Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T23:52:40.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Socioeconomic status, unpredictability, and different perceptions of the same risk

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2017

Chiraag Mittal  and
Vladas Griskevicius
Chiraag Mittal
Affiliation:
Mays School of Business, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843. cmittal@tamu.eduhttp://mays.tamu.edu/directory/cmittal/
Vladas Griskevicius
Affiliation:
Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455. vladasg@umn.eduhttp://carlsonschool.umn.edu/faculty/vlad-griskevicius
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this commentary, we address three questions: (1) How might outcomes be affected by the variation in the level of deprivation, rather than the average level of deprivation? (2) Could there be differences in the subjective perception of the same risk as either intrinsic or extrinsic, depending on people's socioeconomic status (SES)? (3) What other psychological mechanisms might play a role in influencing the psychology and behavior of people from deprived backgrounds?

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e334
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

We applaud the effort by Pepper & Nettle (P&N) to apply evolutionary principles toward the understanding of behaviors associated with lower socioeconomic status (SES). It is encouraging to see that the seemingly short-sighted behaviors by people from deprived backgrounds are conceptualized as contextually appropriate responses as opposed to impaired responses. We also think that highlighting the role of personal control as a psychological factor underlying the behavioral constellation of deprivation (BCD) is important and consistent with past research (Lachman & Weaver Reference Lachman and Weaver1998; Mittal & Griskevicius Reference Mittal and Griskevicius2014).

In this commentary, we address three questions: (1) How might outcomes be affected by the variation in the level of deprivation, rather than the average level of deprivation? (2) Could there be differences in the subjective perception of the same risk as either intrinsic or extrinsic, depending on people's SES? (3) What other psychological mechanisms might play a role in influencing the psychology and behavior of people from deprived backgrounds?

Question 1

The target article makes a case for how deprivation might be related to sense of control and to outcomes associated with temporal discounting. The idea is that people with fewer resources perceive diminished personal control over various aspects of their lives and, consequently, engage in more present-oriented behaviors. This idea is well supported empirically (Bosma et al. Reference Bosma, van de Mheen and Mackenbach1999; Mittal & Griskevicius Reference Mittal and Griskevicius2014), yet there may be more to the story. From a life history perspective, it is not only the absolute (or average) level of deprivation but also the variation or fluctuation around this absolute level that should play key roles in affecting sense of control and temporal discounting.

According to the life history theory (Ellis et al. Reference Ellis, Figueredo, Brumbach and Schlomer2009), challenging environmental conditions, such as those of people living in deprivation, can differ in the extent to which they are harsh and/or unpredictable. “Harshness” refers to the rates of morbidity-mortality in the local environment and tends to be linearly associated with SES. “Unpredictability” refers to the fluctuation in harshness in space or over time. Recent studies that have measured these two variables have found that harshness and unpredictability can have unique effects (Mittal et al. Reference Mittal, Griskevicius, Simpson, Sung and Young2015; Simpson et al. Reference Simpson, Griskevicius, Kuo, Sung and Colling2012; Szepsenwol et al. Reference Szepsenwol, Simpson, Griskevicius and Raby2015). For example, early-life unpredictability but not harshness is associated with sexual and risky behavior later in life (Belsky et al. Reference Belsky, Schlomer and Ellis2012; Simpson et al. Reference Simpson, Griskevicius, Kuo, Sung and Colling2012). Harshness and unpredictability might have distinct effects, because the adaptive methods to deal with a consistently harsh environment are different from the methods to deal with a rapidly changing and inconsistent environment (Ellis et al. Reference Ellis, Figueredo, Brumbach and Schlomer2009).

This suggests that the consequences of living in a harsh, low-SES environment might be different, depending on whether it is predictable or unpredictable. For example, it is possible that the observed lack of personal control among those from deprived backgrounds is due to the unpredictability they face in their daily lives rather than to the harshness of their environments. Therefore, it might be worthwhile to think of deprived environments as being multidimensional, with harshness and unpredictability having different and unique effects.

Question 2

The target article presents extrinsic and intrinsic risks as inherent features of the SES environment, whereby some risks are extrinsic and some are intrinsic. It is proposed that perception of greater extrinsic mortality risk among low-SES people is a contributing factor for their perceived lack of control over life outcomes. Because low-SES environments are more dangerous and characterized by greater mortality risks (Adler et al. Reference Adler, Boyce, Chesney, Cohen, Folkman, Kahn and Syme1994; Evans Reference Evans2004), it is understandable that people living in such environments perceive their own mortality as being extrinsic (Pepper & Nettle Reference Pepper and Nettle2014b).

However, there might be differences in the perception of the same risk, depending on people's SES. Low-SES individuals, for example, might perceive a risk as being more extrinsic even though they may not be at any more risk than their high-SES counterparts. Recent research suggests that even for risks that are equally distributed across the SES spectrum, people from deprived backgrounds are more likely to perceive them as being more extrinsic (Mittal & Griskevicius Reference Mittal and Griskevicius2016). This suggests that even when the risks are objectively the same for a high- and for a low-SES individual, the low-SES individual might subjectively perceive the risk to be more intrinsic than his higher-SES counterpart does. This tendency might further perpetuate the feeling among low-SES individuals that things around them are uncontrollable, even though they may actually be controllable.

Question 3

Sense of control plays a key mediating role in how deprivation influences temporal discounting, but other psychological mediators might also play a role. For instance, levels of optimism and pessimism regarding the future also vary, depending on people's SES, and may affect temporal discounting (Bosma et al. Reference Bosma, van de Mheen and Mackenbach1999; Heinonen et al. Reference Heinonen, Räikkönen, Matthews, Scheier, Raitakari, Pulkki and Keltikangas-Järvinen2006; Mittal & Griskevicius Reference Mittal and Griskevicius2016), with lower SES during childhood being associated with lower levels of optimism and greater levels of pessimism in adulthood. Although sense of control and optimism are positively correlated (Klein & Helweg-Larsen Reference Klein and Helweg-Larsen2002), they are distinct. “Sense of control” refers to people's perceived ability to influence future outcomes, whereas “optimism” refers to people's tendency to perceive their own futures as more positive than those of their peers (Scheier & Carver Reference Scheier and Carver1985). This distinction suggests that optimism may influence outcomes that are beyond people's control and may therefore act as an independent mediator.

Taken together, just as there is a constellation of behavioral outcomes associated with deprivation, there may be a constellation of psychological, mediating mechanisms driving those outcomes, including sense of control and optimism/pessimism.

The target article by P&N contributes a great deal to our understanding of people living in deprivation and the factors that lead them to make decisions that hurt them. We echo the sentiment that, despite well-established SES inequalities in various life outcomes, the underlying processes are poorly understood. Our commentary offers three questions with the goal of obtaining a more complete and nuanced understanding of why and how SES differences result in health and financial disparities.

References

Adler, N. E., Boyce, T., Chesney, M. A., Cohen, S., Folkman, S., Kahn, R. L. & Syme, S. L. (1994) Socioeconomic status and health: The challenge of the gradient. American Psychologist 49(1):15–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Belsky, J., Schlomer, G. L. & Ellis, B. J. (2012) Beyond cumulative risk: Distinguishing harshness and unpredictability as determinants of parenting and early life history strategy. Developmental Psychology 48(3):662–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bosma, H., van de Mheen, H. D. & Mackenbach, J. P. (1999) Social class in childhood and general health in adulthood: Questionnaire study of contribution of psychological attributes. BMJ 318(7175):18–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellis, B. J., Figueredo, A. J., Brumbach, B. H. & Schlomer, G. L. (2009) Fundamental dimensions of environmental risk: The impact of harsh versus unpredictable environments on the evolution and development of life history strategies. Human Nature 20(2):204–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, G. W. (2004) The environment of childhood poverty. American Psychologist 59(2):77–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heinonen, K., Räikkönen, K., Matthews, K. A., Scheier, M. F., Raitakari, O. T., Pulkki, L. & Keltikangas-Järvinen, L. (2006) Socioeconomic status in childhood and adulthood: Associations with dispositional optimism and pessimism over a 21-year follow-up. Journal of Personality 74(4):1111–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, C. T. & Helweg-Larsen, M. (2002) Perceived control and the optimistic bias: A meta-analytic review. Psychology and Health 17(4):437–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lachman, M. E. & Weaver, S. L. (1998) The sense of control as a moderator of social class differences in health and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74(3):763–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mittal, C. & Griskevicius, V. (2014) Sense of control under uncertainty depends on people's childhood environment: A life history theory approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 107(4):621–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mittal, C. & Griskevicius, V. (2016) Silver spoons and platinum plans: How childhood environment affects adult health care decisions. Journal of Consumer Research 43(4):636–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittal, C., Griskevicius, V., Simpson, J. A., Sung, S. & Young, E. S. (2015) Cognitive adaptations to stressful environments: When childhood adversity enhances adult executive function. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 109(4):604–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pepper, G. V. & Nettle, D. (2014b) Perceived extrinsic mortality risk and reported effort in looking after health: Testing a behavioural ecological prediction. Human Nature 25(3):378–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scheier, M. F. & Carver, C. S. (1985) Optimism, coping, and health: assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology 4(3):219–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simpson, J. A., Griskevicius, V., Kuo, S. I. C., Sung, S. & Colling, W. (2012) Evolution, stress, and sensitive periods: The influence of unpredictability in early versus later childhood on sex and risky behavior. Developmental Psychology 48(3):674–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Szepsenwol, O., Simpson, J. A., Griskevicius, V. & Raby, K. L. (2015) The effect of unpredictable early childhood environments on parenting in adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 109(6):1045–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed