, 2006; Kopczuk et al., 2010; Pikkety & Goldhammer, 2014)

Data from Congressional Budget Office

PRRI survey, September 2012

Consequences of Obstacles

In the workplaceDemand-Control model; Effort-Reward Imbalance model

Personal controlAgency, Self-Efficacy, Internal vs. External locus of control

Learned helplessnessPassive, avoidant strategies

Do these feelings generalize to beliefs about society?

(e.g., Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978; Karasek, 1994; Lachman & Weaver, 1998; Rotter, 1996; Ross & Sastry, 1999; Siegrist et al., 2004)

Methods• 4 Studies

• MTurk “Family Feud” game

• Incentive: top 5% of scorers entered into a $50 raffle

• “Effort” = number of questions attempted

Study 1: Methods (continued)

• Conditions:– ERM: Effort increasingly rewarded

• Each question worth 0.2 points more than previous (#1 = 1 pt., #2 = 1.2 pts., etc.)

– ERI: Constant points/reward• Rewards not scaling up, each worth constant # of points (#1 = 1

pt., #2 = 1 pt., #30 = 1 pt., etc.)

• Primary DVs:– Game-specific effort-reward relationship (manipulation

check)– Feelings of personal control / constraints– Perceptions of current social mobility in USA

• All manipulations between participants; no awareness of other conditions

Study 1: Measures• Manipulation check

– I believe that working hard in this game will lead to better performance / more points.

– I think I could improve my score on this game if I tried a little harder.

• Perceived control / constraints (Lachman & Weaver, 1998)

– What happens to me in the future mostly depends on me.– Whether or not I am able to get what I want is in my own

hands.

• Perceptions of social mobility– It is not too difficult for people to change their position in

society.– There are a lot of opportunities for people to move up the

social ladder.

What do you think is the most popular answer to the following questions?

• Repairing it• Putting up holiday lights• Cleaning the gutter

• Looking for something• Chasing a pet• Painting

What is a reason you might be up on your roof?

Name an animal you might feed at a petting zoo.• Goat• Horse• Sheep

• Piglet• Pony• Llama

What is something you try to avoid when camping in the woods?

• Bears• Insects• Skunks

• Rain• Poison ivy• Snakes

• Repairing it• Putting up holiday lights• Cleaning the gutter

• Looking for something• Chasing a pet• Painting

What is a reason you might be up on your roof?

Name an animal you might feed at a petting zoo.• Goat• Horse• Sheep

• Piglet• Pony• Llama

What is something you try to avoid when camping in the woods?

• Bears• Insects• Skunks

• Rain• Poison ivy• Snakes

X 0/1

X 0/1.2

√ 1.4/1.4

Your score so far is:

1.4

Would you like to answer more quiz questions? Remember, the more questions you answer, the better your chances at winning $50!

• I want to answer more questions – take me to the next page!• I don’t want to answer any more quiz questions, take me to the next part of the survey.

Summary of Results

• No differences by condition in:

– Enjoyment of game

– Frustration

– Self-esteem

– Motivation to win the raffle

8/27/2015

Summary of Results, Cont.

• Significant effect of condition on:

– Game-specific E-R beliefs

• Points increasing: M = 4.03, SD = 0.88

• Constant points: M = 3.80, SD = 0.97

– Personal control


• Constant points: M = 4.20, SD = 0.81

– Perceived social mobility


• Constant points: M = 3.14, SD = 0.988/27/2015

Study 1 Results: Social Mobility

20

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

ERM ERI

Perc

eive

d S

oci

al M

ob

ilit

y in

USA

(1-

6)

When increased effort / persistence led to increased rewards, Ps felt more control

and believed the USA has higher mobility

Study 2

• Replication + controlling for points

– 3 conditions

• Points scaling up, points constant (1 or 5 pts.)

• Results

– Marginal results of condition on game-specific beliefs1 (manip check)

• Scaling-up significantly higher than 5 pt. condition

• 1-pt. condition not significantly different from others

– NS effects on personal control, mobility

1 F(2,637) = 2.61, p = 0.075, η2p = 0.008

C. B. Tablante Dissertation

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

ERM ERI-1 ERI-5

Pe

rce

ipti

on

s o

f S

oci

al

Mo

bil

ity

(1

-6)

Study 2: Mobility

Study 3

• Replication + testing randomness– 3 conditions

• Scaling-up: same as before (+0.2 pts/per)

• Constant: 4.87 points

• Random points: estimated to average 4.87 pts/per

– Visually different, e.g., 1 question/pg.

• Results– NS manipulation check

– NS effects on personal control, mobility

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

3.3

3.5

3.7

3.9

Constant ERM Random

Pe

rce

pti

on

s o

f S

oci

al

Mo

bil

ity

(1

-6)

Study 3: Mobility

Study 4

• Replication / simplification

• Sig.1 manipulation check

• NS effects on personal control

• Marginal effect2 of condition on mobility

– Points increasing: M = 3.36, SD = 0.93

– Constant points (4.5/per)3: M = 3.20, SD = 0.92

– Random points3: M = 3.22, SD = 0.99

1 F(2,773) = 3.05, p = 0.048, η2p = 0.008

2 F(2,773) = 2.43, p = 0.088, η2p = 0.006

3 NS compared to each other, sig. lower than increasing condition

Study 4: Mobility

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

3.3

3.5

3.7

3.9

ERM ERI (constant) ERR (random)

Pe

rce

pti

on

s o

f S

oci

al

Mo

bil

ity

(1

-6)

Study 4: Results

• No significant effects of condition on control

• (Marginal) replication of initial pattern on perceptions of mobility

• Similar effects between random and constant-point conditions

Conclusions

Individuals may generalize their own experiences when forming beliefs about social mobility

Beliefs may be influenced even by brief experiences

May relate to feeling personal control

SES is also significantly related to feelings of control and mobility beliefs

Higher SES = higher control, perceived mobility

Does not interact with condition

8/27/2015

Future Directions

• More immersive paradigm– “Flashier” online task, lab study, longer “game”

• Manipulating incentives– Direct points-to-cash conversion, non-monetary rewards

• Other operationalizations of “effort”– Physical labor vs. online task– Working “hard” vs. “smart” vs. “long”

• Other potential factors– Diagnosticity of task, skill required, ability to learn/improve

Thank You!Susan FiskeJoan GirgusAlin Coman

Betsy Levy PaluckEldar Shafir

Fiske LabPaluck Lab

Pam MuellerAndra Geana

Jill SwencionisRebecca Littman

Keisha CraigJim Plastine

Bartley, Priscilla, Bart, and Teddy Tablante

(Lunch available in the 3rd floor conference room!)

Effect of Manipulation on # Attempted / Time Spent

• Study 1: significant effects

– ERM: # Attempted M = 32.83, SD = 20.70• Time spent M = 6.80, SD = 0.55

– ERI: # Attempted M = 27.18, SD = 18.88• Time spent M = 6.65, SD = 0.50

• Study 3: marginal effects on # attempted, NS time

– ERM: # Attempted M = 24.29, SD = 18.69

– ERI: # Attempted M = 21.24, SD = 17.55

– ERR: # Attempted M = 19.78, SD = 17.07

Study 1 Participant SES

http://www.people-press.org/2015/03/04/most-say-government-policies-since-recession-have-done-little-to-help-middle-class-poor/

Study 1 Political Orientation

Visual Differences: Study 1

• Does type of SES measurement matter?

– No substantial differences using composite SES, income, subjective SES, or not controlling

• What happens if you control for other ind. Diffs (e.g., age, gender)

– Age: study 1 (mobility) – NS, no diff

– Gender: study 1 (mobility) – NS, no diff

cbt final public oral 2015

Documents