Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethical Decision-Making Under Social Uncertainty

An Introduction of Überethicality

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Engaged Sustainability

  • 2644 Accesses

Abstract

Prospect theory holds human to code gains or losses perspectives relative to an individual reference point to guide our actions. Monetary losses loom larger in human than the joy over gains – but does this hold for social status changes? Testing prospect theory for social status striving in the realm of socioeconomics helps understand the underlying mechanisms of social identity and social dominance theories. In two field experiments, social status prospects relative to an individual’s reference point were found to influence social decision-making and action. Social status depletion was outlined in order to avoid repetition to drive social responsibility in the sustainability domain. Two field observations of environmentally conscientious recycling behavior and sustainable energy consumption at a North American university campus capture social status losses resulting in higher ethicality than social status gains. Ethicality as a socially appreciated, noble contribution to society may offer the prospect of social status gains resuscitation opportunities given the societal respect for altruism and pro-social acts. Social responsibility grants social status elevation opportunities. An Überethical filling of legal gaps or outperforming of regulatory obligations thereby is likely to occur after social status drops. Social status losses are identified as significant drivers of socially responsible environmental conscientiousness. Social forces thereby promise to become an effective means for accomplishing positive societal change.

Financial support of the Association for Social Economics, Austrian Academy of Science, Austrian Federal Ministry of Science, Austrian Office of Science and Technology at the Austrian Embassy to the United States of America, Bard Center for Environmental Policy, Research and Economy, Eugene Lang Liberal Arts College of The New School, Fritz Thyssen Foundation, George Washington University, ideas42, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Janeway Center Fellowship, the New School for Social Research, New School University Senate, Prize Fellowship in the Inter-University Consortium of New York, Science and Technology Global Consortium, University of Kent, University of Vienna, Vernon Art and Science and the Vienna University of Economics and Business is gratefully acknowledged. The author declares no conflict of interest. All omissions, errors and misunderstandings in this piece are solely the author’s.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 699.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 799.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In K. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, white women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bales, R. F. (1951). Channels of communication in small groups. American Sociological Review, 16, 461–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S. B., & Eckel, C. C. (1996). Buying status: Experimental evidence on status in negotiation. Psychology & Marketing, 13(4), 381–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, M. H., & Chugh, D. (2005). Bounded awareness: Focusing failures in negotiation. In L. Thompson (Ed.), Frontiers of social psychology: Negotiation (pp. 7–26). New York: Psychological Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, M. H., & Moore, D. A. (2008). Judgment in managerial decision-making. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, M. H., & Tenbrunsel, A. E. (2011). Blind spots: Why we fail to do what is right and what to do about it. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. (1976). Altruism, egoism, and genetic fitness: Economics and sociobiology. Journal of Economic Literature, 14, 817–826.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J. M., & Zelditch, M. J. (1985). Status, rewards, and influence. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bird, C. (2004). Status, identity, and respect. Political Theory, 32(2), 207–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1979/1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chance, E. (1967). Group psychotherapy in community mental health programs. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 37(5), 920–925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chernev, A. (2009). Goal orientation and consumer preference for the status quo. Retrievable at http://www.ssrn.com/.

  • Cole, H., Mailath, G., & Postlewaite, A. (1992). Social norms, savings behavior, and growth. Journal of Political Economy, 100(6), 1092–1125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Currim, I. S., & Sarin, R. K. (1989). Prospect versus utility. Management Science, 35(1), 22–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhiman, S. (forthcoming). To eat or not to eat meat: Striking at the root of global warming! In S. Dhiman & J. Marques (Eds.), Handbook of engaged sustainability. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiTella, R., Haisken-De New, J., & MacCulloch, R. (2001). Happiness adaptation to income and to status in an individual panel. Working paper, Harvard Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duesenberry, J. S. (1949). Income, saving and the theory of consumer behavior. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. New York: Academic Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Falkenstein, E. (2006). Why risk and return are uncorrelated: A relative status approach. Working paper, Eden Prairie, Telluride Asset Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan, E. T., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (1998). When needs outweigh desires: The effects of resource interdependence and reward interdependence on group problem solving. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20, 45–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, S., & Dayan, K. (2004). Framing and risky choice as influenced by comparison of one’s achievements with others: The case of investment in the stock exchange. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(3), 301–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1953). Choice, chance and the personal distribution of income. Journal of Political Economy, 61(4), 277–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M., & Savage, L. J. (1948). The utility analysis of choices involving risk. Journal of Political Economy, 56(4), 279–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galiani, S., & Weinschelbaum, F. (2007). Social status and corruption. Retrievable at http://www.idec.gr/iier/new/corruption%20conference/Social%20Status%20and%20Corruption%20-%20Federico%20Weinschelbaum.pdf.

  • Gil-Doménech, D., & Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (forthcoming). People + planet + profit: Training sustainable entrepreneurs at the university level. In S. Dhiman & J. Marques (Eds.), Handbook of engaged sustainability. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Güth, W., & Tietz, R. (1990). Ultimatum bargaining behavior: A survey and comparison of experimental results. Journal of Economic Psychology, 11, 417–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harbaugh, R. (2006). Prospect theory or skill signaling? Retrievable at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=311409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, K., & Bohnet, I. (2004). Status and distrust: The relevance of inequality and betrayal aversion. RWP04–041. Working paper, Harvard Kennedy School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, E., & Kornienko, T. (2004). Running to keep the same place: Consumer choice as a game of status. American Economic Review, 94(4), 1085–1107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huberman, B. A., Loch, C., & Önçüler, A. (2004). Status as a valued resource. Social Psychology Quarterly, 6(1), 103–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jervis, R. (1992). Political implications of loss aversion. Political Psychology, 13(2), 187–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(12), 1325–1347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2000). Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keyes, C. W. (1966). Cicero, M. T. De republica, De legibus. The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, J. S. (1997). Prospect theory, rational choice, and international relations. International Studies Quarterly, 41(1), 87–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, J. S. (2003). Applications of prospect theory to political science. Decision Theory, 135(2), 215–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loch, C. H., Huberman, B. A., & Stout, S. K. (2000). Status competition and performance in work groups. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 43, 35–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G. F., Thompson, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (1989). Social utility and decision-making in interpersonal contexts. Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes, 57(3), 426–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marques, J. (forthcoming). Moving forward with social responsibility: Shifting gears from why to how. In S. Dhiman & J. Marques (Eds.), Handbook of engaged sustainability. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazur, A. (1973). A cross-species comparison of status in small established groups. American Sociological Review, 38(5), 513–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazur, A., & Lamb, T. A. (1980). Testosterone, status and mood in human males. Hormones and Behavior, 14(3), 236–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, R., Fowler, J. H., & Smirnov, O. (2008). On the evolutionary origin of prospect theory preferences. Journal of Politics, 70, 335–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meeker, B. F., & Weitzel-O’Neill, P. A. (1977). Sex roles and interpersonal behavior in task-oriented groups. American Sociological Review, 42, 91–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (1998). Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring. Nature, 393, 573–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Postlewaite, A. (1998). The social basis of interdependent preferences. European Economic Review, 42(3–5), 779–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puaschunder, J. M. (2010). On corporate and financial social responsibility. Dissertation, University of Vienna.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puaschunder, J. M. (2015). Meritocracy and intergenerational mobility. The Worldly Philosopher Blog. Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. Retrievable at http://www.economicpolicyresearch.org/index.php/the-worldly-philosopher/1545-meritocracy-builds-equality.

  • Puaschunder, J. M. (2016). The beauty of ivy: When inequality meets equality. Global Journal of Management and Business Research: Economics and Commerce, 16(3), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramananan, R. (forthcoming). Responsible investing and corporate social responsibility for engaged sustainability: Managing pitfalls of economics without equity. In S. Dhiman & J. Marques (Eds.), Handbook of engaged sustainability. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L., Berger, J., & Smith, L. R. (1985). Nonverbal cues and status: An expectation states approach. American Journal of Sociology, 90(5), 955–978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L., & Walker, H. A. (1995). Status structures. In K. Cook, G. Fine, & J. House (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 281–310). New York: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robson, A. J. (1992). Status, the distribution of wealth, private and social attitudes to risk. Econometrica, 60(4), 837–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roussanov, N. (2009). Diversification and its discontents: Idiosyncratic and entrepreneurial risk in the quest for social status. Working paper, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savin-Williams, R. C. (1979). Dominance hierarchies in groups of early adolescents. Child Development, 50(4), 923–935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schkade, D. A., & Kahneman, D. (1998). Does living in California make people happy? A focusing illusion in judgments of life satisfaction. Psychological Science, 9(5), 340–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, J. J. (2002). Stocks for the long run. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 94–109). Monterey: Brooks-Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In S. Worchel & L. W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Messick, D. M. (2004). Ethical fading: The role of self-deception in unethical behavior. Social Justice Research, 17(2), 223–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. H. (1999). Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision-making, 12, 183–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. S. (2008). Nudge: Improving decision-making about health, wealth and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiedens, L. Z. (2000). Powerful emotions: The vicious cycle of social status positions and emotions. In N. M. Ashkanasy & C. E. Haertel (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 72–81). Westport: Greenwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1990). The past explains the present: Emotional adaptations and the structure of ancestral environments. Ethology and Sociobiology, 11, 375–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 41, 1039–1041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulluwishewa, R. (forthcoming). Education in human values: Planting the seed of sustainability in young minds. In S. Dhiman & J. Marques (Eds.), Handbook of engaged sustainability. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1946/2009). Essays in sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wedekind, C. (1998). Enhanced: Give and ye shall be recognized. Science, 280, 2070–2071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisband, S. P., Schneider, S. K., & Connolly, T. (1995). Computer-mediated communication and social information: Status salience and status differences. Academy of Management Journal, 38(4), 1124–1151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. M. (2011). Responsibility for justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zimbardo, Ph. (2011a). My journey from evil to heroism. Speech delivered at Webster University. 31 May 2011. Vienna.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimbardo, Ph. (2011b). Evil no! Heroes yes! Speech delivered at Harvard Law School. 26 Oct 2011. Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The New School, Department of Economics, Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis, New York, NY, USA

    Julia M. Puaschunder

  2. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Julia M. Puaschunder

  3. Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA

    Julia M. Puaschunder

  4. Schwartz Center for Economics Policy Analysis, New York, NY, USA

    Julia M. Puaschunder

Authors
  1. Julia M. Puaschunder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julia M. Puaschunder .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business, Woodbury University, Burbank, California, USA

    Joan Marques

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Puaschunder, J.M. (2018). Ethical Decision-Making Under Social Uncertainty. In: Marques, J. (eds) Handbook of Engaged Sustainability. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71312-0_34

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation