|
on Social Norms and Social Capital |
|
Issue of 2016‒10‒30
six papers chosen by Fabio Sabatini Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza” |
| By: | Efstratia Arampatzi (Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands); Martijn J. Burger (Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands); Natallia A. Novik (Université de Strasbourg, France; Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands) |
| Abstract: | Can online social contacts replace the importance of real-life social connections in our pursuit of happiness? With the growing use of social network sites (SNSs), attention has been increasingly drawn to this topic. Our study empirically examines the effect of SNS use on happiness for different subgroups of young adults. More specifically, we examine whether the effect of SNSs on happiness is moderated by individual social capital, as measured in terms of frequency of social contacts and feelings of loneliness. Using Dutch data from the Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social Sciences (LISS panel), we provide robust empirical evidence that there is, on average, no relationship between the amount of time spent on SNSs and happiness. However, we find a negative association between the numbers of hours spent on SNS and happiness for SNS users who feel socially disconnected and lonely. The results hold when we control for socio-demographic characteristics, trust, hours spent on other Internet sites and household income. Hence, SNSs are not a substitute for real-life social connections and, at most, complement them. |
| Keywords: | Subjective well-being; happiness; social network sites; individual social capital; social isolation; loneliness |
| JEL: | I31 L86 Z13 |
| Date: | 2016–10–17 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:tin:wpaper:20160085&r=soc |
| By: | Eggert, Håkan (Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and Law, Göteborg University); Kataria, Mitesh (Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and Law, Göteborg University); Lampi, Elina (Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and Law, Göteborg University) |
| Abstract: | This paper investigates trust among stakeholders in fisheries management. We asked the general public, environmental bureaucrats, and recreational and commercial fishers whether they believed various stakeholders have sufficient knowledge to take a stance regarding fisheries management issues in a choice experiment they themselves had just been exposed to. We found that the general public and recreational fishers tend to trust bureaucrats to have sufficient knowledge, while bureaucrats distrust the general public. The commercial fishers in our sample deviate from the other respondents with high self-trust and low trust in both the general public and bureaucrats. In addition, bureaucrats tend to think that their colleagues are more knowledgeable than them. When looking at observable characteristics, we find that, regardless of comparison group, males show higher trust in their own knowledge than do females, and those with higher education believe they are more knowledgeable than people in general. |
| Keywords: | Trust; Fisheries Management; Overconfidence; Choice experiment |
| JEL: | Q22 |
| Date: | 2016–10 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hhs:gunwpe:0675&r=soc |
| By: | Yoshio Kamijo (School of Economics and Management, Kochi University of Technology); Teruyuki Tamura (School of Economics and Management, Kochi University of Technology) |
| Abstract: | This study examines whether attitudes toward risk and altruism are affected by being in a group or being alone. Subjects in our experiment were requested only to show their faces to other members without any further communication, differing from previous studies. In experiments of both anonymous investments and donations, we found that subjects who made decisions in a group offered significantly lower amounts than individuals who made decisions alone, even controlling for individuals' risk and altruistic preferences. Our results indicate that people are more risk averse and self-interested when they are in a group. |
| Keywords: | Group decision, Altruism, Decision under risk |
| JEL: | C91 C92 D81 |
| Date: | 2016–10 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:kch:wpaper:sdes-2016-12&r=soc |
| By: | Bögenhold, Dieter; Michaelides, Panayotis G.; Papageorgiou, Theofanis |
| Abstract: | As we know, Joseph Alois Schumpeter is one of the greatest economists of all times, while Thorstein Veblen is an economist and sociologist who made seminal contributions to the social sciences. Pierre Bourdieu, meanwhile, is one of the most famous structural sociologists, who has consistently worked on economic dynamics. These three scholars have laid the foundations of a socioeconomic perspective. However, several important aspects of their works remain less widely discussed, or even inadequately explored in a comparative manner. Of course, investigating the origins of their ideas in evolutionary and institutional economics and re-evaluating comparatively the influences that shaped their works is quite useful for promoting dialogue between Economics and Sociology. Within this framework, this essay focuses on the conceptual relationship between Schumpeter, Veblen and Bourdieu. Evolution and Change shape the economic life in their respective works and, in such a framework a central point of their analyses is the interdependence between the cultural, social and economic spheres. Furthermore, an economic sociology is built around the concept of habit formation. The three great authors’ systemic views focus on the various institutions and other aspects of cultural, social and economic life, where habits are formed and cover diverse fields and notions such as Consumption, Preferences, Art, Knowledge, Banking and even Capitalism. For instance, all three social scientists acknowledged the fact that the internal dynamics of capitalism introduce structural instabilities into the economic system. Also, they recognized that research and knowledge development is a collective social process. However, from a methodological perspective, their main emphasis is on the emerging dynamic evolution of habits, which is perceived as the interruption of already existing social norms and the conflict between routine and change. Several differences between Schumpeter, Veblen and Bourdieu are observed and analysed and ideas for future research are presented. |
| Keywords: | Schumpeter, Veblen, Bourdieu, Habits, Consumption, Capitalism |
| JEL: | B15 B25 B31 |
| Date: | 2016 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:74585&r=soc |
| By: | Seeun Jung (ESSEC Business School - Essec Business School, PSE - Paris-Jourdan Sciences Economiques - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENS Paris - École normale supérieure - Paris - École des Ponts ParisTech (ENPC), PSE - Paris School of Economics); Radu Vranceanu (Economics Department - Essec Business School) |
| Abstract: | This paper reports results from a real-e ort experiment in which men and women are paired to form a two-member team and asked to execute a real-eff ort task. Each participant receives an equal share of the team's output. Workers who perform better than their partner can punish him/her by imposing a fi ne. We manipulate the teams' gender composition (man-man, man-woman, and woman-woman) to analyze whether an individual's performance and sanctioning behavior depends on his/her gender and the gender interaction within the team. The data show that, on average, men perform slightly better than women. A man's performance will deteriorate when paired with a woman, while a woman's performance will improve when paired with a woman. When underperforming, women are sanctioned more often and more heavily than men; if sanctioned, men tend to improve their performance, while women's performance does not change. |
| Keywords: | Gender studies,Real-e ort task,Team production,Performance,Punishment,Discrimination |
| Date: | 2015–06–25 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-01171161&r=soc |
| By: | Sabine Hommelhoff; David Richter |
| Abstract: | Although trust is fundamental to social and organizational functioning, the media often portray managers as distrusting, suggesting that distrust of others is a typical personality variable of successful leaders. This study puts the cliché of the distrustful manager to the test. Both selfreport data (N = 32,926) and behavioral data (N = 924) from the German Socio-Economic Panel refute this cliché. Analyses reveal that individuals in managerial positions neither show a lower level of trust before, nor a systematic reduction in trust after attaining such positions. Moreover, analyses demonstrate that managers are generally more trusting than non-managers. This selection effect implies that individuals who trust others are more successful in achieving managerial positions than their less trusting counterparts. |
| Keywords: | management; trust; distrust; trust game; panel data |
| Date: | 2016 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:diw:diwsop:diw_sp871&r=soc |