IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mpi/wpaper/tax-mpg-rps-2021-10.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The influence premium of monetary status

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea F.M. Martinangeli
  • Biljana Meiske

Abstract

The transmission of adaptively valuable behaviours requires individuals who are more likely to possess them to have greater influence over others’ actions. The conferment of high status to the fittest is functional to this objective. We ask to what extent status recognition and the attribution of status privileges are hard wired in humans’ psychology, in a world in which status imperfectly signals underlying cognitive ability due to the accumulation and transmission of status sources. We find that randomly assigned high status grants individuals greater influence over others’ actions than randomly assigned low status. This finding does not emerge however when the advisor’s status is linked to their cognitive ability.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea F.M. Martinangeli & Biljana Meiske, 2021. "The influence premium of monetary status," Working Papers tax-mpg-rps-2021-10, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.
    • Handle: RePEc:mpi:wpaper:tax-mpg-rps-2021-10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tax.mpg.de/RePEc/mpi/wpaper/TAX-MPG-RPS-2021-10.pdf
    File Function: Full text (original version)
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2010. "Are Risk Aversion and Impatience Related to Cognitive Ability?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 1238-1260, June.
    2. Ananish Chaudhuri & Sara Graziano & Pushkar Maitra, 2006. "Social Learning and Norms in a Public Goods Experiment with Inter-Generational Advice -super-1," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 73(2), pages 357-380.
    3. Uri Gneezy & Jan Potters, 1997. "An Experiment on Risk Taking and Evaluation Periods," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 631-645.
    4. Armin Falk & James J. Heckman, 2009. "Lab Experiments are a Major Source of Knowledge in the Social Sciences," Working Papers 200935, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    5. Schotter, Andrew & Sopher, Barry, 2007. "Advice and behavior in intergenerational ultimatum games: An experimental approach," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 365-393, February.
    6. Cristina Bicchieri & Erte Xiao & Ryan Muldoon, 2011. "Trustworthiness is a social norm, but trusting is not," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 10(2), pages 170-187, May.
    7. Xiao, Erte & Bicchieri, Cristina, 2010. "When equality trumps reciprocity," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 456-470, June.
    8. Christopher, Andrew N. & Schlenker, Barry R., 2000. "The impact of perceived material wealth and perceiver personality on first impressions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 1-19, February.
    9. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    10. Gino, Francesca, 2008. "Do we listen to advice just because we paid for it? The impact of advice cost on its use," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 234-245, November.
    11. Andrew Schotter & Barry Sopher, 2006. "Trust and trustworthiness in games: An experimental study of intergenerational advice," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(2), pages 123-145, June.
    12. Andrew Schotter, 2005. "Decision Making with Naïve Advice," Springer Books, in: Amnon Rapoport & Rami Zwick (ed.), Experimental Business Research, chapter 0, pages 223-248, Springer.
    13. Daniel J. Benjamin & Sebastian A. Brown & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2013. "Who Is ‘Behavioral’? Cognitive Ability And Anomalous Preferences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(6), pages 1231-1255, December.
    14. Rockenbach, Bettina & Tonke, Sebastian & Weiss, Arne R., 2021. "Self-serving behavior of the rich causes contagion effects among the poor," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 289-300.
    15. Jefferson Duarte & Stephan Siegel & Lance Young, 2012. "Trust and Credit: The Role of Appearance in Peer-to-peer Lending," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 25(8), pages 2455-2484.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. De Obesso Arias, María de las Mercedes & Pérez Rivero, Carlos Alberto & Carrero Márquez, Oliver, 2023. "Artificial intelligence to manage workplace bullying," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    2. Cobus Vermeulen, 2023. "The inherent uncertainties in output gap estimation a South African perspective," Working Papers 11051, South African Reserve Bank.
    3. Andrea F.M. Martinangeli & Lisa Windsteiger, 2022. "The Propagation of Unethical Behaviours: Cheating Responses to Tax Evasion," CESifo Working Paper Series 10144, CESifo.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrea F.M. Martinangeli & Biljana Meiske, 2022. "The influence premium of monetary rank," Working Papers tax-mpg-rps-2022-08, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.
    2. Johannes Abeler & Felix Marklein, 2017. "Fungibility, Labels, and Consumption," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 99-127.
    3. Gehrig, Thomas & Güth, Werner & Leví0nský, René & Popova, Vera, 2010. "On the evolution of professional consulting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 113-126, October.
    4. Bougheas, Spiros & Nieboer, Jeroen & Sefton, Martin, 2013. "Risk-taking in social settings: Group and peer effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 273-283.
    5. Jonathan Chapman & Erik Snowberg & Stephanie Wang & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Loss Attitudes in the U.S. Population: Evidence from Dynamically Optimized Sequential Experimentation (DOSE)," NBER Working Papers 25072, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Islam, Asad & Lee, Wang-Sheng & Nicholas, Aaron, 2021. "The Effects of Chess Instruction on Academic and Non-cognitive Outcomes: Field Experimental Evidence from a Developing Country," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    7. Matthew Rabin & Georg Weizsacker, 2009. "Narrow Bracketing and Dominated Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1508-1543, September.
    8. Kiss, H.J. & Rodriguez-Lara, I. & Rosa-García, A., 2016. "Think twice before running! Bank runs and cognitive abilities," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 12-19.
    9. Jonathan Schulz & Uwe Sunde & Petra Thiemann & Christian Thoeni, 2019. "Selection into Experiments: Evidence from a Population of Students," Discussion Papers 2019-09, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    10. Thiemann, Petra & Schulz, Jonathan & Sunde, Uwe & Thöni, Christian, 2022. "Selection into experiments: New evidence on the role of preferences, cognition, and recruitment protocols," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    11. van der Heijden, Eline & Klein, Tobias J. & Müller, Wieland & Potters, Jan, 2012. "Framing effects and impatience: Evidence from a large scale experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 701-711.
    12. Alexander Coutts & Boon Han Koh & Zahra Murad, 2024. "The signals we give: Performance feedback, gender, and competition," Working Papers in Economics & Finance 2024-02, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth Business School, Economics and Finance Subject Group.
    13. Min Zhu, 2015. "Experience Transmission : Truth-telling Adoption in Matching," Working Papers 1518, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    14. Montero, Maria & Sheth, Jesal D., 2021. "Naivety about hidden information: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 92-116.
    15. Zuzana Brokesova & Cary Deck & Jana Peliova, 2016. "Bringing a Natural Experiment into the Laboratory: the Measurement of Individual Risk Attitudes," Working Papers 16-06, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    16. Min Zhu, 2015. "Experience Transmission: Truth-telling Adoption in Matching," Working Papers halshs-01176926, HAL.
    17. Insoo Cho & Peter F. Orazem, 2021. "How endogenous risk preferences and sample selection affect analysis of firm survival," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1309-1332, April.
    18. Luigi Guiso, 2015. "A Test of Narrow Framing and its Origin," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 1(1), pages 61-100, March.
    19. Kessel, Dany & Mollerstrom, Johanna & van Veldhuizen, Roel, 2021. "Can simple advice eliminate the gender gap in willingness to compete?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 138, pages 1-1.
    20. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & Benjamin Enke & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2018. "Global Evidence on Economic Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(4), pages 1645-1692.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Inequality status social influence ability;

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D02 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Institutions: Design, Formation, Operations, and Impact
    • D31 - Microeconomics - - Distribution - - - Personal Income and Wealth Distribution

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mpi:wpaper:tax-mpg-rps-2021-10. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Hans Mueller (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mptaxde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.