Social Discounting and the Family: Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment Frederik Booysen i, Celeste Campher i, Tshepo Moloi i & Alistair Munro ii i University of the Free State (UFS); ii National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS) 1. Background Simon (1995) incorporates altruism into the utility function using the notion of interpersonal or social distance. The Social Discounting Task (SDT) is employed as a corresponding measure of altruism and used to estimate a social discounting function. According to Kin Selection Theory, which states that that people are more likely to help those who are blood relatives because it will increase the odds of gene transmission to future generations. The theory suggests that altruism towards close relatives occurs in order to ensure the continuation of shared genes. The more closely the individuals are related, the more likely people are to help (Jones and Rachlin (2008). Furthermore, kin selection implies that altruism is determined by social factors in addition to social distances. This paper investigates the extent to which social discounting is associated with dimensions of family psychology. 2. Methods Participants The subjects are 45 undergraduate students at the University of the Free State, South Africa. Subjects were recruited using flyers distributed amongst students attending Economics lectures for third year students. Acknowledgement: This work was supported by the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS), Japan and the DST-NRF Centre of Excellence in Human Development, South Africa. 1
Procedure Following a pilot of the relevant elicitation procedure with a small group of postgraduate student subjects, a pencil and paper instrument was administered to study participants. Subjects each received a show-up fee of R30 and were asked to complete Rachlin & Jones (2008) standard Social Discounting Task (SDT) (see Annexure 1). 1 The instructions are as follows: The following experiment requires that you have imagined making a list of the 100 people closest to you in the world ranging from your dearest friend or relative at position #1 to a mere acquaintance at #100. On the following pages participants were asked to make choices between an amount of money for themselves versus an amount of money for each of the people they have identified from their list. Each page contained the following instructions: Imagine you made a list of the 100 people closest to you in the world ranging from your dearest friend or relative at #1 to a mere acquaintance at #100. Now imagine the following choices between an amount of money for you and an amount for the #[N] person on the list. Circle A or B to indicate which you would choose in EACH line. A. R180 for you alone or B. R160 for the #[N] person on the list. A. R160 for you alone or B. R160 for the #[N] person on the list. -----Down To----- 1 The experiment is nested in an experiment investigating the extent to which incentivizing the social discounting task impacts the social discounting function. The only difference in the instructions for the Social Discounting Task (SDT) was a section that read, None of your choices will be for actual money, but we ask that you still make choices as if real money were involved (non-payment group) versus One of the choices you make will be for real money, inclusive of details of the particular payment procedures (payment group). 2
A. R20 for you alone or B. R160 for the # [N] person on the list. A. R0 for you alone or B. R160 for the # [N] person on the list. Counter-balancing: For half of the participants in each group, the pages were organized in ascending order of social distance (person #1, #2, #5, #10, and #20); for the other half, in descending order. During the experiments, study participants also completed a short post-experimental questionnaire (Annexure 2), including questions regarding information on the actual persons occupying each social distance, and basic socio-demographics. The postexperimental questionnaire also included the validated Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES IV) (Olson, 2011). The Faces IV scales comprise measures of family functioning, family communication and family life satisfaction, which allow one to determine if social discounting is associated with family psychology. At the completion of the experiment, a random incentive system (RIS) was used to calculate subjects earnings (see Annexure 3). Both the treatment and control groups, who were debriefed as to the purpose of the study following completion of the experiment, were paid in private. Subjects on average earned R150. 3. Methods Median crossover points were determined and the corresponding social discounting functions were determined for households exhibiting diverse family psychologies, using the following equation: v =!!!!" (1), where v = median crossover point; V = undiscounted value of the reward; N = social distance; k = a constant measuring steepness of discounting. 3
FACES IV comprises six sub-scales, three each for cohesion and flexibility. First, we employ the so-called ratio scores (cohesion, flexibility, total) to distinguish between balanced (healthy) and unbalanced (problem) families. Next, we distinguish between six family types, based on the six dimension scores, namely Balanced, Unbalanced, Midrange, Chaotically Disengaged, Rigidly Cohesive, and Flexibly Unbalanced families. In addition, a distinction is made between families with very low, low, moderate, high and very high levels of family communication and satisfaction (Olson, 2011). 4. Results As expected, subjects are more closely related to recipients at lower social distances (Figure 1). As social distance increases, the relationship to recipients shifts towards other family (at intermediate social distances) and non-family (at the higher social distances). Figure 1: Relationship to recipient, by social distance 100%# 90%# 80%# 70%# 60%# 50%# 40%# 30%# 20%# 10%# 0%# 1# 2# 5# 10# 20# 50# 100# Partner# Parents# Siblings# Other#family# Friend# Neighbour# Acquaintance# Stranger# 4
Figure 2: Social discounting and family cohesion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!balanced!cohesion!ratio!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!unbalanced!cohesion!ratio!!!!!!!!!!! Note: Results are based on the cohesion ratio score: values of one or greater represent healthy or balanced families and values below one unbalanced or problem families. In terms of cohesion (Figure 2) and flexibility (Figure 3), altruism towards others is more pronounced in subjects residing in unbalanced families, particularly at lower social distances. The same is true for the combined, total ratio score (Figure 4). This result makes sense insofar as one would expect subjects in problem families to be more altruistic towards others, given their potentially more negative view of members of their immediate family. Figure 3: Social discounting and family flexibility Balanced(Flexibility(Ratio(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((Unbalanced(Flexibility(Ratio( ((((((( ( Note: Results are based on the flexibility ratio score: values of one or greater represent healthy or balanced families and values below one unbalanced or problem families. 5
However, care should be taken with this interpretation, as the unbalanced group includes a very small number of observations. The standard deviations on the median cross-over points are significantly different though, which warrants some attention in terms of the significance of this finding. Figure 4: Social discounting and family functioning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!balanced!total!ratio!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!unbalanced!total!ratio!!!!!!!!! Note: Results are based on the total ratio score: values of one or greater represent healthy or balanced families and values below one unbalanced or problem families. Figure 5 shows the median crossover points as well as the corresponding fitted social discounting functions estimated for six different types of households exhibiting diverse family psychologies. (No participants were classified as rigid or chaotic.) We expected the social discounting function for the balanced family-types to be superior to all other family-types. However, our results show that the fitted social discounting function (R! = 0.9811) for disengaged families is superior to all other family types. This result is deemed statistically insignificant, as there were only two subjects that were classified as belonging to disengaged families. Altruism is more pronounced in cohesive than in flexible families. These results suggest that balanced families more generally are more altruistic than any other family type, disengaged families excluded. There is no or little distinction between family types at the closest social distances. 6
Figure 5: Social discounting, by family type Note: Results are based on the classification of families on the six dimension scores. There are no subjects classified as belonging to rigid or chaotic families. Equation 1 was also fit to the data for each level of family communication. The fit (R! = 0.9424) for families with moderate communication levels is remarkably good compared to families with very high (R! = 0.9312) and very low (R! = 0.8854) levels of family communication. These results suggest that families with moderate levels of communication are more altruistic than families with lower or higher levels of family communication. There is no evident association therefore between family communication and altruism towards others. 7
Figure 6: Social discounting and family communication 200 Rands forgone to give R160 to person N 150 100 50 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 R² = 0.9424 R² = 0.8854 R² = 0.9312 Social Distance Very High Median Crossover point Very High Fam Comm High Comm. Median Crossover point High Comm. Moderate Median Crossover point Figure 7: Social discounting and family satisfaction 200 Rands forgone to give R160 to person N 150 100 50 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Social Distance Very HighMedian Crossover point Very High Fam StaEsfacEon High Median Crossover point High Fam StaEsfacEon R² = 0.9589 R² = 0.9180 R² = 0.8705 R² = 0.8568 R² = 0.9734 8
Figure 7 shows the median crossover points as well as the corresponding social discounting functions for different levels of family satisfaction. The estimated fit (R! = 0.9734) for very high family satisfaction is statistically greater than that of moderate family satisfaction fit (R! = 0.9589) as well as very low levels of satisfaction (R! =0.8705). As in the case of family communication, these results suggest that families with moderate levels of satisfaction are more altruistic than families with very low or very high levels of family satisfaction. Again, the evidence do not bear out the hypothesis, namely that altruism is greater in better functioning, happier families. 5. Limitations An important limitation of the study is that we only have a small sample (n=45). When further disaggregated across the respective family typologies, it leaves no or little statistical power to detect meaningful associations. The sample, moreover, is relatively homogenous in regards to family type: three subjects only resided in unbalanced families. For this reason, experiments with larger numbers of diverse non-standard, non-student subjects may be more suitable for studies of this nature. The data originates from an experiment aimed at investigating the use of hypothetical versus real payoffs in social discounting experiments. The data was pooled for the purpose of this analysis. The impact of incentives on responses to the task may indirectly impact (mediate) the association between the responses to the Social Discounting Task (SDT) and family characteristics. However, there is inconclusive evidence that incentivising the task impacts on subjects responses. Care should also be taken insofar as family types are family-level constructs, where social discounting is an individual-level construct. Choices towards individuals at specific social distances need not reflect choices towards larger collections of individuals such as families. 9
6. Conclusion In the present study, we aimed to investigate the extent to which social discounting is associated with dimensions of family psychology, including family functioning, communication and satisfaction. We find evidence that altruism is greater in unbalanced families. As such, greater intra-household allocations can be supported by ensuring through family strengthening policies that families are healthy and wellfunctioning. We found no link between social discounting and family communication and satisfaction. Importantly, however, this research, in regards to design, is not well suited to elucidating associations between social discounting and dimensions of family psychology. For this reason, further research is required in this area, in particular through larger scale field experiments. 7. References Olson, D. (2011) FACES IV and the Circumplex Model: Validation Study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 3(1): 64-80. Rachlin, H. & Jones, B.A. (2008) Social Discounting and Delay Discounting. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21: 29-43. Simon, J. (1995) Interpersonal allocation continuous with inter-temporal allocation. Rationality and Society, 7, 367 392. 10
Annexure 1: Social Discounting Task (SDT) instrument 11
Annexure 2: Post-experimental Questionaire 12
Annexure 3: Payment Protocol Social Discounting Task (i) Subject rolls 8 sided-dice if rolls 8, roll again until roll a number between 1 and 7 record result: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (ii) Record the relevant social distance: 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 (iii) Subject rolls 10-sided dice record row: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (iv) Record the relevant chosen option (A/B): A B (iii) Subject rolls 10-sided dice record row: R (vi) If OPTION B is chosen, complete the nomination/payment form for the person at the relevant social 13